Date: 10 February 2021

Town Hall, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7QF Tel: 01768 817817 Email: [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam

Planning Committee Agenda - 18 February 2021

Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Planning Committee will be held at 9.30 am on Thursday, 18 February 2021.

This meeting will be a virtual meeting and therefore will not take place in a physical location following guidelines set out in Section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020.

For Thursday 18 February, this Council meeting will be held virtually on Microsoft Teams

For the Overspill meeting on Friday 19 February, this Council meeting will be held virtually on Microsoft Teams

For the Overspill meeting on Tuesday 23 February, the is Council meeting will be held virtually on Microsoft Teams.

1 Apologies for Absence

2 Minutes

To sign the minutes Pla/99/01/21 to Pla/109/01/21 of the meeting of this Committee held on 21 January 2021 as a correct record of those proceedings (copies previously circulated).

3 Declarations of Interest

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

4 Planning Issues (Pages 7 - 18)

To note the attached lists of the Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development: a) Applications determined under office delegated powers for the month of January 2021 b) Reasons for refusal on delegated decisions for the month of January 2021

Jason Gooding Interim Chief Executive www.eden.gov.uk

5 Planning Issues - Applications for Debate (Green Papers) (Pages 19 - 220)

To consider the reports of the Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development on the following applications:

Item Officer Page Application Details No. Recommendation No.

1 Planning Application No: 20/0242 Recommended to: 19

Construction of new office APPROVE Land Off Greenbank Road Eden Subject to Agreement Business Park Penrith under Section 106 Atkinson Building Contractors 2 Planning Application No: 20/0402 Recommended to: 46 Proposed new build private training pool (D2 Use Assembly and Leisure) APPROVE Subject to Agreement Land Off Greenbank Road Eden under Section 106 Business Park Penrith Atkinson Building Contractors 3 Planning Application No: 20/0771 Recommended to: 75 Proposed residential development APPROVE Site adjacent Meadow Close, Ousby Subject to Conditions Mr Boulton 4 Planning Application No: 20/0866 Recommended to: 100 Proposed single storey double garage and workshop APPROVE Subject to Conditions Littlethwaite, North Stainmore Mr and Mrs Goude 5 Planning Application No: 20/0346 Recommended to: 108 Erection of two light industrial sheds and eight self-storage shipping containers APPROVE Subject to Conditions Nentforce Caravan Park, Station Road, Alston Mr Shepherd, Ayle Colliery Co Ltd 6 Planning Application No: 20/0580 Recommended to: 122 Change of use of land to allow the siting of 3no. Yurts and 3no. Camping Pods APPROVE with associated infrastructure including Subject to Conditions communal shower/toilet block, internal www.eden.gov.uk 2

footpaths and a package treatment plant Land at High Galligill Farm, Nenthead, Alston, CA9 3LW High Galligill Farm Ltd 7 Planning Application No: 20/0744 Recommended to: 143 Erection of concrete batching plant with aggregate bays; retention of existing APPROVE storage and welfare buildings; and Subject to Conditions installation of interceptor Unit 7B, Mardale Road, Penrith Industrial Estate DA Harrison - Mr N Harrison 8 Planning Application No: 20/0907 Recommended to: 169 Proposed 2no. Local Occupancy Dwellings REFUSE With Reasons Land west of Church of St Barnabas, Great Strickland Messers Burne 9 Planning Application No: 20/0865 Recommended to: 187 Erection of a first floor extension over garage, front canopy porch and erection APPROVE of rear single storey extension Subject to Conditions 4 Town End Croft, Clifton, CA10 2EP Mr and Mrs Mills 10 Planning Application No: 20/0975 Recommended to: 196 Non-material amendment to clad the house in brick, alterations to roof pitch, APPROVE alterations to ground floor level, and Subject to Conditions alterations to terrace attached to planning approval 18/0967 14 Carleton Road, Penrith Mr J Lynch 11 Planning Application No: 20/0743 Recommended to: 202 Erection of a commercial building APPROVE Myers Lane, Business Park, Penrith, Subject to Conditions CA11 9DP Willan Trading Ltd

6 Confirmation of Site Visits (if any)

To confirm the date and location of any site visits that may have been agreed.

www.eden.gov.uk 3

7 Any Other Items which the Chairman decides are urgent

8 Date of Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting be confirmed as Thursday 18 March 2021.

Yours faithfully

J Gooding Interim Chief Executive

Democratic Services Contact: Heather Donaldson

Encs

For Attention All members of the Council

Chairman – Councillor W Patterson (Independent Group) Vice Chairman – Councillor M Eyles (Liberal Democrat Group)

Councillors I Chambers, Conservative Group H Sawrey-Cookson, Independent Group M Clark, Independent Group G Simpkins, Liberal Democrat Group D Holden, Liberal Democrat Group J G Thompson, Conservative Group J C Lynch, Conservative Group D Wicks, Conservative Group A Ross, Green Group

Standing Deputies A Armstrong, Conservative Group E Martin, Conservative Group P G Baker, Liberal Democrat Group A Meadowcroft, Conservative Group D Banks, Independent Group G Nicolson OBE, Conservative Group L Harker, Liberal Democrat Group D Ryland, Independent Group S Lancaster, Independent Group D Smith, Liberal Democrat Group D Lawson, Green Group

Please Note: 1. Section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus)(Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings)(England and Wales) Regulations 2020 mean that this meeting of Eden District Council is classed as a virtual meeting.

www.eden.gov.uk 4

2. Under the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 this meeting has been advertised as a public meeting (unless stated otherwise) and as such could be filmed or recorded by the media or members of the public

www.eden.gov.uk 5 This page is intentionally left blank PLANNING COMMITTEE Agenda Item No. APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER OFFICER DELEGATED POWERS FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2021

App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

20/0242 Full Application Penrith New build office. LAND OFF GREENBANK ROAD, Turner APPROVED EDEN BUSINESS PARK, PENRITH, CA11 9FB

20/0426 Full Application Penrith Erection of single-storey rear extension, terrace and 8 CANNY CROFT, PENRITH, CA11 Mr S Hewer REFUSED basement room. 9HA

20/0524 Full Application Skelton Proposed conversion and extension of existing barn BARTONS FARM, THOMAS CLOSE, Mr S Brown & Ms R APPROVED to provide habitable dwelling, including change of CALTHWAITE, PENRITH, CA11 9QF Storey use of agricultural land to provide domestic curtilage.

20/0581 Full Application Dacre Proposed alterations. LAUREL HOUSE, NEWBIGGIN, Mr Watson APPROVED PENRITH, CA11 0HT

20/0619 Full Application Shap Erection of allotment sheds, part retrospective. LAND SOUTH OF WANDSWORTH Mrs B Gee APPROVED GARDENS, SHAP,

20/0646 Full Application Penrith Rear extension and alterations. 14 PENNINE WAY, PENRITH, CA11 Mr P Askins APPROVED 8EF

20/0673 Full Application Hesket Erection of a free range egg laying unit with INTACK FARM, SOUTHWAITE, I & S J Threlkeld - Mr APPROVED associated infrastructure. CARLISLE, CA4 0LH Threlkeld

20/0751 Full Application Ainstable Lean to extension to existing agricultural shed for SLACK COTTAGE, AINSTABLE, Mr J F Wilkin APPROVED housing sheep and crop. CARLISLE, CA4 9RG

20/0762 Full Application Bandleyside Change of use of land to mix of agriculture and LAND ADJACENT TO EDEN BANK Messrs Park APPROVED equestrian including alterations to access drive and FARM, ORMSIDE, APPLEBY, CA16 approved building. 6EJ

20/0772 Full Application Cliburn Erection of hobbies room and secure bike storage. GRANGE HOUSE, CLIBURN, Mrs A & Mr J Kershaw APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 3AL Agenda Item 4

20/0778 Full Application Bolton Proposed first floor sun lounge extension. OLD BYRE, CROFT HOUSE, Mrs E A Stockdale APPROVED BOLTON, APPLEBY-IN- WESTMORLAND, CA16 6AW

20/0798 Listed Building Glassonby Listed Building Consent for the repair of window in OLD ST JOHNS CHURCH, Mr S Moon APPROVED South elevation, repair and repoint of brickwork GAMBLESBY, PENRITH, CA10 1HR above main entrance and replacement of 8no

Page 7 Page internal timber doors with oak panelled fire doors.

05 February 2021 Page 1 of 6 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision Page 8 Page 20/0818 Full Application Greystoke Change of use of domestic garage into dwelling for COLBY HOUSE, BERRIER ROAD, Mr & Mrs J Mouncey APPROVED holiday accommodation. GREYSTOKE, PENRITH, CA11 0UB

20/0821 Full Application Culgaith Variation of Condition 2 (Plans Compliance) to MALLARD HOUSE, CULGAITH, MR M SMITH APPROVED increase garage floor space/storage attached to CA10 1QE approval 18/0820

20/0828 Full Application Lazonby Retrospective erection of shed and canopy structure LAND NORTH OF 8 HIGH SEAT Mrs D Smart APPROVED HILL, LAZONBY, PENRITH, CA10 1AW

20/0832 Full Application Dacre Erection of new free standing garage. THE POPLARS, STAINTON, CA11 Mr & Mrs R Prentice APPROVED 0ES

20/0835 Full Application Brougham Construction of Borehole Kiosk CLIBURN WATER TREATMENT United Utilities Water APPROVED WORKS, STATION ROAD, CLIBURN, Limited - Mr M Buckley CA10 3AE

20/0836 Full Application Great Salkeld Removal of condition 1 (time commencement) and LAND AT MOSS BANK LODGE Mr J Beard APPROVED variation of Conditions 2 (Plans Compliance), 3 PARK, GREAT SALKELD, PENRITH, (No.of caravans on site), 4 (No.of caravans for CA11 9NA holiday use), 5 (Occupation of Manager's accommodation), 8 (Landscaping) and 10 (Elevations of caravans) attached to approval 18/0323.

20/0839 Full Application Alston Erection of a laundry room to service 4 No self HARBUT LAW, ALSTON, CA9 3BD Mr & Mrs T Younger APPROVED catering holiday units

20/0841 Full Application Kirkoswald Erection of two-storey side extension to dwelling. 3 LITTLE SANDHILL, KIRKOSWALD, Mr & Mrs A & S Nelles APPROVED CA10 1EL

20/0845 Full Application Ainstable Construction of a milking parlour. CAIRNHEAD FARM, AINSTABLE, Mr R Craig APPROVED CARLISLE, CA4 9RP

20/0847 Full Application Lazonby Erection of single storey rear extension to dwelling, 2 TALLOWS WHINS, LAZONBY, Mr D & Mrs H Grainger APPROVED CA10 1AR

20/0854 Full Application Penrith Two storey extension to existing dwellinghouse. 45 MILNER MOUNT, PENRITH, CA11 Mr O Kirkland APPROVED 8EZ

20/0855 Full Application Alston Replacement windows and associated works. 10 FRONT STREET, ALSTON, CA9 Revd A Cromarty APPROVED 3SE

20/0856 Full Application Dacre Erection of single-storey side, rear and front 1 St JOHNS CRESCENT, Mr & Mrs A & A Worth APPROVED extension, and installation of a new door to rear STAINTON, CA11 0EX elevation

05 February 2021 Page 2 of 6 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

20/0858 Full Application Long Marton Extension over garage. 5 CROFT VIEW, LONG MARTON, Mr S Atkinson APPROVED CA16 6BW

20/0860 Full Application Penrith New pitched roof to existing flat-roofed side 6 FRENCHFIELD GARDENS, Mr R Cook APPROVED extension and facing brick wall to the front elevation PENRITH, CA11 8TX of existing extension

20/0862 Full Application Hesket Timber garden building. EDEN LODGE, ARMATHWAITE, Mr T Robinson APPROVED CARLISLE, CA4 9SL

20/0864 Full Application Bolton Alterations and extensions. OUSENSTAND, TEMPLE Mr & Mrs Lightburn APPROVED SOWERBY, PENRITH, CA10 1SS

20/0868 Full Application Long Marton Conversion of traditional barn to single dwelling. CROFT ENDS FARM, CROFT ENDS, Messrs Bellas (JE & APPROVED APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND, Son) CA16 6JW

20/0873 Full Application Hesket Extension of existing garage to form two storey living 4 THE MEADOWS, SOUTHWAITE, Mr A Gilmour APPROVED accommodation. CA4 0JX

20/0874 Full Application Alston Side extension to dwelling 6 LOW BYER PARK, ALSTON, CA9 Mr & Mrs Eliiott APPROVED 3JW

20/0875 Full Application Kirkby Stephen Proposed replacement garage. 115 HIGH STREET, KIRKBY Mr & Mrs P Metcalfe APPROVED STEPHEN, CA17 4SH

20/0876 Full Application Temple Sowerby Change of use of agricultural land to residential to FAIRACRE HOUSE, TEMPLE JIW Properties Ltd APPROVED create a larger garden, alteration to the windows and SOWERBY, PENRITH, CA10 1RZ doors of unit 4 and the erection of a detached garage

20/0882 Full Application Cliburn Two storey side and front extension, single storey GLEBE HOUSE, CLIBURN, Mr A McGenn APPROVED side extension and rear porch. PENRITH, CA10 3AL

20/0884 Full Application Penrith Extension to provide master suite and annex. 8 FAIRHILL CLOSE, PENRITH, CA11 Mr & Mrs Ford APPROVED 8RD

20/0885 Full Application Catterlen Change of use of residential land to site building for ORCHARD VIEW, CATTERLEN, Absolute APPROVED use as physiotherapy studio and office space. PENRITH, CA11 0BJ Physiotherapy - Mr C Donald

20/0888 Listed Building Penrith Listed Building Consent for external decoration, 11 CORNMARKET, PENRITH, CA11 Punch Pubs & Co - Mr APPROVED works to attach signage and install signage lighting. 7DA M Fazal

20/0894 Reserved by Stainmore Discharge of condition 3 (construction management 1 OAKBANK, OAKBANK Mr P Sowerby APPROVED Cond plan), attached to approval 20/0531. FARMHOUSE, BARRAS, KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4JD Page 9 Page

05 February 2021 Page 3 of 6 Page 10 Page App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

20/0899 Full Application Penrith Demolition of existing garage, erection of new 19 MAYBURGH AVENUE, PENRITH, Mr & Mrs P & Z APPROVED retaining wall and two-storey side extension, with CA11 8PA Armistead alterations to front-drive and parking.

20/0900 Full Application Clifton Erection of garden room and replacement garage. 2 MOOR FOOT, CLIFTON, PENRITH, K Field APPROVED Re-submission with design amendments of approval CA10 2EP 20/0495.

20/0902 Full Application Langwathby Variation of conditions 2 (plans compliance) to LAND AT LANGWATHBY HALL Willan Living APPROVED replace semi-detached bungalows on plots 14 and FARM, LANGWATHBY, PENRITH, 15 with one detached bungalow, 3 (visibility splays), CA10 1LW 4 (external finishes) and 6 (validation report), attached to approval 19/0222.

20/0909 Listed Building Penrith Listed Building Consent for the replacement of PENRITH PRE-SCHOOL NURSERY, Penrith Pre-School REFUSED external entrance door and outdoor corridor entrance THE OLD SCHOOL, MEETING Nursery - Miss J door. HOUSE LANE, PENRITH, CA11 7TR Spedding

20/0911 Full Application Penrith Erection of two storey side and rear extension. 1 MEADOW CROFT, PENRITH, Mr Taylforth & Miss APPROVED CA11 8EH Stead

20/0913 Full Application Great Salkeld Alterations and renovations of existing dwelling. TORMAY, GREAT SALKELD, Oak and Slate Limited - APPROVED PENRITH, CA11 9NA Mr A Rouse

20/0915 Full Application Temple Sowerby Erection of building for storage of agricultural GREYTHORNE, LOW MOOR, Mr A Wilson APPROVED machinery and fodder. KIRKBY THORE, PENRITH, CA10 1XQ

20/0917 Reserved by Stainmore Discharge of condition 3 (surface water drainage 1 OAKBANK, BARRAS, KIRKBY Mr P Sowerby APPROVED Cond system), attached to approval 20/0636. STEPHEN, CA17 4JD

20/0919 Full Application Hesket Side and rear extension providing additional living GHYLLCROFT, LOW BRAITHWAITE, Mr J Wilson APPROVED accommodation. IVEGILL, CARLISLE, CA4 0NG

20/0920 Full Application Dacre Proposed porch extension. HOWE GARTH, FAIRYBEAD LANE, Mr J Peart APPROVED STAINTON, PENRITH, CA11 0DX

20/0923 Full Application Penrith Two storey extension to rear. 10 FRENCHFIELD WAY, PENRITH, Mr I Raffel APPROVED CA11 8TW

20/0924 Outline Hesket Outline application for an agricultural workers LAND TO THE NORTH WEST OF Messrs Dickinson APPROVED Application dwelling, with all matters reserved. CALTHWAITE, SCEUGHDYKES, CALTHWAITE, PENRITH, CA11 9QX

20/0928 Full Application Penrith Proposed external alterations and change of use UNIT 1, EAST LAKES BUSINESS Toolstation Ltd - Mr P APPROVED from Class E(d) to Class B8 (storage or distribution). PARK, GILWILLY INDUSTRIAL MacLauchlan ESTATE, PENRITH, CA11 9BB

05 February 2021 Page 4 of 6 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

20/0930 Advertisement Penrith Advertisement consent for 3no non-illuminated wall WHITE OX, INGLEWOOD ROAD, Douglas Home & Co APPROVED signs. PENRITH, CA11 8QN Ltd - Mrs S Jarvis

20/0933 Tree Works Appleby T2 Sycamore to be removed. 2 CASTLE VIEW ROAD, APPLEBY- Mrs J Hogg REFUSED (TPO) IN-WESTMORLAND, CA16 6HH

20/0935 Full Application Hunsonby Variation of condition 2 (plans compliance) for ROAD HEAD FARM, WINSKILL, Western Construction APPROVED design alterations and modifications to units 1 and 3, PENRITH, CA10 1PB Cumbria - Mr Western attached to approval 17/0086

20/0938 Full Application Penrith Removal of conditions 1 (timeframe) and 2 1, 2 AND 3 INGLEWOOD TERRACE, Mr M Storer & Ms J APPROVED (occupancy restriction), attached to approval 05/0244. 70 LOWTHER STREET, PENRITH, Rees CA11 7SZ

20/0943 Tree Works (CA) Appleby TPO T3 Lime - Lower branches removed to match 4 CASTLE VIEW ROAD, APPLEBY- Mr A Davis APPROVED T1 and T2. IN-WESTMORLAND, CA16 6HH T4 Sycamore - Split trunk lower base. To fell if possible due to high winds.

20/0946 Notice of Intention Orton Roof over existing yard. SPROAT GHYLL FARM, ORTON, Mr G Mawson APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 3SA

20/0948 Tree Works (CA) Penrith Arboricultural management work on several trees BRUNSWICK SQUARE GARDENS, Brunswick Square APPROVED including: 1, Pruning all trees as necessary to PENRITH, CA11 7LL Garden Society - Mr D provide 2.5m clearance over footpaths, 5m clearance Elsby over highways and clearance of street lamps. 2, removing shoot growth from Lime trees. 3, annual shaping of all ornamental Hollies, Cypresses and Yews.

20/0949 Notice of Intention Brougham Proposed agriculltural building. JULIAN BOWER FARM, CLIBURN, Mr Thomas Armstrong APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 3AR

20/0950 Tree Works (CA) Dufton Pruning of Ash tree (T1) to remove dead branches ORCHARD HOUSE, DUFTON, Mr Main APPROVED and to remove 25% length off some limbs. Additional APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND, trees to be planted on site - 2x Birch, 1x Rowan and CA16 6DF 1x Pear.

20/0958 Non-Material Lowther Non Material Amendment for design amendments to LAND TO THE NORTH OF Genesis Homes APPROVED Amend the Eden, Ellen, Esk, Gelt, Lowther and Whillan HACKTHORPE HALL, house types, attached to approval 19/0494. HACKTHORPE, PENRITH, CA10 2HW

20/0963 Tree Works (CA) Kirkoswald Works to 4X trees at Kirkoswald Castle - Tree 9, fell KIRKOSWALD CASTLE, Mr & Mrs Littleton APPROVED or pollard the trunk at 2-3m from the base. Tree 10, KIRKOSWALD, PENRITH, 12 and 14, cut back branches as required to provide

Page 11 Page a 3-4m clear access to the standing remains of the ruined castle tower.

05 February 2021 Page 5 of 6 Page 12 Page App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

20/0964 Hedge Removal Skelton Hedgerow Removal. LAND AT IVEGILL, Mr Pigg APPROVED Notice

20/0971 Tree Works (CA) Kirkoswald Notice of intention to remove 3x trees, T1, T2, T3. THE CROFT, KIRKOSWALD, Mr & Mrs Bagshaw APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 1DQ

20/0973 Notice of Intention Hesket Erection of portal frame shed to roof over an existing PETTERIL BANK FARM, Mr S Morley APPROVED crop store. SOUTHWAITE, CARLISLE, CA4 0JJ

20/0980 Non-Material Bandleyside Non Material Amendment to relocate position of air BARN ADJACENT TO CHELLOW Ms T & Mr R Harrison APPROVED Amend source heat pump and change of window and door COTTAGE, COLBY, APPLEBY-IN- materials, attached to approval 20/0553. WESTMORLAND, CA16 6BD

20/0983 Non-Material Penrith Non Material Amendment to change the layout and 1 BEACON GARDENS, PENRITH, K G Dudson Ltd - Mr APPROVED Amend design of unit 1, attached to variation 19/0300 of CA11 8BE Dudson application 06/0434

20/0993 Tree Works (CA) Penrith Fell conifer (cypress) tree 48 LOWTHER STREET, PENRITH, Ms S Walker APPROVED CA11 7UQ

20/0996 Notice of Intention Soulby Erection of an agricultural storage building. DENMARK HALL, SOULBY, KIRKBY MR J L COWIN APPROVED STEPHEN, CA17 4PL

20/1005 Notice of Intention Skelton Erection of agricultural storage building. NEWLANDS HILL COTTAGE, Messrs J & W Bell APPROVED SKELTON, PENRITH, CA11 9TR

21/0025 Non-Material Brough Non Material Amendment to change the pitch of the LINDUM HOUSE, HIGH STREET, Mr M Hall & Mrs M Celli APPROVED Amend roof from dual to mono, attached to application BROUGH, KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 20/0356. 4BT

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

05 February 2021 Page 6 of 6

Tree Preservation Order Notice of Decision

To: Mrs J Hogg Town Hall, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7QF Tel: 01768 817817 2 CASTLE VIEW ROAD APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND Email: [email protected] CA16 6HH Direct dial: (01768) 212159

Application Ref: 20/0933 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999, 2008 and 2012 Tree Preservation Order Application To Carry Out Works To Protected Trees I refer to your application dated 2 December 2020 to carry out work to a tree(s) protected within the above Order at 2 Castle View Road Appleby-In- Westmorland: T2 Sycamore to be removed. DECISION: In pursuance of their powers under the above Act and Regulations, Eden District Council, as local planning authority, hereby REFUSE permission for the tree work proposal described in your application and on the plans and drawings attached thereto. The reason(s) for this decision are: Reasons for refusal. The tree is a large mature specimen that is clearly visible from the surrounding roads. Due to its size and prominent location it provides significant amenity value to the location. Therefore, the trees’ removal would be detrimental to the amenity of the location and its enjoyment by the public. Little evidence has been provided to demonstrate the tree is dying; the shedding of bark is typical of sycamore and the crinkling of leaves typical of leaves affected by common leaf fungi. Neither of these are considered to be robust evidence that the tree is dying and needs to be removed.

Your Right of Appeal If you disagree with the decision of the Council or the attachment of any conditions you can appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment via the Planning Inspectorate. All appeals must be made in writing within 28 days from the date you receive the Councils decision. The Secretary of State has the discretion to allow a longer period.

Appeals are handled by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS). The1999 Regulations have been amended so that as from 1 October 2008 a fasttrack appeal procedure replaces the previous handling of appeals through the submission of written representations. In practice most cases will therefore be dealt with on the basis of the original application and its supporting information, the decision of the LPA and the reasons they gave when making that decision. The inspector may, however, ask for further information. Either party may if they wish have the appeal dealt with at a hearing or public local inquiry. www.eden.gov.uk Oliver Shimell LLB Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development Page 13

When giving notice of appeal to PINS, the appellant must at the same time send a copy of that notice to the Council that made the original decision.

Appeals should be sent in writing to: The Planning Inspectorate, The Environment Appeals Team, Trees and Hedges, Room 3/25 Hawk Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN Tel: 0303 444 5000 e-mail: [email protected] Web: www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/appeals/tree_preservation/index.htm

Compensation If you suffer any loss or damage as a direct consequence of the decision made by the Council, or by the attachment of any conditions, you may be entitled to recover from the Council compensation in respect of such loss or damage. If you wish to make a claim you must do so within 12 months from the date of this decision. Claims should be submitted in writing to: Head of Planning Services, Eden District Council, Mansion House, Penrith CA11 7YG.

Oliver Shimell LLB Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development Date of Decision: 5 January 2021

www.eden.gov.uk Page 14 2 Notice of Decision

Carriage Return

To: Ian Cleasby Drafting & Design - Mr I Cleasby Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG East View Tel: 01768 817817 Tirril Penrith CA10 2JE

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015

Application No: 20/0426 On Behalf Of: Mr S Hewer

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

Application Type: Full Application Proposal: Erection of single-storey rear extension, terrace and basement room. Location: 8 CANNY CROFT PENRITH CA11 9HA

The reason(s) for this decision are:

The proposal would result in adverse harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring properties by virtue of an overbearing impact which would be domineering and a loss of privacy by way of increased overlooking into habitable rooms. Therefore, the application fails to protect the amenity of existing and future residents and is contrary to Policy DEV1 and DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-32.

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

Date of Decision: 26 January 2021

Signed:

Oliver Shimell LLB Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development

www.eden.gov.uk Oliver Shimell LLB Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development Page 15

Notice of Decision

Carriage Return

To: Penrith Pre-School Nursery - Miss J SpeddingMansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG The Old School Tel: 01768 817817 Meeting House Lane Penrith CA11 7TR

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Application No: 20/0909 On Behalf Of: Penrith Pre-School Nursery - Miss J Spedding

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

Application Type: Listed Building Proposal: Listed Building Consent for the replacement of external entrance door and outdoor corridor entrance door. Location: PENRITH PRE-SCHOOL NURSERY THE OLD SCHOOL MEETING HOUSE LANE PENRITH CA11 7TR

The reason(s) for this decision are:

The subject property is a Grade II Listed building located in a prominent position within the Penrith Conservation Area, both of which are heritage assets of national importance. The installation of modern design composite doors with a glass reinforced plastic external finish would represent an unsympathetic visual intrusion due to the inappropriateness of the material and design of the doors in a building and area that the local planning authority is committed to preserving or enhancing. The proposed doors would be harmful to the character, appearance and visual amenities of the listed building, the Penrith Conservation Area and the setting of heritage assets, whilst providing no benefit to the public that could not be similarly provided through more sympathetically designed and finished equivalents, or that would outweigh this identified less than substantial harm. The development is therefore considered to be contrary to policies DEV5 and ENV10 of the Local Plan, the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular paragraphs 184, 190, 192, 193, 194, 196 and 200 of Section 16, and Section 7 and 17 of Part II, and Part III, of the Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act 1990.

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

Date of Decision: 29 January 2021

www.eden.gov.uk Oliver Shimell LLB Page 16 Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development

Signed:

Oliver Shimell LLB Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development

www.eden.gov.uk 2 Page 17 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5 Agenda Index REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Eden District Council Planning Committee Agenda Committee Date: 18 February 2021 INDEX

Item Officer Application Details No Recommendation

1 Planning Application No: 20/0242 Recommended to: Construction of new office APPROVE Land Off Greenbank Road Eden Business Park Penrith Subject to Agreement Atkinson Building Contractors under Section 106 2 Planning Application No: 20/0402 Recommended to: Proposed new build private training pool (D2 Use Assembly and Leisure) APPROVE Subject to Agreement Land Off Greenbank Road Eden Business Park Penrith under Section 106 Atkinson Building Contractors 3 Planning Application No: 20/0771 Recommended to: Proposed residential development APPROVE Site adjacent Meadow Close, Ousby Subject to Conditions Mr Boulton 4 Planning Application No: 20/0866 Recommended to: Proposed single storey double garage and workshop APPROVE Littlethwaite, North Stainmore Subject to Conditions Mr and Mrs Goude 5 Planning Application No: 20/0346 Recommended to: Erection of two light industrial sheds and eight self-storage shipping containers APPROVE Subject to Conditions Nentforce Caravan Park, Station Road, Alston Mr Shepherd, Ayle Colliery Co Ltd 6 Planning Application No: 20/0580 Recommended to: Change of use of land to allow the siting of 3no. Yurts and 3no. Camping Pods with associated infrastructure including APPROVE communal shower/toilet block, internal footpaths and a Subject to Conditions package treatment plant Land at High Galligill Farm, Nenthead, Alston, CA9 3LW High Galligill Farm Ltd

Page 19 Agenda Index REPORTS FOR DEBATE 7 Planning Application No: 20/0744 Recommended to: Erection of concrete batching plant with aggregate bays; retention of existing storage and welfare buildings; and APPROVE installation of interceptor Subject to Conditions Unit 7B, Mardale Road, Penrith Industrial Estate DA Harrison - Mr N Harrison 8 Planning Application No: 20/0907 Recommended to: Proposed 2no. Local Occupancy Dwellings REFUSE Land west of Church of St Barnabas, Great Strickland With Reasons Messers Burne 9 Planning Application No: 20/0865 Recommended to: Erection of a first floor extension over garage, front canopy porch and erection of rear single storey extension APPROVE Subject to Conditions 4 Town End Croft, Clifton, CA10 2EP Mr and Mrs Mills 10 Planning Application No: 20/0975 Recommended to: Non-material amendment to clad the house in brick, alterations to roof pitch, alterations to ground floor level, and APPROVE alterations to terrace attached to planning approval 18/0967 Subject to Conditions 14 Carleton Road, Penrith Mr J Lynch 11 Planning Application No: 20/0743 Recommended to: Erection of a commercial building APPROVE Myers Lane, Business Park, Penrith, CA11 9DP Subject to Conditions Willan Trading Ltd

Page 20 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 18 February 2021

Planning Application No: 20/0242 Date Received: 15 April 2020

OS Grid Ref: 346348 529996 Expiry Date:

Parish: Penrith Ward: Penrith West

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Construction of new office

Location: Land Off Greenbank Road Eden Business Park Penrith

Applicant: Atkinson Building Contractors

Agent: Edwin Thompson

Case Officer: Miss Rachel Lightfoot

Reason for Referral: The application has generated significant public interest.

Page 21 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 22 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation It is recommended that planning permission be approved and delegated power be given to the Assistant Director Development to enter into a Section106 Agreement being entered into to the absolute satisfaction of the Assistant Director Development requiring the payment of £6,600 for a contribution to the monitoring of the Travel Plan, and subject to the following conditions: Time Limit for Commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the application form received 15 April 2020 and the following details and plans hereby approved;  Location Plan, received by the Local Planning Authority 16 April 2020  External Works and Location Plan, Drawing 1 Rev A, received by the Local Planning Authority 16 April 2020  External Works and Location Plan, Drawing 2 Rev B, received by the Local Planning Authority 16 April 2020  External Works and Location Plan, Drawing 3 Rev B, received by the Local Planning Authority 16 April 2020  Proposed Plans and Elevations, Drawing 4 Rev A, received by the Local Planning Authority 16 April 2020  Existing Site Plan, Drawing 2 Rev A, received by the Local Planning Authority 16 April 2020  Travel Assessment, received by the Local Planning Authority on 8 December 2020  Volume 2 Appendices to the Transport Assessment, received by the Local Planning Authority on 8 December 2020  Volume 3 to the Transport Assessment, received by the Local Planning Authority, received by the Local Planning Authority on 8 December 2020  Ecological Scoping Report, received by the Local Planning Authority on 16 April 2020  Visibility Splays received by the Local Planning Authority on 16 April 2020  Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 November 2020  Appendix 1 to Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 November 2020  Appendix 2 to Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, received by the

Page 23 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Local Planning Authority on 17 November 2020  Appendix 3 to Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 November 2020  Appendix 4 to Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 November 2020  Appendix 5 to Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 November 2020  Appendix 6 to Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 November 2020  Appendix 7 to Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 November 2020 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the approved details. Prior to commencement 3. Prior to the commencement of development, an assessment of noise shall be undertaken by a competent noise consultant, and a scheme specifying the provisions to be made for the control of noise from the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The assessment shall identify and quantify all noise sources from the development and shall evaluate the likelihood of complaints arising at the boundary of the nearest neighbouring dwelling(s) in accordance with the methodology described in the British Standard BS4142:2014 Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial area. The standard to be achieved is an excess of rating level over background sound level of less than 5dB. The background noise level should be determined from periods of time that do not include noise from the railway line. Thereafter, the approved scheme shall be implemented in full by a competent person. Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the adjacent residential receptors. 4. Prior to the commencement of the development, clear arrangements must be in place for ongoing maintenance of the drainage system over the lifetime of the development. The drainage system must be designed for ease of maintenance. In this respect further details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing and once approved shall be adhered to at all times. Reason: To ensure flood risk is not increased within the site or elsewhere. 5. Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the carriageway, footways, footpaths, cycleways etc shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The details provided shall be designed, constructed, and drained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall also be submitted for written approval. Once approved, the details shall be adhered to for the duration of the development. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development hereby approved is operational. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety.

Page 24 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 6. Development shall not commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CTMP shall include details of:  pre-construction road condition established by a detailed survey for accommodation works within the highways boundary conducted with a Highway Authority representative; with all post repairs carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Highway Authority at the applicants expense;  details of proposed crossings of the highway verge;  retained areas for vehicle parking, manoeuvring, loading and unloading for their specific purpose during the development;  cleaning of site entrances and the adjacent public highway;  details of proposed wheel washing facilities;  the sheeting of all HGVs taking spoil to/from the site to prevent spillage or deposit of any materials on the highway;  construction vehicle routing;  the management of junctions to and crossings of the public highway and other public rights of way/footway;  Details of any proposed temporary access points (vehicular/pedestrian)  surface water management details during the construction phase Reason: To ensure the undertaking of the development does not adversely impact upon the fabric or operation of the local highway network and in the interests of highway and pedestrian safety. 7. Prior to the commencement of any development, a surface water drainage scheme, based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions (inclusive of how the scheme shall be managed after completion) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage scheme must be in accordance with the Non- Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly. The drainage scheme submitted for approval shall also be in accordance with the principles set out in the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Statement details submitted as part of the application. The development shall be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details. None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be first occupied until the approved surface water drainage scheme has been completed and made operational. Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. 8. No development shall commence until a construction surface water management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing with the local planning authority. Thereafter, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plan.

Page 25 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Reason: To safeguard against flooding to surrounding sites and to safeguard against pollution of surrounding watercourses and drainage systems. 9. The development hereby approved shall not commence until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. As a minimum, the Plan shall address issues of noise, vibration, dust and lighting. Reason: To protect the amenity of adjacent residential properties. 10. No construction works associated with the buildings or structures hereby approved shall be commenced until the access roads, as approved, are defined by kerbs and sub base construction. Reason: To ensure that the access roads are defined and laid out an early stage. Prior to use of the approved development or other stage conditions 11. Within 6 months of the date of this permission, a scheme of hard and soft landscape planting shall be submitted to and approved in writing. The scheme shall include appropriate aftercare and management plans. Thereafter, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme, with all planting undertaken within the first available planting season. Any trees or other plants which die or are removed within the first five years following the implementation of the approved scheme shall be replaced during the next planting season. The landscape scheme proposed should be informed by the recommendations of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, ref. 4733, dated June 2020. Reason: To protect the character and visual amenity of the area. 12. Prior to the development’s first use, a Lighting Impact Assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All external lighting should be designed to reduce the occurrence of light pollution and employ energy-efficient forms of lighting that also reduce light scatter. Thereafter, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In order to protect the amenity of adjacent residential receptors 13. The building hereby approved shall not be occupied until the estate road including footways and cycleways to serve such building has been constructed in all respects to base course level and street lighting where it is to form part of the estate road has been provided and brought into full operational use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety 14. The vehicular crossing over the footway, including the lowering of kerbs, shall be carried out to the specification of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Reason: To ensure a suitable standard of crossing for pedestrian safety. 15. Within 6 months of the development (or any part thereof) opening for business, 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

Page 26 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE within 12 months of the development (or any part thereof) opening for business. Reason: To aid in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives. 16. An annual report reviewing the effectiveness of the Travel Plan and including any necessary amendments or measures shall be prepared by the developer/occupier and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The report shall be provided for a period of 5 years. Reason: To aid in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives. 17. Within 6 months of the commencement of the development, the acoustic bund shall be constructed in accordance with the ‘Bund Details Plan, received 2 February 2021. Thereafter, the bund shall be grass seeded within the first available planting season, or prior to the completion of the construction works, whichever is the earlier. Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby residential dwellings and to protect the visual appearance of the area. On-going conditions 18. No construction works shall take place outside the hours of: 08:00 -18:00 Monday to Friday; 09:00 -13:00 Saturday; and No Activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area. 19. The hereby approved development shall be used between the following hours; Monday - Friday - 0700 - 1900 hours; Saturday – 0700 – 1600 hours; Sundays – 0900 – 1600 hours. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area. 20. Toolbox talks shall be given to all workers and contractors on site in order to reduce the risk of harm to any amphibians on site during vegetation clearance and mound levelling. These shall include:  Contractors shall be briefed on the potential for Great Crested Newts;  Vegetation and stored materials shall be cleared by hand;  Should any Great Crested Newts be found, all work must stop and the named ecologist contacted in order to assess the situation. Work shall not start again until approved by the named ecologist. Reason: In order to ensure that Great Crested Newts are appropriately protected as a protect species. 21. Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems. Reason: To ensure appropriate drainage for the site. 22. The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment and Foul and Surface Water Drainage Assessment

Page 27 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE and Proposal (including Appendices 1 – 7), received 2 February 2021. Reason: To ensure the development does not increase flood risk to the site or any surrounding land. 23. Notwithstanding the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (England) 2015 (as amended), the development hereby permitted shall not be permitted to change uses without the prior written approval of the local planning authority. Reason: Due to the relationship of the building to both other employment uses and residential and to enable the local planning authority to ensure that any potential use remains appropriate to the location. Note to developer: 1. This decision notice grants planning permission only. It does not override any existing legal agreement, covenant or ownership arrangement. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure all necessary agreements are in place prior to the commencement of development. 2. The enhancement proposals included in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal included, Landscaping around the SuDS should aim to enhance structural diversity and utilise native species of local provenance. Nectar, fruit and seed bearing species of shrubs should be incorporated to provide a foraging resource for wildlife. In addition good horticultural practises will be adopted (e.g. no, or low, use of residual pesticides) and The SuDS area will be planted with a meadow mix suitable for wetlands, such as Emorsgate EM8. The Local Planning Authority encourages any landscaping scheme submitted to take account of these recommendations. 3. Vegetation clearance should be undertaken outside of the bird nesting season (March to August inclusive) unless a checking survey by a suitably qualified ornithologist confirms the absence of active nests. 4. Prior to any work commencing on the watercourse the applicant should contact the Lead Local Flood Authority on tel: 01228 221331 or email: [email protected] to confirm if an Ordinary Watercourse Flood Defence Consent is required. If it is confirmed that consent is required it should be noted that a fee of £50 will be required and that it can take up to two months to determine. 5. It is noted that the development is not being considered for adoption and as such there are private drains which will need to be installed under the public highway, these drains and associated works will require Section 50 Streetworks permits from Cumbria county Council as highway authority, permits will also be required for the undertaken of any works on the public highway and the creation of the new access onto the public highway, for further details the applicant would need to contact the East area Streetworks team [email protected]

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 This application is a full application for the construction of an office building on land off Greenbank Road, Eden Business Park, Penrith.

Page 28 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2.1.2 The proposed building 38.59 metres long, 15.986 metres wide and 7.271 metres high at its highest point and sits within a site of approximately 0.29ha. A total of 930sq. metres of floorspace would be provided resulting in office space over 2 floors with associated welfare provisions such as toilets etc. The proposed building is of a design, scale and appearance which is in-keeping with the wider industrial setting. The building is to be finished with grey facing brickwork to the lower floor and grey profiled sheet cladding to the remainder and the roof. A solar array is included to the south facing roof area. These finishes are consistent with others within the area. 2.1.3 The applicant has suggested that the development would create 30 full time jobs. The site plan includes car parking spaces for 62 cars and 2 spaces for people with disabilities. It is confirmed by the Applicant that surface water will be attenuated on site with a controlled run off to Thacka Beck utilising a hydrobrake to a greenfield run off rate. 2.1.4 As mitigation against potential noise impacts resulting from the development and also from application 20/0242, the applicant proposes the construction of an acoustic bund along the northern boundary of the site nearest to the property known as ‘Melbourne Cottage’. The bund would be approximately 102 metres long, with a varying width from approximately 6 metres tapering down to 2.4 metres. In terms of its height, the bund would also vary along its length. The highest point, the bund would be 1.8 metres in height, with a 1.8 metre high acoustic fence on top to a total height of 3.5 metres and trees planted. The bund would be constructed from existing subsoil that would be excavated from ground works on site, and finished with 18 inches of topsoil. 2.1.5 The application is supported by the following documents and plans:  Location and Site Plans;  Floor and Elevation Plans;  Design and Access Planning Statement;  Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy;  Travel Plan/Assessment;  Noise Assessment;  Site Master Plan;  SUDs Pro Forma;  Road Adoption Plan;  Visibility Splays Plan 2.1.6 The application site is located within a Flood Zone 1, being at the lowest risk of flooding. The land is allocated for employment use in the Eden Local Plan. There are no further site constraints considered relevant to the determination of this planning application. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application site is adjacent to the existing Gilwilly Industrial Estate and is currently an area of underused greenfield land. The site subject of this application is 0.29ha. It is located adjacent to the existing, wider Gilwilly Industrial Estate, located to the South and West, with Thacka Lane approximately 89 metres to the North-North-East, Thacka Nature Reserve approximately 118 metres at its nearest point to the East. The closest residential dwellings to the application site are Melbourne House and Melbourne Cottage. This is located to the North-North-East and is approximately 84 metres from the application site.

Page 29 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2.2.2 The site is located on more raised land with the aforementioned Eden Business Park sloping away to the South and North. The land falls approximately 2.4m from 143.9 AOD to 141.4 AOD. The site is allocated for employment purposes within the Eden Local Plan as an extension for the Gilwilly Industrial Estate (ref. 2A). This extension forms 11.91 hectares of land and much of it has been developed. This application would ensure that further, allocated employment land, was developed in line with the intentions of the Eden Development Plan. 2.2.3 The site is not located in an area subject to any ‘special’ designation in terms of landscape or heritage zones and there are no scheduled ancient monuments in or within the vicinity of the site. There are no listed buildings within the vicinity of the site. 3. Consultation 3.1 Consultees Consultee Response Cumbria County Council - Responded on the 14 December 2020 and confirmed Local Highway Authority that the applicant had provided a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. It was considered that the local network could deal with additional ‘traffic load’. It was further considered that in order to monitor the travel plan a financial contribution would be necessary and as such this would need to be secured via a Section 106 agreement. In addition conditions related to the highway infrastructure proposed also be attached to any subsequent grant of planning permission. Cumbria County Council – Responded on the 14 December 2020 and they Lead Local Flood Authority confirmed that the information supplied demonstrated that it was likely a sustainable drainage scheme could be achieved. However, it was also noted that the supporting detailed design information and calculations had not been provided in their entirety and therefore conditions related to a detailed surface water drainage scheme be imposed upon any subsequent grant of planning permission. Natural England Responded on the 20 October 2020 and confirmed no comments upon the application. United Utilities Responded on the 15 October 2020 and confirmed that were the scheme to be approved conditions related to surface water and foul drainage be attached to any subsequent decision notice. Environment Agency Responded on the 17 December 2020 and confirmed that they had no objection to the application. They also confirmed that ‘We have reviewed the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) prepared by Atkinson Building Contractors (referenced: ‘Land Off Greenbank Road, Eden Business Park, Penrith, Cumbria Flood Risk Assessment and Foul and Surface Water Drainage Assessment’; dated 27 August 2020) and we consider

Page 30 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE that it is appropriate to the nature and scale of the development. We are therefore satisfied that the proposed development would be safe and that it would not be at an unacceptable risk of flooding or exacerbate flood risk elsewhere’. Environmental Health Responded on the 1 February 2020 that there were no Officer (EHO) objections to the proposal subject to the implications of appropriate conditions on any decision notice. 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response Town Object Support No Response No Objection Council/Meeting Penrith   4.1 Penrith Town Council responded on the 12 May 2020 confirming the following, ‘No Objection as land is already allocated in the local plan for employment however the following comments to be made: 1. Both EDC and PTC have declared a climate emergency so it is pleasing to see that renewable energy technologies will be incorporated into the design, including pv panels and that BRE A construction methods will be used to include high levels of thermal performance. 2. It is important that new buildings are future proofed at the build stage as soon as possible as retrofitting to increase standards later on would be more expensive that early incorporation of features. It is hoped that the building has been sited to optimise passive solar gain. 3. The building should be constructed of sustainable thermally efficient building materials and include good loft and wall insulation to reduce energy consumption as far as possible and water recycling methods should be included within the development. 4. The site should include good inter-connectivity with the existing business park and paths/tracks to promote sustainable transport and encourage cycling and walking as a way to get to work. 5. The development should include electric vehicle charging points. 6. To help climate mitigation, native trees, including fruit/nut trees) should be used to enhance greening and biodiversity within the plan area. 7. As the site is close to a wildlife area, design or landscape features should be incorporated to provide habitat for insects, nesting birds and other wildlife’. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours of the site on the 11 September 2020 and a site notice was posted on site on the 22 September 2020 on behalf of the Local Planning Authority by the applicant. No of Neighbours Consulted 7 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 0 No of neutral representations 1 No of objection letters 4

Page 31 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 5.2 The letters of objection have raised the following material matters:  The development would result in a large building being situated right behind our house and looking directly on to our garden.  The development would destroy the character of the surrounding area.  The construction works will cause extreme disturbance due to the impact of heavy goods vehicles, and dust from heavy plant and earth movements.  The development would result in a loss of light and overshadowing. The development would have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the area in terms of noise, overlooking and dust in particular.  The development would have significantly detrimental impact upon the Thacka Beck Nature Reserve.  There will be an increase in noise pollution from the extra traffic entering and leaving the site.  The development will result in a loss of privacy from resultant over-looking.  Our quality of lives will be hugely affected.  The safety of our young children will be affected by the added vehicle traffic.  The siting of the buildings on this elevated site would affect the privacy of neighbouring cottages. 5.3 The letters of objection have raised the following non-material matters:  When buying our house, we were advised by the estate agent that this land would never be built upon. This was a deciding factor when purchasing the property.  There is waste land situated at Eden Business Park which should be developed first before this site.  I suffer from anxiety and panic attacks. The stress of this application has made these issues worse.  The development would affect the value of our property.  The proposed buildings would be better located on land dedicated for such development on Eden Business Park, not in the countryside.  We were advised by the Council that the development of this land would only ever be for the food industry and no development would be within 500m of our property, and only at single storey in height.  The site notices were not erected in appropriate locations.  The applicant states that the site cannot be seen from a public right of way, but this is not the case. 5.4 In addition, a petition has been received to this proposal, signed by 60 people who make use of the Thacka Nature Reserve and Thacka Lane. The petition raises the following comments:  The area is unique in Penrith being so close to town but having such an open countryside look and feel.

Page 32 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Thacka Lane is used by walkers and cyclists doing the coast to coast in addition to providing pedestrian access to Newton Rigg.  There are other sites available within the nearby industrial estate and there is no need to spoil this greenfield site.  The erection of 8 foot fences etc, would have an overbearing and detrimental effect.  The construction of industrial and other buildings on the greenfield site adjacent to the Nature Reserve would have a significant impact on the area and would reduce our enjoyment of the Nature Reserve.  The minimal benefit of the creation of employment is far outweighed by the detriment to the environment. 5.5 Additionally a letter of comment has been received from the Penrith Ramblers who note that the area is used by walkers and as such it is important to retain official footpaths and the link from Greenbank Road. They have also requested that consideration be given to the establishment of a footpath along or adjacent to the strip of land owned by EDC. 6. Relevant Planning History 6.1 Whilst much of the land surrounding and near to the application site has been subject of a number of past planning permissions relating to Gilwilly Industrial Estate, none are considered to be directly relevant to the determination of this planning application. 6.2 It is noted that the following planning applications were submitted by the applicant which relate to the same site however, one of these has subsequently been withdrawn:  20/0629 - Construction of industrial retail unit, B1 business office, B2 general industrial and B8 storage or distribution premises – Withdrawn. 6.3 A further application was also submitted, this has been amended to relate to a private training pool only and is also for consideration by Planning Committee.  20/0402 – Proposed new build private training pool D2 Assembly and Leisure, – under consideration. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan 2014-2032: The specific policies considered relevant in the determination of this particular application are as follows;  LS1 – Locational Strategy;  PEN1 – A Town Plan for Penrith  DEV1 – General Approach to New Development;  DEV2 – Water Management and Flood Risk;  DEV3 – Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way;  DEV5 – Design of New Development;  EC1 – Employment Land Provision  EC3 – Employment Development in Existing Settlements

Page 33 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  ENV1 – Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Geodiversity;  ENV2 – Protection and Enhancements of Landscapes and Trees;  ENV5 – Environmentally Sustainable Design;  ENV7 – Air Pollution;  ENV8 – Land Contamination;  ENV9 – Other forms of Pollution. 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework February 2019:  Chapter 2 - Achieving sustainable development;  Chapter 4 - Decision-making;  Chapter 6 - Building a strong, competitive economy;  Chapter 9 - Promoting sustainable transport;  Chapter 11 - Making effective use of land;  Chapter 12 - Achieving well designed places;  Chapter 14 - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change; Chapter 15 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment. The policies detailed above are considered the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle of development  Design  Landscape and Visual Impacts  Drainage  Natural Environment  Amenity  Highways and Safety 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 In terms of the principle of any development, consideration is given to the Development Plan. This consists of the adopted Eden Local Plan (2014-2032) and the policies which it contains. Planning decisions should be taken in accordance with the policies within the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 8.2.2 Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan, entitled ‘Locational Strategy’ sets out the hierarchy of settlements where development should be focused in the most sustainable locations, the most sustainable being Penrith, the Market Towns and Key Hubs. 8.2.3 The Local Plan document confirms that that in relation to Policy LS1 ‘the following policy sets out our settlement hierarchy and shows which areas we expected to be the focus for residential, employment and commercial provision’. The Policy clarifies that Penrith is the most sustainable settlement and will benefit from ‘sustained development’ not limited to but including housing and employment development. It further confirms that ‘We expect that Penrith will continue to be the main centre, with a

Page 34 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE range of housing provided to meet the needs of its residents and facilitate further economic growth. Gilwilly Industrial Estate/Eden Business Park will continue to develop and provide an enhanced provision of employment floorspace’. 8.2.4 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy PEN1 sets out that Penrith remains the main focus for the provision of employment land within the district and employment growth. The Policy identifies two specific areas of land, which are allocated within the Local Plan for employment provision. This includes an extension to Gilwilly Industrial Estate (allocation ref: 2A), within which the current application site is located. In this regard the Policy confirms that: ‘New Jobs – An additional 11.91 hectares of employment land is allocated as an extension to Gilwilly Business Park and a further 3.29 hectares at Skirsgill’. 8.2.5 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy DEV1 entitled ‘General Approach to New Development’ states that ‘‘Planning applications that accord with policies in this Local Plan (and, where relevant, with policies in neighbourhood plans) will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where there are no policies relevant to the application or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision then the Council will grant permissions unless material considerations indicated otherwise – taking into account whether:  Any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole; or  Specific policies in that Framework indicate that development should restricted’. 8.2.6 Policy EC3 of the Eden Local Plan, entitled ‘Employment Development in Existing Settlements’ states; ‘Development is of a scale, type and design sympathetic to the location within which is it proposed; Development would not have an unacceptable impact on highways or other forms of infrastructure; Development would not cause harm to local amenity, landscape, ecology, historic environment or other environmental and cultural heritage considerations; The development is capable of achieving appropriate standards of access, servicing, parking and amenity space’. 8.2.7 Chapter 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) entitled ‘Building a strong, competitive economy’ states that “significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity”. When specifically referring to the rural economy, it also states that planning decisions should enable “the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas”, “the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses” and “sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside”. 8.2.8 The Council’s own Local Plan highlights the role that Penrith plays in the Locational Strategy and from an employment/economic point of view. As noted above, this scheme is proposed for an area of land that is allocated within the Local Plan for employment use. Given that the land this application is proposed for an office unit, upon allocated employment land, the principal of the development is considered acceptable, subject to the consideration of all other relevant material considerations.

Page 35 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2.9 Accordingly then, the principal of the development is considered acceptable and in principle, is supported. 8.3 Design 8.3.1 Policy DEV5 states development which “shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area and reflecting the streetscene through use of appropriate scale, mass, form, design and materials” could be supported. 8.3.2 It further states ‘new development will be required to demonstrate that it meets each of the following criteria:  Shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area.  Protects and where possible enhances the district’s distinctive rural landscape, natural environment and biodiversity.  Reflects the existing street scene through use of appropriate scale, mass, form, layout, high quality architectural design and use of materials.  Optimises the potential use of the site and avoids overlooking.  Protects the amenity of the existing residents and business occupiers and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers.  Use quality materials which complement or enhance local surroundings.  Protects features and characteristics of local importance.  Provides adequate space for the storage, collection and recycling of waste.  Can be easily accessed and used by all, regardless of age and disability’. 8.3.3 Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), entitled ‘Achieving well- designed places’ states that, ‘good design is a key aspect of sustainable development’. 8.3.4 Paragraph 124 of the NPPF advises that ‘the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning development process should achieve’. In addition, further consideration is given to paragraph 127 of the NPPF which confirms that ‘Planning Policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and

Page 36 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience’. 8.3.5 Paragraph 130 of the NPPF notes that ‘permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions’. 8.3.6 Paragraph 131 of the NPPF states that ‘in determining applications, great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they fit in with the overall form and layout of their surroundings’. 8.3.7 Policy ENV5 entitled ‘Environmentally Sustainable Design’ states that ‘proposals for commercial development and for major residential development, defined in Appendix 2, should demonstrate, where it is practical for them to do so, that they have considered each of the following criteria:  Maximising daylight and passive solar gain through the orientation of buildings.  Integrating sustainable urban drainage systems.  Designing and positioning buildings to minimise wind funnelling, frost pockets and uncomfortable microclimates.  Integrating renewable energy technology into the scheme, and in schemes comprising over 50 dwellings or on sites over 1.5 hectares, exploring the scope for direct heating.  Minimising construction waste, through for example designing out waste during the design stage, selecting sustainable and efficient building materials and reusing materials where possible.  Providing well-designed and visually unobtrusive outdoor waste storage areas to promote cycling.  Promoting sustainable transport modes, through for example careful layout and road design to ensure it is conducive to walking and cycling and prioritises the pedestrian and cyclist over the car’. 8.3.8 The applicant has proposed a building to be similar in appearance to others existing on the wider industrial estate to the south. It would be faced in a mixture of grey brick and grey profiled sheeting. A solar array would be placed on the south elevation to improve the environmental performance of the building. Whilst functional in appearance, the design is considered to be appropriate for its use and similar to that found throughout the wider industrial site. 8.3.9 The scale of the building is noted previously at 38.59 metres long, 15.986 metres wide and 7.271 metres high at its highest point. At 930 sq. metres floorspace, it would provide an appropriate amount of office employment space, whilst leaving sufficient space for associated car parking within the site boundaries. The proposed building is of a design, scale and appearance which is in-keeping with the wider industrial site in which it is sited. The building proposes a suite of materials and a design which are largely consistent with the existing appearance of the industrial estate and the locality.

Page 37 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.3.10 In relation to sustainable design, within the Eden Local Plan, Policy ENV5 states that new commercial development ‘should’ rather than must display the following criteria:  Maximising daylight and passive solar gain through the orientation of buildings;  Integrating sustainable urban drainage systems;  Designing and positioning buildings to minimise wind funnelling, frost pockets and uncomfortable microclimates;  Integrating renewable energy technology into the scheme;  Minimising construction waste, through for example designing out waste during the design stage, selecting sustainable and efficient building materials and reusing materials were possible;  Providing well-designed and visually unobtrusive outdoor waste storage areas to promote recycling;  Promoting sustainable transport modes, through for example careful layout and road design to ensure it is conducive to walking and cycling and priorities the pedestrian and cyclist over the car. 8.3.11 It is considered important that development endeavours to provide as strong an environmentally sustainable design as possible. Solar panels are proposed on the buildings. Notwithstanding, the requirements of the policy must be recognised in the consideration of this application and as such the wording of the Policy is the basis upon which the determination of the application must and should be made. 8.3.12 The Design and Access Statement notes that the building will be constructed of BREAM construction methods to achieve a high level of air tightness. Floor to ceiling heights are consistent with those recommended by the British Council of Offices to allow for any future requirements of the building. 8.3.13 The application is noted to be located to be constructed upon an allocated site which remains a significant material consideration, which should be afforded significant weight in the determination of this planning application, particularly for the jobs and economic benefits that this could offer to the District. The proposed solar array and BREAM construction methods are considered to demonstrate consistency with Policy ENV5 of the Eden Local Plan. It is further considered that the scheme proposes an acceptable level of design within the context of the surrounding built environment, and is consistent and in accordance with Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.4 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.4.1 A consideration in relation to this application is the Landscape and Visual Impact of the proposal. 8.4.2 Within the Eden Local Plan Policy DEV5, in part, also seeks to ensure that development protects and where possible enhances the rural landscape. One of its several criterion states that development should ensure that it ‘Protects and where possible enhances the district’s distinctive rural landscape, natural environment and biodiversity’. 8.4.3 This is further supported by Policy ENV2 entitled ‘Protection and Enhancements of Landscapes and Trees’ confirms that ‘new development will only be permitted where it conserves and enhances distinctive elements of landscape character and function’. It

Page 38 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE also confirms that as per criterion 5, the ‘tranquillity of the open countryside’ should be taken account of by any proposals submitted by an applicant. 8.4.4 In assessing the visual impact of the proposed attenuation basin, consideration should be given to Paragraph 124 of the NPPF which advises ‘the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning development process should achieve’. In addition, further consideration is given to paragraph 127 of the NPPF which confirms that ‘Planning Policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience’. 8.4.5 As has been acknowledged the site is located within an area of land, allocated for industrial use within the Eden Local Plan, as an appropriate extension to a long established industrial estate. It is noted that some objectors have raised concern that the scheme would be ‘out of character’ and inappropriate for the immediate area. Whilst these concerns are noted, it must be remembered that the existing Gilwilly Industrial Estate is immediately to the South and West and once again, the land’s allocation within the Local Plan is of critical consideration. 8.4.6 Whilst currently an underused parcel of land, the application site is allocated for an extension of the aforementioned industrial estate. Given that is the case, whilst the concerns raised are understood, the fact remains that the allocation status of the land, within the Local Plan, is established for employment land development as is proposed through this current application. Accordingly, whilst the concerns of objectors in this regard are duly noted, as an allocated site, they do not represent justified reasons to warrant the refusal of this planning application. 8.4.7 In allocating this land for employment use, the principle of the loss of this land and the change from its current appearance for future development as proposed, has already been established as acceptable following the adoption of the Eden Local Plan. The allocation effectively clarifies the intended use of the land and therefore, where an application comes forward to utilise the land in that already allocated way, it cannot be considered ‘out of character’ were it to be approved and implemented as the principle of the use of land is accepted.

Page 39 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.4.8 In addition, to the East of the site is the Thacka Beck Nature Reserve, which has been subject of the petition received against this application. This area of land is understood to be a welcome area of amenity space, in a part of Penrith dominated by development and in this case, Industrial type development. The receipt of a 60 signature petition is noted whom support the notion that the scheme as proposed would detrimentally impact the setting and character of the Nature Reserve. However, it is noted that no substantive evidence or assessment has been submitted to support this view. 8.4.9 Nevertheless, the allocation in the Local Plan has to be given consideration and significant weight in regards to the both these concerns, and the acceptability of the current application. Whilst the concerns are understood, the Nature Reserve and its location relative to the Industrial Estate and indeed this site within the allocation for further expansion are recognised. The allocation was made with full knowledge of the location of the Nature Reserve at the time that the Eden Local Plan was adopted. The site in question was not allocated with the intent of the Nature Reserve then being able to prevent any further expansion. In the Local Plan making process, were it considered that the expansion of the Industrial Estate would have been so adversely harmful to the Nature Reserve, the application site would not have been allocated. 8.4.10 In consultation with Natural England, it is noted that no comments or objections have been raised in regards to the proposed scheme and the perceived impacts upon the Nature Reserve. In landscape terms, the allocated status of the land must be recognised and afforded significant weight in the determination of this application. In that context, a scheme that would result in the construction of an office unit is considered to be in accordance with the sites allocation and therefore, the Local Plan. The development would not result in a demonstrably harmful scheme were it to be approved and subsequently become operational. 8.4.11 Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, it is considered that the proposal would not result in any adverse harm being caused to the character and appearance of the local area. Set against the immediate backdrop of the existing industrial estate, and as an area of allocated land for the future growth of the industrial estate, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of landscape impacts. Furthermore, the development is considered unlikely to result in any adverse or demonstrable harm to the nearby Thacka Nature Reserve. As such, the development is considered to be in- compliance with Policies DEV5 and ENV2 of the Eden Local Plan as well as the NPPF. 8.5 Drainage 8.5.1 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy DEV2, entitled ‘Water Management and Flood Risk’ confirms that ‘new development’ should ‘meet the sequential approach to development in flood risk areas’. 8.5.2 The Policy confirms that ‘new development must incorporate sustainable drainage systems (SUDs), where practicable, to manage surface water run-off. All applications for major development, defined in Appendix 2, will be subject to review by the Lead Local Flood Authority. Surface water should be discharged in the following order of priority: 1. To an adequate soakaway or some other form of infiltration system. 2. By an attenuated discharge to a watercourse. 3. By an attenuated discharge to a public surface water sewer. 4. By an attenuated discharge to a public combined sewer.

Page 40 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Applicants will need to submit clear evidence demonstrating why there is no alternative option but to discharge surface water to the public sewerage system and that the additional discharge can be accommodated. The presumption will be against the discharge of surface water to the public sewerage network’. 8.5.3 Chapter 14 of the NPPF entitled ‘Planning for Climate Change’ confirms in paragraph 155 that, ‘Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere’. 8.5.4 Paragraph 158 of the NPPF states that, ‘The aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding. The strategic flood risk assessment will provide the basis for applying this test. The sequential approach should be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding’. 8.5.5 Paragraph 163 states that, ‘When determining any planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere. Where appropriate, applications should be supported by a site-specific flood-risk assessment. Development should only be allowed in areas at risk of flooding where, in the light of this assessment (and the sequential and exception tests, as applicable) it can be demonstrated that: a) within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location; b) the development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient; c) it incorporates sustainable drainage systems, unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate; d) any residual risk can be safely managed; and e) safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate, as part of an agreed emergency plan’. 8.5.6 The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and United Utilities (UU) were consulted upon the application. Both consultees have requested that a surface water drainage scheme condition be attached to any subsequent grant of planning permission. This, fundamentally, ensures that prior to the commencement of any subsequent application that were approved, an appropriate drainage scheme would be submitted and ultimately approved for the site. Such conditions are included within the recommendation within Section 1 of the report. 8.5.7 The Environment Agency (EA) were consulted upon the proposed scheme and responded by confirming that the Flood Risk Assessment was acceptable and that the development would not exacerbate flood risk elsewhere nor would the development site be at unacceptable risk of flooding. 8.5.8 On the basis that the LLFA are satisfied with the imposition of a surface water drainage scheme (as are United Utilities) it is considered that the a final development can be achieved, with an appropriate drainage system engineered to ensure that there would be no adverse or increased floor risk either at the site or to any surrounding land.

Page 41 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.5.9 Therefore, it is considered that appropriate drainage can be achieved for the site in accordance with Policy DEV2 of the Eden Plan and the NPPF. 8.6 Natural Environment 8.6.1 Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan, entitled ‘Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Geodiversity’ confirms that ‘new development will be required to avoid any net loss of biodiversity, and where possible enhance existing assets. Should emerging proposals identify potential impacts upon designated sites, regard should be given to the objectives for each of the hierarchy of sites’. 8.6.2 Chapter 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) entitled ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ confirms the national guidance on such matters. Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states that ‘Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan); b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland; c) maintaining the character of the undeveloped coast, while improving public access to it where appropriate; d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans; and f) remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate’. 8.6.3 The site is noted to be an area of undeveloped and under-used land, located to the west of the Thacka Beck Nature Reserve. Natural England were consulted upon the application and confirmed no comments in relation to the scheme proposed. 8.6.4 As has been made clear in this report, the site is located within an existing parcel of land, allocated for the extension of the existing Industrial Estate. As such, the principle of the loss of this parcel of land for development has already been established as acceptable following the adoption of the Eden Local Plan. The applicant’s proposal is thus considered consistent with the allocated use and is noted to be approximately 118 metres from the aforementioned Nature Reserve. 8.6.5 It is not considered that there would be any likely significant impacts upon protected species were this development approved and any subsequent permission implemented. Notwithstanding this, any protected species are protected by separate law and as such regardless of whether planning permission is granted or not, it would

Page 42 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE still be illegal to kill or disturb such creatures under that legislation. The applicant has submitted an ecological appraisal of the site, which has been updated in relation to Great Crested Newts, to consider the implications of the development. The report confirms the following:  There are no known records of Great Crested Newts with the application site or any immediately surrounding land;  There are no potential breeding sites or Great Crested Newts within the application site;  There are no known records of Great Crested Newts within Thacka Nature Reserve although they have potential to support newts for breeding, foraging and sheltering;  The garden ponds near to the application site are unsuitable for Great Crested Newts. 8.6.6 The report confirms that there is a low risk of minor disturbance to Great Crested Newts, and as such includes a number of recommendations and mitigation to any future development of the site. Such matters are secured in the recommended conditions within this report. 8.6.7 In consultation with Natural England on this application, it is noted that no objections or comments were made to the proposal. As such, it is considered that there would be no significant impacts upon protected species were this development approved and any subsequent permission implemented. Notwithstanding this, any protected species are also protected by separate law (the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, amended by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (Amendment) (EU Exit) 2019). As such, regardless of whether planning permission is granted or not for this proposal, it would remain a criminal offence to kill or disturb such creatures under the aforementioned legislation. 8.6.8 In relation to the land surrounding the application site, no evidence has been provided that the scheme as proposed would have any significantly detrimental impacts upon any protected species nor the Nature Reserve. Indeed, the location and existence of the Nature Reserve is as a result of Environment Agency works undertaken in 2009/10. The Nature Reserve was thus designated in 2011, after the point at which the Industrial Estate was in place and operational, and before the site was allocated with the Eden Local Plan for future employment land extension. 8.6.9 Officers consider that the Nature Reserve augments the Industrial Estate. It is not in place to prevent any further extension of the Industrial Estate and in reality both have co-existed since the Nature Reserve became designated and indeed it is clear it is enjoyed in the way it was always hoped it would be by its users. It has been enjoyed regardless of the Industrial Estate already being located adjacent to it. It is considered that this extension would not result in discernible or detrimental impacts upon the nature reserve, or to an extent that would outweigh the benefits of the development of this allocated site. 8.6.10 Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, it is considered that the proposal would not result in any adverse impacts upon the natural environment beyond those already accepted with the allocation of the site within the Eden Local Plan. The supporting information provided by the applicant has confirmed that there would be no adverse

Page 43 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE impacts upon any protected species, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. As such, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with the requirements of Policy ENV1 of the Eden Local Plan and the NPPF. 8.7 Residential Amenity 8.7.1 The main consideration in the determination of this planning application, is the potential impact of the development upon the amenity of nearby neighbouring properties. The development of this area of allocated land, would bring the existing industrial estate closer to the properties identified earlier in this report. In this regard, Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan seeks to ensure that all development ‘Protects the amenity of the existing residents and business occupiers and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers’. 8.7.2 As has been identified within this report the nearest properties to the application site are approximately 84 metres to the North-North-East, Melbourne Cottage and Melbourne House. 8.7.3 The concerns of householders in relation to noise and disturbance are understood. However, the Local Plan process is a democratic process. Ultimately, the Local Plan seeks to find a balance between preserving amenity, providing enough homes for people to live in and stimulating the local economy. This is a difficult balance to strike, but the fact remains that in allocating this land for further employment use, consideration was given to adjoining uses. 8.7.4 The Environmental Health Officers (EHO) were consulted upon this application and responded by confirming that as the development would also require a Permit, details related to dust and odour would be dealt with by this permitting regime, even though no such odour impacts would be considered to occur in relation to this development. 8.7.5 In terms of lighting, Officers have considered that a condition preventing the installation of any new fixed or mobile lighting would be reasonable. No details have been submitted in terms of external lighting and other that the lighting considered ‘standard’ such as road lighting, no further details have been submitted. Thus the condition suggested would ensure that any further lighting that may be sought, would need to be assessed first, before it was brought into use. 8.7.6 In regards to noise, the EHO has confirmed that following the withdrawal of planning reference 20/0629 (for construction of industrial retail units, B1 business units, B2 industrial and B8 storage) and the amendment of planning reference 20/0402 so that it relates only to a proposed new build private training pool D2 Assembly and Leisure, that there are no objections to the proposal subject to the addition of appropriate conditions which are included in this report. 8.7.7 In relation to the concerns of loss of light and overshadowing, the nearest residential properties are approximately 84 metres to the North-North-East of the application site. It is considered that this is an appropriate separation distance to ensure that such issues would not have any significantly detrimental impacts. It would therefore not be considered a reasonable reason to refuse the scheme on such grounds. 8.7.8 Another concern raised that relates to the buildings denying people the ability to enjoy their home due to being overlooked. Firstly, there is no right to a garden that is not visible by anyone else, whether they be in a building themselves or walking by. The ‘feeling’ of the area would undoubtedly change were this application approved and implemented. But buildings overlooking one another is common in many parts of the district and simply being able to see another building does not mean that you lack

Page 44 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE privacy. It is considered that the separation distance is sufficient to maintain residential amenity. 8.7.9 The nature of the relationship that exists in the built environment of many parts of the district is such that being able to see other built environment or to have your own property be seen is not an abnormal aspect of Eden. The concern of being able to be observed is well understood and Officers to appreciate that this development would change existing experiences for some occupants of existing residential dwellings in the area. However, these buildings are industrial units, not residential dwellings, the use of the buildings will therefore be different with use being concentrated through normal office working hours. Were they the latter, the separation distances involved would be well in excess of Housing SPD requirements. 8.7.10 In matters such as these, the building would not be permitted to be occupied 24 hours a day and indeed the hours of use are restricted by the condition within section 1 of this report. In that circumstance, the use of the building and indeed the separation distance that exists are not considered to result in a significant loss of privacy to the extent that would justify the refusal of the scheme as a whole. 8.7.11 Matters of effects on house prices and information given when purchasing the house are not material planning issues which can be given any weight in the decision making process. In relation to impacts from construction, a condition requiring a Construction Method Statement is included which will include construction hours. 8.7.12 Accordingly, the scheme is considered to comply with Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan and merits support. 8.8 Highways 8.8.1 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan, entitled ‘Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way’ states that ‘development will be refused if it will result in a severe impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion. Development should provide safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people’. 8.8.2 Paragraph 109 of the NPPF affirms that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. 8.8.3 The development would involve the creation of a new access onto the industrial unit and then the wider highway network. The Local Highway Authority has been consulted upon the application and following extended negotiations and discussions with the applicant, it has been confirmed that there is no objection to the proposal. It is requested by the Highway Authority that a number of conditions be attached to the decision notice should planning permission be approved, which are included within the recommendation in this report. The imposition of these conditions ensures that the developer will provide the details related to the highways, kerbs, footpaths etc. to appropriate standards. 8.8.4 In terms of wider impacts, it is noted that the road network throughout the industrial estate has been designed and constructed to facilitate the type, volume and nature of traffic movements that would result from this development, in addition to those that are presently generated by other units and businesses on the site. In this regard, no concerns have been raised by the Highway Authority in relation to wider capacity issues for this road network.

Page 45 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.8.5 In relation to sustainable transport modes, the application confirms that sustainable transport, by both pedestrians and cyclists can be achieved to the site. Due to the sites position on the edge of Penrith, the proposed development would enable access to the site by both means, with sustainable footpath and pavement connections providing a safe and sustainable pedestrian link to the remainder of Penrith and also Penrith Train Station which is located approximately 1 to 1.5 miles from the site. As such, whilst future employees may likely access the site by means of car, the site would not sit in an isolated location which would solely rely or be dependent upon the use of the car, meaning that this can be considered a sustainable location and development, and afforded appropriate weight in the determination of this planning application. 8.8.6 As such, it is considered that appropriate highway access can be achieved for the site and the proposed development. No concerns arise in relation to highway safety or capacity impacts, with the local highway network being capable of absorbing the vehicle movements generated by this development. This view is supported by the Highway Authority who raise no objections to the proposal subject to the aforementioned conditions as further mitigation. 8.8.7 Accordingly, it is considered that there would be no adverse impacts relating to highways or access arising from this development, with sustainable transport options available to future employees. As such, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10. Conclusion 10.1 This application would utilise a portion of land allocated within the Eden Local Plan for industrial use. The purpose of this allocation is to provide appropriate additional employment land within Penrith. The principle of development is therefore accepted.

Page 46 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.2 The applicant confirms the intention to construct a building of similar scale and appearance to many of the buildings located upon the wider Industrial Estate. Whilst there are concerns from some objectors that the development proposed would be ‘out of character’ this is not a view that officers can agree with. 10.3 Land allocated within the Local Plan for industrial use, being proposed for industrial use cannot be considered out of character. Indeed, it is considered that it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on such grounds. 10.4 The location of the Nature Reserve is noted and it is equally noted that both the industrial estate and Nature Reserve have existed side-by-side for several years now. There is no reason to believe that the intended extension of the industrial estate would result in that relationship being detrimentally hampered. As the report considers, had that been likely, the land would not have been allocated at the outset for the use being applied for. 10.5 The amenity of nearby residential dwellings and their occupants is a significant consideration. Of course, the location of these properties was known when the land was allocated but regardless, the scheme must be able to demonstrate that it would not result in any significantly adverse impacts in terms of amenity. 10.6 In terms of noise, it is recognised that industrial uses and residential dwellings can exist together but it is expected that this is appropriately demonstrated and any mitigation measures are clarified, achievable and secured, where necessary, by Planning Condition. 10.7 In terms of loss of light and overshadowing, the separation distances are considered more than sufficient to prevent any significant issues with regard to these concerns. 10.8 Given that is considered to be the case and in the absence of any other demonstrable reasons, the scheme is considered to accord with the development plan and is recommended for approval.

Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Development

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 03.02.2021

Background Papers: Planning File 20/0242

Page 47 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 18 February 2021

Planning Application No: 20/0402 Date Received: 29 June 2020

OS Grid Ref: 350589 530947 Expiry Date: 25 August 2020 (extension of time agreed to the 19 February 2021)

Parish: Penrith Ward: Penrith West

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Proposed new build private training pool (D2 Use Assembly and Leisure)

Location: Land Off Greenbank Road Eden Business Park Penrith

Applicant: Atkinson Building Contractors

Agent: Atkinson Building Contractors

Case Officer: Nick Atkinson

Reason for Referral: The application has generated significant public interest.

Page 48 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 49 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation It is recommended that planning permission be approved and delegated power be given to the Assistant Director Development to enter into a Section106 Agreement being entered into to the absolute satisfaction of the Assistant Director Development requiring the payment of £6,600 for a contribution to the monitoring of the Travel Plan, and subject to the following conditions: Time Limit for Commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the application form received 02 February 2021 and the following plans and documents hereby approved:  Site and Location Plan (ref: KA1300E – 01), received 29 June 2020;  Floor Plans 1/50 (ref: 03), received 02 February 2021;  Elevation Plan titled ‘In Ground Pool Version’ (ref: 02 – Rev.B), received 02 February 2021;  Bund Details Plan (ref: Rev.A), received 02 February 2021;  Design and Access/Planning Statement, received 02 February 2021;  Flood Risk Assessment and Foul and Surface Water Drainage Assessment and Proposal (including Appendices 1 – 7), received 02 February 2021;  Itransport Planning ‘Travel Plan’ (ref: 904-TP – Rev.3), received 13 November 2020;  Itransport Planning ‘Technical References’, received 13 November 2020;  Itransport Planning ‘Appendices’, received 13 November 2020;  Roof/Permeable Paving Water Drainage Plan (ref: 02 – Rev B), received 13 November 2020;  Plot C Road Phases Plan, received 13 November 2020;  Ecology Services UK Ltd letter dated 19 August 2020, received September 2020. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the approved details. Prior to commencement 3. Prior to the commencement of the development, an assessment of noise shall be undertaken by a competent noise consultant, and a scheme specifying the provisions to be made for the control of noise from the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The assessment shall identify and quantify all noise sources from the development and shall evaluate

Page 50 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE the likelihood of complaints arising at the boundary of the nearest neighbouring dwelling(s) in accordance with the methodology described in the British Standard BS4142:2014. Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas. The standard to be achieved is an excess of rating level over background sound level of less than 5dB. The background noise level should be determined from periods of time that do not include noise from the railway line. Thereafter, the approved scheme shall be implemented in full by a competent person. Reason: To protect the amenity of adjacent residential properties. 4. Prior to the commencement of the development, clear arrangements must be in place for ongoing maintenance of the drainage system over the lifetime of the development. The drainage system must be designed for ease of maintenance. In this respect further details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing, and once approved shall be adhered to at all times. Reason: To ensure flood risk is not increased within the site or elsewhere. 5. Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the carriageway, footways, footpaths, cycleways etc shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The details provided shall be designed, constructed and drained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall also be submitted for written approval. Once approved, the details shall be adhered to for the duration of the development. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development hereby approved is operational. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety. 6. The development hereby approved shall not commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CTMP shall include details of:  pre-construction road condition established by a detailed survey for accommodation works within the highways boundary conducted with a Highway Authority representative; with all post repairs carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Highway Authority at the applicants expense;  details of proposed crossings of the highway verge;  retained areas for vehicle parking, manoeuvring, loading and unloading for their specific purpose during the development;  cleaning of site entrances and the adjacent public highway;  details of proposed wheel washing facilities;  the sheeting of all HGVs taking spoil to/from the site to prevent spillage or deposit of any materials on the highway;  construction vehicle routing;  the management of junctions to and crossings of the public highway and other public rights of way/footway;  details of any proposed temporary access points (vehicular /pedestrian);

Page 51 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  surface water management details during the construction phase. Reason: To ensure the undertaking of the development does not adversely impact upon the fabric or operation of the local highway network and in the interests of highway and pedestrian safety. 7. Prior to the commencement of any development, a surface water drainage scheme, based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions (inclusive of how the scheme shall be managed after completion) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage scheme must be in accordance with the Non- Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards. No surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly. The drainage scheme submitted for approval shall also be in accordance with the principles set out in the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Statement details submitted as part of applications 20/0242 and 20/0402. The development shall be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details. None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be first occupied until the approved surface water drainage scheme has been completed and made operational. Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. 8. No development shall commence until a construction surface water management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plan. Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. 9. No construction works associated with the buildings or structures hereby approved shall be commenced until the access roads, as approved, are defined by kerbs and sub base construction. Reason: To ensure that the access roads are defined and laid out an early stage. Prior to use of the approved development or other stage conditions 10. Within 6 months of the date of this permission, a scheme of hard and soft landscape planting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include appropriate aftercare and management plans. Thereafter, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme, with all planting undertaken within the first available planting season. Any trees or other plants which die or are removed within the first five years following the implementation of the approved scheme shall be replaced during the next planting season. The landscape scheme proposed should be informed by the recommendations of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, ref. 4733, dated June 2020. Reason: To protect the character and visual amenity of the area. 11. Prior to the development coming into first use, a Lighting Impact Assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All

Page 52 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE external lighting shall be designed to reduce the occurrence of light pollution and employ energy-efficient forms of lighting that also reduce light scatter. Thereafter, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect the amenity of adjacent residential dwellings. 12. The building hereby approved shall not be occupied or brought into use until the estate road, including footways and cycleways to serve the building, has have been constructed in all respects to base course level and street lighting where it is to form part of the estate road, has been provided and brought into full operational use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 13. The vehicular crossing over the footway, including the lowering of kerbs, shall be carried out in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 14. Within 6 months of the development (or any part thereof) opening for business, the developer shall prepare an submit to the Local Planning Authority, a Travel Plan which shall identify the measures that will be undertaken to encourage the achievement of a modal shift away from the use of private cars to visit the development to sustainable transport modes, for written approval. The measures identified within the Travel Plan shall be implemented within 12 months of the development (or any part thereof) opening for business. Reason: To aid in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives. 15. An annual report reviewing the effectiveness of the Travel Plan and including any necessary amendments or measures shall be prepared by the developer/occupier and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The report shall be provided for a period of 5 years. Reason: To aid the delivery of sustainable transport objectives. 16. Within 6 months of the commencement of the development, the acoustic bund shall be constructed in accordance with the ‘Bund Details’ Plan, received 02 February 2021. Thereafter, the bund shall be grass seeded within the first available planting season, or prior to the completion of the construction works, whichever is the earlier. Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby residential dwellings and to protect the visual appearance of the area. Ongoing conditions 17. No construction works shall take place outside the hours of:  08:00 -18:00 Monday to Friday;  09:00 -13:00 Saturday; and No Activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area. 18. The hereby approved development shall be used between the following hours:  Monday to Friday – 07:00 to 20:00hrs

Page 53 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Saturdays – 08:00 to 18:00hrs  Sundays – 08:00 to 18:00hrs. Reason: In the interests of protecting neighbouring residential amenity. 19. Toolbox talks shall be given to all workers and contractors on site in order to reduce the risk of harm to any amphibians on site during vegetation clearance and mound levelling. These shall include:  Contractors shall be briefed on the potential for Great Crested Newts;  Vegetation and stored materials shall be cleared by hand;  Should any Great Crested Newts be found, all work must stop and the named ecologist contacted in order to assess the situation. Work shall not start again until approved by the named ecologist. Reason: In order to ensure that Great Crested Newts are appropriately protected as a protect species. 20. The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the advice and recommendations set out with Section 6.0 of the Ecology Services UK Ltd letter dated 19 August 2020, received September 2020. Reason: In order to ensure that Great Crested Newts are appropriately protected as a protected species. 21. Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems. Reason: To ensure appropriate drainage for the site. 22. The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment and Foul and Surface Water Drainage Assessment and Proposal (including Appendices 1 – 7), received 02 February 2021. Reason: To ensure the development does not increase flood risk to the site or any surrounding land. Note to developer: 1. This decision notice grants planning permission only. It does not override any existing legal agreement, covenant or ownership arrangement. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure all necessary agreements are in place prior to the commencement of development. 2. The enhancement proposals included in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal included, Landscaping around the SuDS should aim to enhance structural diversity and utilise native species of local provenance. Nectar, fruit and seed bearing species of shrubs should be incorporated to provide a foraging resource for wildlife. In addition good horticultural practises will be adopted (e.g. no, or low, use of residual pesticides) and The SuDS area will be planted with a meadow mix suitable for wetlands, such as Emorsgate EM8. The Local Planning Authority encourages any landscaping scheme submitted to take account of these recommendations. 3. Vegetation clearance should be undertaken outside of the bird nesting season (March to August inclusive) unless a checking survey by a suitably qualified ornithologist confirms the absence of active nests.

Page 54 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 4. Prior to any work commencing on the watercourse the applicant should contact the Lead Local Flood Authority on tel: 01228 221331 or email: [email protected] to confirm if an Ordinary Watercourse Flood Defence Consent is required. If it is confirmed that consent is required it should be noted that a fee of £50 will be required and that it can take up to two months to determine. 5. It is noted that the development is not being considered for adoption and as such there are private drains which will need to be installed under the public highway, these drains and associated works will require Section 50 Streetworks permits from Cumbria county Council as highway authority, permits will also be required for the undertaken of any works on the public highway and the creation of the new access onto the public highway, for further details the applicant would need to contact the East area Streetworks team [email protected].

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 This application is a full application for the construction of a new build private training pool (D2 Use – Assembly and Leisure) on land off Greenbank Road, Eden Business Park, Penrith. 2.1.2 At the time of the submission of this application, the proposal also sought approval for a B1 Business office, B2 General Industrial and B8 Storage and distribution premises use within the building. However, the application has recently been amended by the applicant to solely relate to the private training pool, with all other elements removed from the proposal. Due to the lateness of the changes proposed to the application, no re-consultation has been undertaken on these changes which reduce the potential impacts of the development. 2.1.3 The building proposed would be two storey, constructed from brick and plastic coated cladding, specifically Merlin Grey Cladding, with UPVc window and door openings. The roof would be constructed from plastic coated metal profile sheeting with a slight pitch. The building would be largely rectangular in shape, measuring approximately 38.5 metres x 16 metres, covering a total floor space of approximately 616 square metres. The building would have an eaves height of approximately 6.4 metres, with a total ridge height of 7.2 metres. The building would have a larger glazed entrance on the ground and first floor, located on the north/north east elevation of the building, with a smaller number of window openings on the remaining elevations. 2.1.4 Access to the site would be achieved through the creation of a new access road to the south/south west. This access would be a continuation of the existing spine road, known as Greenbank Road, which services the industrial estate to the immediate south/south west of the site. The new road would serve this development, the office building proposed under application 20/0242 (construction of a new office) and also any future development of the immediate site area. The proposal includes provision for 23 car parking spaces and 4 cycle spaces to serve the building. 2.1.5 The applicant has not confirmed that the use of the building would be as a private training pool. Although not included within the application form itself, the applicant has subsequently confirmed the following proposed hours of use for the development:  Monday to Friday – 07:00 to 20:00hrs

Page 55 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Saturdays – 08:00 to 18:00hrs  Sundays – 08:00 to 18:00hrs. 2.1.6 The applicant has confirmed that the development, if approved, would create and provide for five full time jobs in association with the future use of the business. 2.1.7 As mitigation against potential noise impacts resulting from the development and also from application 20/0242, the applicant proposes the construction of an acoustic bund along the northern boundary of the site nearest to the property known as ‘Melbourne Cottage’. The bund would be approximately 102 metres in length, with a varying width from approximately 6 metres tapering down to 2.4 metres. In terms of its height, the bund would also vary along its length. The highest point, the bund would be 1.8 metres in height, with a 1.8 metre high acoustic fence on top to a total height of 3.5 metres and trees planted. The bund would be constructed from existing subsoil that would be excavated from ground works on site, and finished with 18 inches of topsoil. 2.1.8 The application is supported by the following documents and plans:  Location and Site Plans;  Floor and Elevation Plans;  Design and Access Planning Statement;  Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy;  Travel Plan/Assessment;  Noise Assessment;  Site Master Plan;  SUDs Pro Forma;  Road Adoption Plan;  Visibility Splays Plan. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application site is adjacent to the existing Gilwilly Industrial Estate and is currently an area of underused greenfield land. The site subject of this application is located with Thacka Lane to the north; Thacka Beck Nature Reserve approximately 100 metres to the east; and existing businesses on the industrial estate to the south including the buildings known as ‘Box House’, ‘Rowlands’, and ‘the Edge’. 2.2.2 The nearest residential dwellings and noise sensitive receptors to the application site, include ‘Melbourne Cottage’ which is approximately 30 metres to the immediate north east, and ‘Melbourne House’ which is approximately 110 metres to the south west. The site is located on more raised land within Eden Business Park, then sloping away to the south and north. The land subject to this application falls from approximately 143.9 AOD to 141.4 AOD towards ‘Melbourne Cottage’. 2.2.3 The application site is located within a wider area of land allocated for employment land within the Eden Local Plan under allocation reference 2A, much of which has already been developed. This area of land is allocated as an extension to Gilwilly Industrial Estate as set out within Policy PEN1 of the Eden Local Plan, and as shown on the Penrith North Inset Map 1. The overall area of this employment land allocation is approximately 11.91 hectares, of which the application site would cover approximately 2,690 hectares if approved, in line with the intentions of the Eden Local Plan. 2.2.4 The site is not located in an area subject to any ‘special’ designation in terms of landscape or heritage zones and there are no scheduled ancient monuments in or

Page 56 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE within the vicinity of the site. The application site is located within a Flood Zone 1, which is at the lowest risk of flooding, and there are no known or recorded historical flood events at the site. 2.2.5 There are no other planning constraints considered relevant to the determination of this planning application. 3. Consultation 3.1 Consultees Consultee Response Cumbria County Council - Responded on the 14 December 2020 following Local Highway Authority lengthy discussions with the applicant, and confirmed that the applicant had provided a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. It was considered that the local network could deal with additional ‘traffic load’. It was further considered that in order to monitor the travel plan a financial contribution would be necessary and as such this would need to be secured via a Section 106 agreement. In addition conditions related to the highway infrastructure proposed also be attached to any subsequent grant of planning permission. Cumbria County Council – Responded on the 14 December 2020 following Lead Local Flood Authority lengthy discussions with the applicant, and confirmed that the information supplied demonstrated that it was likely a sustainable drainage scheme could be achieved. However, it was also noted that the supporting detailed design information and calculations had not been provided in their entirety and therefore conditions related to a detailed surface water drainage scheme be imposed upon any subsequent grant of planning permission. Natural England Responded on the 16 July 2020 and confirmed no comments upon the application. United Utilities Responded on the 12 August 2020 confirming no objection to the proposal for surface water to discharge directly into the watercourse, subject to the imposition of conditions on any subsequent decision notice relating to foul and surface water being drained on separate systems. Environment Agency Responded on the 17 July 2020 confirming no objection to the proposal. The further clarification of this response was also provided: ‘We have reviewed the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) prepared by Ross Cowperthwaite (referenced: Land Off Greenbank Road, Eden Business Park, Penrith, Cumbria Flood Risk Assessment and Foul and Surface Water Drainage

Page 57 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Assessment; dated 25 June 2020) and we consider that it is appropriate to the nature and scale of the development. We are therefore satisfied that the proposed development would be safe and that it would not be at an unacceptable risk of flooding or exacerbate flood risk elsewhere. The proposed development must proceed in strict accordance with this FRA and the mitigation measures identified, as it will form part of any subsequent planning approval. Any proposed changes to the approved FRA and/or the mitigation measures identified will require the submission of a revised FRA’. Environmental Health Officer Initially responded on the 11 September 2020 raising (EHO) concerns with the proposal, due to inadequate information contained within the noise assessment and the potential adverse impacts that may arise to the amenity of the nearest neighbouring properties and their garden areas. Following receipt of this response, and additional noise assessments being undertaken to consider the cumulative impact of this application, in addition to 20/0242, the applicant made a number of revisions to the scheme. This included the withdrawal of application 20/0629, in addition to removing the proposed B1, B2 and B8 elements from the proposal. Further information was also provided in relation to the acoustic bund proposed to mitigate against the impacts of noise to the nearest residential dwellings, and confirmation of all external noise sources and plant rooms in/on the building. In light of the changes to the scheme and the additional details provided, a final response was received on the 01 February 2021 confirming that the changes to the scheme were acceptable and that there was no objection to the proposal subject to the inclusion of appropriate conditions as further noise mitigation. 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response Town Object Support No Response No Objection Council/Meeting Penrith   4.1 Penrith Town Council responded on the 23 July 2020 provided the following comments: ‘Response: No objection in principal but would wish to see the following conditions:

Page 58 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Due to its proximity to the nature reserve, there should be landscaping using native trees/bushes to provide screening, maintain carbon retention and mitigate the effects on the environment. 2. As the report into the GCNs was inconclusive, the mitigating measures outlined on page 16 of the report should be actioned. PTC has the following concern that they would also wish to be taken into account. There have been or are about to be a number of developments in this area. A 300mm surface water drain is mentioned but this may be too small given the cumulative effect on drainage and potential flooding. If this development encroaches on to land identified for a Local Development Order for Food and Farming the impact of this onto the identified land should be taken into account’. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours of the site on the 06 June 2020. No of Neighbours Consulted 7 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 0 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 4 5.2 The letters of objection have raised the following material matters:  The development would result in a large building be situated right behind our house and looking directly on to our garden.  The development would destroy the character of the surrounding area.  The construction works will cause extreme disturbance to the impact of heavy goods vehicles, and dust from heavy plant and earth movements.  The development would result in a loss of light and overshadowing. The development would have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the area in terms of noise, overlooking and dust in particular.  The development would have significantly detrimental impact upon the Thacka Beck Nature Reserve.  There will be an increase in noise pollution from the extra traffic entering and leaving the site.  The development will result in a loss of privacy from resultant over-looking.  Our quality of lives will be hugely affected.  The safety of our young children will be affected by the added vehicle traffic.  The siting of the buildings on this elevated site would affect the privacy of neighbouring cottages. 5.3 The letters of objection have raised the following non-material matters:  When buying our house, we were advised by the estate agent that this land would never be built upon. This was a deciding factor when purchasing the property.  There is waste land situated at Eden Business Park which should be developed first before this site.

Page 59 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  I suffer from anxiety and panic attacks. The stress of this application has made these issues worse.  The development would affect the value of our property.  The proposed buildings would be better located on land dedicated for such development on Eden Business Park, not in the countryside.  We were advised by the Council that the development of this land would only ever be for the food industry and no development would be within 500m of our property, and only at single storey in height.  The site notices were not erected in appropriate locations.  The applicant states that the site cannot be seen from a public right of way, but this is not the case. 5.4 In addition, a petition has been received to this proposal, signed by 60 people who make use of the Thacka Nature Reserve and Thacka Lane. The petition raises the following comments:  The area is unique in Penrith being so close to town but having such an open countryside look and feel.  Thacka Lane is used by walkers and cyclists doing the coast to coast in addition to providing pedestrian access to Newton Rigg.  There are other sites available within the nearby industrial estate and there is no need to spoil this greenfield site.  The erection of 8 foot fences etc, would have an overbearing and detrimental effect.  The construction of industrial and other buildings on the greenfield site adjacent to the Nature Reserve would have a significant impact on the area and would reduce our enjoyment of the Nature Reserve.  The minimal benefit of the creation of employment is far outweighed by the detriment to the environment. 6. Relevant Planning History 6.1 Whilst much of the land surrounding and near to the application site has been subject of a number of past planning permissions relating to Gilwilly Industrial Estate, none are considered to be directly relevant to the determination of this planning application. 6.2 It is noted however, that the following planning applications submitted to the authority do directly relate to the development and the immediate locality to the application site:  20/0629 - Construction of industrial retail unit, B1 business office, B2 general industrial and B8 storage or distribution premises – Withdrawn.  20/0242 – Construction of new office– pending determination by the Planning Committee. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan 2014-2032:

Page 60 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE The specific policies considered relevant in the determination of this particular application are as follows;  LS1 – Locational Strategy;  PEN1 – A Town Plan for Penrith  DEV1 – General Approach to New Development;  DEV2 – Water Management and Flood Risk;  DEV3 – Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way;  DEV5 – Design of New Development;  EC1 – Employment Land Provision  EC3 – Employment Development in Existing Settlements  ENV1 – Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Geodiversity;  ENV2 – Protection and Enhancements of Landscapes and Trees;  ENV5 – Environmentally Sustainable Design;  ENV7 – Air Pollution;  ENV8 – Land Contamination;  ENV9 – Other forms of Pollution. 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework February 2019:  Chapter 2 – Achieving sustainable development;  Chapter 4 – Decision-making;  Chapter 6 – Building a strong, competitive economy;  Chapter 9 – Promoting sustainable transport;  Chapter 11 – Making effective use of land;  Chapter 12 – Achieving well designed places;  Chapter 14 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change; Chapter 15 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment. 7.3 The policies detailed above are considered the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle of development  Design  Landscape and Visual Impacts  Drainage  Natural Environment  Amenity  Highways and Safety 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 In terms of the principle of any development, consideration is given to the Development Plan. This consists of the adopted Eden Local Plan (2014-2032) and the policies which it contains.

Page 61 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2.2 Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan, entitled ‘Locational Strategy’ sets out the hierarchy of settlements where development should be focused in the most sustainable locations, the most sustainable being Penrith, the Market Towns and Key Hubs. 8.2.3 The Local Plan document confirms that that in relation to Policy LS1 ‘the following policy sets out our settlement hierarchy and shows which areas we expected to be the focus for residential, employment and commercial provision’. The Policy clarifies that Penrith is the most sustainable settlement and will benefit from ‘sustained development’ not limited to but including housing and employment development. It further confirms that ‘We expect that Penrith will continue to be the main centre, with a range of housing provided to meet the needs of its residents and facilitate further economic growth. Gilwilly Industrial Estate/Eden Business Park will continue to develop and provide an enhanced provision of employment floorspace’. 8.2.4 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy PEN1 sets out that Penrith remains the main focus for the provision of employment land within the district and employment growth. The Policy identifies two specific areas of land, which are allocated within the Local Plan for employment provision. This includes an extension to Gilwilly Industrial Estate (allocation ref: 2A), within which the current application site is located. In this regard the Policy confirms that: ‘New Jobs – An additional 11.91 hectares of employment land is allocated as an extension to Gilwilly Business Park and a further 3.29 hectares at Skirsgill.’ 8.2.5 The explanation text within Policy PEN1 provides further confirmation that Penrith remains the focus for employment growth within the district. In this regard, it confirms that the allocated land for employment growth which includes the application site, ‘…will provide suitable land to at least satisfy potential requirements coming forward during the plan period.’ This position is further supported by Paragraph 23 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which confirms that: ‘Broad locations for development should be indicated on a key diagram, and land use designations and allocations identified on a policies map. Strategic policies should provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period, in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This should include planning for and allocating sufficient sites to deliver the strategic priorities of the area’. 8.2.6 In this regard, it is noted that the allocation of land within the Eden Local Plan, such as the application site, is important to deliver the identified needs of the area. In the case of the current application, this relates to the identified employment needs of the area. As such, significant weight should be afforded to proposals that subsequently come forward for appropriate development on allocated sites to ensure that the aims of the Local Plan and needs of the area are met. Where no significant or demonstrable harm has been identified, and in all other respects a proposal is deemed to be acceptable, there should be a presumption in favour of any such schemes as the primary focus for development. 8.2.7 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy DEV1 entitled ‘General Approach to New Development’ states that ‘‘Planning applications that accord with policies in this Local Plan (and, where relevant, with policies in neighbourhood plans) will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where there are no policies relevant to the application or relevant policies are out of date at the time of

Page 62 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE making the decision then the Council will grant permissions unless material considerations indicated otherwise – taking into account whether:  Any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole; or  Specific policies in that Framework indicate that development should restricted’. 8.2.8 Policy EC3 of the Eden Local Plan, entitled ‘Employment Development in Existing Settlements’ states that employment provision within existing settlements will be permitted where the following criteria is met; ‘Development is of a scale, type and design sympathetic to the location within which is it proposed;  Development would not have an unacceptable impact on highways or other forms of infrastructure;  Development would not cause harm to local amenity, landscape, ecology, historic environment or other environmental and cultural heritage considerations;  The development is capable of achieving appropriate standards of access, servicing, parking and amenity space’. 8.2.9 Chapter 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) entitled ‘Building a strong, competitive economy’ states that “significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity”. When specifically referring to the rural economy, it also states that planning decisions should enable “the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas”, “the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses” and “sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside”. 8.2.10 The Council’s own Local Plan highlights the role that Penrith plays in the Locational Strategy and from an employment/economic point of view. As noted above, this scheme is proposed for an area of land that is allocated within the Local Plan for employment use. Given that the land this application is proposed for a private training pool, upon allocated employment land, the principle of the development is considered acceptable, subject to the consideration of all other relevant material considerations. 8.2.11 Therefore, for the reasons detailed above it is considered that the principle of the development is acceptable and in accordance with Policies PEN1, LS1, DEV1 and EC3 of the Eden Local Plan, and also the NPPF. 8.3 Design 8.3.1 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy DEV5 states development which “shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area and reflecting the streetscene through use of appropriate scale, mass, form, design and materials” could be supported. 8.3.2 If further states ‘New development will be required to demonstrate that it meets each of the following criteria:  Shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area.  Protects and where possible enhances the district’s distinctive rural landscape, natural environment and biodiversity.

Page 63 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Reflects the existing street scene through use of appropriate scale, mass, form, layout, high quality architectural design and use of materials.  Optimises the potential use of the site and avoids overlooking.  Protects the amenity of the existing residents and business occupiers and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers.  Use quality materials which complement or enhance local surroundings.  Protects features and characteristics of local importance.  Provides adequate space for the storage, collection and recycling of waste.  Can be easily accessed and used by all, regardless of age and disability’. 8.3.3 Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), entitled ‘Achieving well- designed places’ states that, ‘good design is a key aspect of sustainable development’. 8.3.4 Paragraph 124 of the NPPF advises that ‘the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning development process should achieve’. In addition, further consideration is given to paragraph 127 of the NPPF which confirms that ‘Planning Policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience’. 8.3.5 Paragraph 130 of the NPPF notes that ‘permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions’. 8.3.6 Paragraph 131 of the NPPF states that ‘in determining applications, great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they fit in with the overall form and layout of their surroundings’. 8.3.7 Policy ENV5 entitled ‘Environmentally Sustainable Design’ states that ‘proposals for commercial development and for major residential development, defined in Appendix 2, should demonstrate, where it is practical for them to do so, that they have considered each of the following criteria:

Page 64 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Maximising daylight and passive solar gain through the orientation of buildings.  Integrating sustainable urban drainage systems.  Designing and positioning buildings to minimise wind funnelling, frost pockets and uncomfortable microclimates.  Integrating renewable energy technology into the scheme, and in schemes comprising over 50 dwellings or on sites over 1.5 hectares, exploring the scope for direct heating.  Minimising construction waste, through for example designing out waste during the design stage, selecting sustainable and efficient building materials and reusing materials where possible.  Providing well-designed and visually unobtrusive outdoor waste storage areas to promote cycling.  Promoting sustainable transport modes, through for example careful layout and road design to ensure it is conducive to walking and cycling and prioritises the pedestrian and cyclist over the car’. 8.3.8 The applicant has proposed that the proposed training pool to be of a similar design and appearance to the existing buildings throughout the wider industrial estate to the south, but also of a design that compares and ties-in the new office building proposed through planning application 20/0242. As noted previously, the building would be largely rectangular in shape and dark grey coloured. The design and appearance of the building would be functional and also appropriate for its use within the wider industrial estate setting. However, it is noted that the location of the application site is closer to the nearest residential dwellings than any existing, or presently proposed development that forms the wider industrial estate. 8.3.9 In relation to the scale of the proposed training pool, as noted previously, the building would be 38.5 metres x 16 metres, covering a total floor space of approximately 616 square metres, with an eaves height of approximately 6.4 metres and a total ridge height of 7.2 metres. From a scale perspective, whilst the building would be reasonably large in size if viewed in isolation, the building would largely mirror the size dimensions, appearance and scale of the new office building proposed under planning application 20/0242 and also a number of existing buildings which presently form the wider industrial estate. Whilst closer to the nearest residential dwellings of ‘Melbourne Cottage’ and ‘Melbourne House’, there is a sufficient separation distance and stand-off which forms a break in the otherwise continuous built environment, so as to ensure that the design and scale of the building proposed would be viewed in the context of the industrial estate and not adversely against these isolated dwellings. 8.3.10 In this regard, the proposed training pool building is considered to be of a design, scale and appearance which is in-keeping with the wider industrial site in which it is sited, on land allocated for such development within the Eden Local Plan. The building proposes a suite of materials and a design which are largely consistent with the existing appearance of the industrial estate and the locality. In this regard, the development would not dominate the area or appear otherwise incongruent within the wider industrial estate context, which would be expected for a site allocated for employment land provision in line with its allocation as such. 8.3.11 In relation to sustainable design, within the Eden Local Plan, Policy ENV5 states that new commercial development ‘should’ rather than must display the following criteria:

Page 65 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Maximising daylight and passive solar gain through the orientation of buildings;  Integrating sustainable urban drainage systems;  Designing and positioning buildings to minimise wind funnelling, frost pockets and uncomfortable microclimates;  Integrating renewable energy technology into the scheme;  Minimising construction waste, through for example designing out waste during the design stage, selecting sustainable and efficient building materials and reusing materials were possible;  Providing well-designed and visually unobtrusive outdoor waste storage areas to promote recycling;  Promoting sustainable transport modes, through for example careful layout and road design to ensure it is conducive to walking and cycling and priorities the pedestrian and cyclist over the car. 8.3.12 It is considered important that development endeavours to provide as strong an environmentally sustainable design as possible. Notwithstanding, the requirements of the policy must be recognised in the consideration of this application and as such the wording of the Policy is the basis upon which the determination of the application must and should be made. 8.3.13 However, the applicant has offered limited details with regards to how this scheme would comply fully with the requirements of Policy ENV5 beyond sustainable drainage systems and promoting sustainable transport modes. 8.3.14 Though it would be more preferable for the application to demonstrate a bigger commitment to environmental sustainable design techniques, the Policy is considered to be worded in such a way that does not require compliance, and as such this is not considered to represent reasonable grounds or justification for the refusal of an employment development on an allocated site within the Local Plan. 8.3.15 Notwithstanding, the application is noted to be located to be constructed upon an allocated site which remains a significant material consideration, which should be afforded significant weight in the determination of this planning application, particularly for the five jobs and economic benefits that this could offer to the district. On balance, the lack of Environmentally Sustainable design is not considered to outweigh this factor nor warrant or justify the refusal of this application. On that basis, it is considered that the scheme proposes and acceptable level of design within the context of the surrounding built environment, and is considered to be consistent and in accordance with Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.4 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.4.1 An important consideration in relation to this application is the Landscape and Visual Impact of the proposal. 8.4.2 Within the Eden Local Plan Policy DEV5, in part, seeks to ensure that development protects and where possible enhances the rural landscape. One of its several criterion states that development should ensure that it, ‘Protects and where possible enhances the district’s distinctive rural landscape, natural environment and biodiversity’. 8.4.3 This is further supported by Policy ENV2 entitled ‘Protection and Enhancements of Landscapes and Trees’ confirms that ‘new development will only be permitted where it

Page 66 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE conserves and enhances distinctive elements of landscape character and function’. It also confirms that as per criterion 5, the ‘tranquillity of the open countryside’ should be taken account of by any proposals submitted by an applicant. 8.4.4 In assessing the visual impact of the proposed attenuation basin, consideration should be given to Paragraph 124 of the NPPF which advises ‘the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning development process should achieve’. In addition, further consideration is given to paragraph 127 of the NPPF which confirms that ‘Planning Policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience’. 8.4.5 As noted previously, it is again important to recognise that the application site is located within an area of land, allocated for industrial use within the Eden Local Plan. This parcel of land is identified with Policy PEN1 as an appropriate extension to a long established Gilwilly Industrial Estate. It is noted that some objectors have raised concern that the scheme would be ‘out of character’ and inappropriate for the immediate area, with other areas considered more appropriate for development that do not require the loss of this greenfield site. Whilst these concerns are duly noted and understood, it must be remembered that the existing Gilwilly Industrial Estate is immediately to the South and West of the application site, with the applications sites land ‘allocation’ within the Local Plan is of critical consideration. 8.4.6 Whilst currently an underused parcel of greenfield land, the application site is allocated for an extension of Gilwilly Industrial Estate. Given that is the case, whilst the concerns raised are understood, the fact remains that the allocation status of the land, within the Local Plan, is established for employment land development as is proposed through this current application. In this regard, it is considered the acceptability of the loss of this area of land for industrial development, and the resultant landscape impacts, are already considered to be acceptable within the Eden Local Plan, and set out as being appropriate through its allocation. As such, whilst the concerns of objectors in this regard are again noted, as an allocated site they do not represent justifiable reasons for the refusal of this planning application.

Page 67 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.4.7 In allocating this land for employment use, the principle of the loss of this land and the change from its current appearance for future development as proposed, has already been established as acceptable following the adoption of the Eden Local Plan. The allocation effectively clarifies the intended use of the land and therefore, where an application comes forward to utilise the land in that already allocated way, it cannot be considered ‘out of character’ were it to be approved and implemented. 8.4.8 In addition, to the East of the site is the Thacka Beck Nature Reserve, which has been subject of the petition received against this application. This area of land is understood to be a welcome area of amenity space for many residents and users, in a part of Penrith dominated predominantly by Industrial type development. The receipt of a 60 signature petition is noted, and primarily the reason for this application being before the Planning Committee for consideration. It is noted that the petition raises concerns that the scheme as proposed would detrimentally impact the setting and character of the Nature Reserve. Whilst such concerns are understood, it is noted that no substantive evidence or assessment has been submitted to support this view. 8.4.9 Notwithstanding the views and objections that have been raised within the petition and from objectors, the allocation of this land in the Local Plan for industrial development, again has to be given due consideration and significant weight in regards to these concerns and the acceptability of the current application. It is important to note that the allocation of this land was given full consideration with regards to the location and proximity of the Nature Reserve at the time that the Eden Local Plan was adopted. As such, this land was not identified and subsequently allocated with the intent of the Nature Reserve then being able to then prevent any further expansion or future development. In the Local Plan making process, had it been considered that the expansion of the Industrial Estate in regards to allocated site 2A, would be so adversely harmful to the Nature Reserve, and to such an extent that outweighed the wider benefits of the sites development, then this parcel of land would not have been allocated for future growth and industrial development. 8.4.10 In consultation with Natural England on this application, it is noted that no comments or objections have been raised in regards to the proposed scheme and the perceived impacts upon the Nature Reserve. In landscape terms, the allocated status of the land must be recognised and afforded significant weight in the determination of this application. In that context, a scheme that would result in the construction of a building as proposed through this application, is considered to be in accordance with the sites allocation and therefore, the Local Plan. The development would not result in a demonstrably visually harmful scheme were it to be approved and subsequently developed. The proposed design, scale and use of the building is considered to be appropriate, and in line with the principle of the allocation and use of this land. 8.4.11 Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, it is considered that the proposal would not result in any adverse harm being caused to the character and appearance of the local area. Set against the immediate backdrop of the existing industrial estate, and as an area of allocated land for the future growth of the industrial estate, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of landscape impacts and would not result in any adverse harm beyond that already considered acceptable with the adoption of the Eden Local Plan. 8.4.12 Furthermore, the development is considered unlikely to result in any adverse or demonstrable harm to the nearby Thacka Nature Reserve, despite concerns that have been raised to the contrary within the petition that has been received in objection to the

Page 68 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE proposal. As such, the development is considered to be in-compliance with Policies DEV5 and ENV2 of the Eden Local Plan as well as the NPPF. 8.5 Drainage 8.5.1 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy DEV2, entitled ‘Water Management and Flood Risk’ confirms that ‘new development’ should ‘meet the sequential approach to development in flood risk areas’. 8.5.2 The Policy confirms that ‘new development must incorporate sustainable drainage systems (SUDs), where practicable, to manage surface water run-off. All applications for major development, defined in Appendix 2, will be subject to review by the Lead Local Flood Authority. Surface water should be discharged in the following order of priority: 1. To an adequate soakaway or some other form of infiltration system. 2. By an attenuated discharge to a watercourse. 3. By an attenuated discharge to a public surface water sewer. 4. By an attenuated discharge to a public combined sewer. Applicants will need to submit clear evidence demonstrating why there is no alternative option but to discharge surface water to the public sewerage system and that the additional discharge can be accommodated. The presumption will be against the discharge of surface water to the public sewerage network’. 8.5.3 Chapter 14 of the NPPF entitled ‘Planning for Climate Change’ confirms in paragraph 155 that, ‘Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere’. 8.5.4 Paragraph 158 of the NPPF states that, ‘The aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding. The strategic flood risk assessment will provide the basis for applying this test. The sequential approach should be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding’. 8.5.5 Paragraph 163 states that, ‘When determining any planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere. Where appropriate, applications should be supported by a site-specific flood-risk assessment. Development should only be allowed in areas at risk of flooding where, in the light of this assessment (and the sequential and exception tests, as applicable) it can be demonstrated that: a) within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location; b) the development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient; c) it incorporates sustainable drainage systems, unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate; d) any residual risk can be safely managed; and

Page 69 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE e) safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate, as part of an agreed emergency plan’. 8.5.6 The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and United Utilities (UU) were consulted upon the application. Both consultees have requested that a surface water drainage scheme condition be attached to any subsequent grant of planning permission. This, fundamentally, ensures that prior to the commencement of any subsequent development of the site, an appropriate drainage scheme would be submitted and ultimately approved for the site. The final drainage scheme would be developed in consideration of planning application 20/0242 were it also to be approved, taking into account the cumulative impact of both developments. Such conditions are included within the recommendation within Section 1 of the report. 8.5.7 The Environment Agency (EA) were consulted upon the proposed scheme and responded by confirming that the Flood Risk Assessment was acceptable and that the development would not exacerbate flood risk elsewhere nor would the development site be at unacceptable risk of flooding. 8.5.8 On the basis that the LLFA are satisfied with the imposition of a surface water drainage scheme (as are United Utilities), it is considered that the a final development can be achieved, with an appropriate drainage system engineered to ensure that there would be no adverse or increased flood risk either at the site or to any surrounding land. 8.5.9 Therefore, it is considered that appropriate drainage can be achieved for the site in accordance with Policy DEV2 of the Eden Plan and the NPPF. 8.6 Natural Environment 8.6.1 Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan, entitled ‘Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Geodiversity’ confirms that ‘new development will be required to avoid any net loss of biodiversity, and where possible enhance existing assets. Should emerging proposals identify potential impacts upon designated sites, regard should be given to the objectives for each of the hierarchy of sites’. 8.6.2 Chapter 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) entitled ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ confirms the national guidance on such matters. Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states that ‘Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan); b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland; c) maintaining the character of the undeveloped coast, while improving public access to it where appropriate; d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil,

Page 70 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans; and f) remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate’. 8.6.3 The site is noted to be an area of undeveloped and under-used greenfield land, located to the West of the Thacka Beck Nature Reserve. 8.6.4 As has been made clear in this report, the site is located within an existing parcel of land, allocated for the extension of the existing Industrial Estate. As such, the principle of the loss of this parcel of land for development has already been established as acceptable following the adoption of the Eden Local Plan. The applicant’s proposal is thus considered consistent with the allocated use and is noted to be approximately 100 metres from the aforementioned Nature Reserve. 8.6.5 In relation to the application site itself, the applicant has submitted an ecological appraisal of the site from, which has been updated by a Great Crested Newt ecological appraisal, to consider the implications of the development of the site upon protected species. The report confirms the following:  There are no known records of Great Crested Newts with the application site or any immediately surrounding land;  There are no potential breeding sites or Great Crested Newts within the application site;  There are no known records of Great Crested Newts within Thacka Nature Reserve although they have potential to support newts for breeding, foraging and sheltering;  The garden ponds near to the application site are unsuitable for Great Crested Newts. 8.6.6 The report confirms that there is a low risk of minor disturbance to Great Crested Newts, and as such includes a number of recommendations and mitigation to any future development of the site. Such matters are secured in the recommended conditions within this report. 8.6.7 In consultation with Natural England on this application, it is noted that no objections or comments were made to the proposal. As such, it is considered that there would be no significant impacts upon protected species were this development approved and any subsequent permission implemented. Notwithstanding this, any protected species are also protected by separate law (the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, amended by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (Amendment) (EU Exit) 2019). As such, regardless of whether planning permission is granted or not for this proposal, it would remain a criminal offence to kill or disturb such creatures under the aforementioned legislation. 8.6.8 In relation to the land surrounding the application site, no evidence has been provided that the scheme as proposed would have any significantly detrimental impacts upon any protected species nor the Nature Reserve. Indeed, the location and existence of the Nature Reserve is as a result of Environment Agency works undertaken in 2009/10.

Page 71 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE The Nature Reserve was thus designated in 2011, after the point at which the Industrial Estate was in place and operational, and before the site was allocated with the Eden Local Plan for future employment land extension. 8.6.9 Officers consider that the Nature Reserve augments the Industrial Estate. It is not in place to prevent any further extension of the Industrial Estate and in reality both have co-existed since the Nature Reserve became designated and indeed it is clear it is enjoyed in the way it was always hoped it would be by its users. It has been enjoyed regardless of the Industrial Estate already being located adjacent to it. It is considered that this extension would not result in discernible or detrimental impacts upon the nature reserve, or to an extent that would outweigh the benefits of the development of this allocated site. 8.6.10 Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, it is considered that the proposal would not result in any adverse impacts upon the natural environment beyond those already accepted with the allocation of the site within the Eden Local Plan. The supporting information provided by the applicant has confirmed that there would be no adverse impacts upon any protected species, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. As such, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with the requirements of Policy ENV1 of the Eden Local Plan and the NPPF. 8.7 Residential Amenity 8.7.1 The main consideration in the determination of this planning application, is the potential impact of the development upon the amenity of nearby neighbouring properties. The development of this area of allocated land, would bring the existing industrial estate closer to the properties identified earlier in this report. 8.7.2 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy DEV5 seeks to ensure that all development ‘Protects the amenity of the existing residents and business occupiers and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers’. 8.7.3 It is noted that one of the primary concerns raised by the individual letters of objection to the proposal, identify the impacts of the development upon neighbouring amenity and their quality of life as the main concern. This relates to perceived impacts of over- looking; loss of privacy; direct facing; loss of light and over-shadowing; and noise and dust disturbance. 8.7.4 It is agreed that the development proposed would undoubtedly result in an impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring properties to an extent that a degree of harm would be caused. However, this was also known at the time of the allocation of the site within the Eden Local Plan. Therefore, the critical issue and consideration that must be made is in regards to both the extent of that impact, specifically to ‘Melbourne Cottage’ and to ‘Melbourne House’ as the nearest residential dwellings. In assessment of this matter, it is considered that the degree of harm, and the extent of the impact would not be so significantly adverse so as to warrant the refusal of this application. However, it is important to note that this matter is considered by officers to be finely balanced. 8.7.5 In relation to the impacts of over-looking, loss of privacy and loss of light/over- shadowing, the concerns raised by objectors are duly noted and understood. Whilst the erection of this building would be both visible from and alter the outlook from both properties, this does not in itself demonstrate harm. Although it is acknowledged that there is a slight slope and gradient from the proposed building towards Thacka Lane, the design, scale and separation distance that exists from the building itself, would

Page 72 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE ensure that an acceptable level of amenity would be retained to both ‘Melbourne Cottage’ and ‘Melbourne House’. 8.7.6 The proposed building would be located approximately 30 metres from ‘Melbourne Cottage’ and 110 metres from ‘Melbourne House’. Whilst it would be preferable for such distances to be greater, and whilst on the limit of acceptability, these are considered to be a sufficient separation distances to ensure that there would be no significantly adverse impacts result from over shadowing or loss of light. 8.7.7 Furthermore, due to the proposed use of the building and the limited of higher level window openings facing towards either property (being restricted to just the glazed entrance to the building on the north elevation at a slightly obscured angle towards ‘Melbourne Cottage’), again the separation distances would ensure that there would be no significantly adverse impacts of direct facing, overlooking or loss of privacy. Whilst the erection of this building would be both visible from and alter the outlook from both properties, this does not in itself demonstrate harm. 8.7.8 In relation to impacts of noise, this matter has been subject of extensive discussions and negotiations between the applicant and the Environmental Health Officer. These discussions have resulted in the application as submitted, being amended to remove the B1, B2 and B8 uses originally proposed. These proposed uses had the greatest potential for noise generation and emissions. As such, their removal significantly reduces the potential impacts of noise upon the development upon the neighbouring properties. 8.7.9 Furthermore, it is noted that the applicant proposes to construct an acoustic bund along the northern boundary of the site. The bund and plantings in itself would do not limit or screen the visual impact of the development, but it would be an appropriate measure and form of mitigation to further reduce the impact of noise affecting the aforementioned dwellings. This is further combined by there being no sources of noise on the roof of the building. 8.7.10 As a result of the changes made to the application, and the inclusion of the extended acoustic bund, the Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that they are satisfied that the scheme and the potential impacts upon the amenity of any neighbouring property. This response is caveated by the need for the imposition of further conditions relating to the submission of a further noise assessment to identify and quantify all noise sources form the development, in addition to the submission of a Construction Management Plan, both prior to the commencement of the development. 8.7.11 On the basis that the aforementioned conditions are imposed, satisfactorily discharged and implemented on site, is considered that the impacts of noise upon the nearest neighbouring dwellings would not be significantly adverse or warrant the refusal of this planning application. 8.7.12 Furthermore, the building proposed and its use would not be permitted to be occupied 24 hours a day. In this regard the hours of use are restricted by the condition within section 1 of this report, which prohibits use during the most noise sensitive times of the day. This further mitigation also limits the impact of the development upon the nearest neighbouring dwellings. 8.7.13 In relation to concerns raised regarding construction works, it is acknowledged that during any demolition or construction period, there is the potential for impacts upon local amenity and local residents. However this impact is to be expected for a temporary period until the development is completed. The inclusion of appropriate

Page 73 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE controls and mitigation secured through the imposition of conditions, deal with such matters satisfactorily, through limiting the times of the day that construction works can take place, to again avoid the most noise sensitive times of the day. 8.7.14 Overall, the concerns relating to noise disturbance raised by objectors are fully understood, and do represent an important and balanced consideration in the determination of this application. The Local Plan seeks to protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings and residents, but also seeks to find a balance between amenity and providing identified employment need for the district. At times this can represent a difficult balance to strike, and in the case of this application, it is more finely balanced than in most. 8.7.15 However, it must again be stressed that the principle of the use of the site for industrial and employment land provision has been established through the sites allocation within the Local Plan. This allocation accepts the change in the use of this land and the likely implications this would have upon neighbouring amenity. The applicant has demonstrated that the specific noise emissions from the site would not result in a demonstrably and significantly harmful impact upon the amenity of ‘Melbourne Cottage’ or ‘Melbourne House’, with the imposition of appropriate conditions, this position is supported by the Environmental Health Officer. 8.7.16 Overall, it is noted that the proposed development will result in an impact upon the amenity of the two nearest residential dwellings, in particular ‘Melbourne Cottage’, which will result in a degree of harm. However, for the reasons detailed above, it is considered that whilst finely balanced, the impact of the proposed development would not be so significantly harmful or adverse so as to warrant the refusal of this application. Therefore, the proposed development can be, on balance, considered sufficiently in-compliance with Policy DEV5 of the Local Plan and the NPPF. 8.8 Highways 8.8.1 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan, entitled ‘Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way’ states that ‘development will be refused if it will result in a severe impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion. Development should provide safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people’. 8.8.2 Paragraph 109 of the NPPF affirms that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. 8.8.3 The development would involve the creation of a new access onto the industrial unit off Greenbank Road which then leads onto the wider highway network. The Local Highway Authority has been consulted upon the application and following extended negotiations and discussions with the applicant, it has been confirmed that there is no objection to the proposal. It is requested by the Highway Authority that a number of conditions be attached to the decision notice should planning permission be approved, which are included within the recommendation in this report. The imposition of these conditions ensures that the developer will provide the details related to the highways, kerbs, footpaths etc. to appropriate standards, in addition to further monitoring of the Transport Plan. 8.8.4 In terms of wider impacts, it is noted that the road network throughout the industrial estate has been designed and constructed to facilitate the type, volume and nature of traffic movements that would result from this development, in addition to those that are

Page 74 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE presently generated by other units and businesses on the site. In this regard, no concerns have been raised by the Highway Authority in relation to wider capacity issues for this road network. 8.8.5 In relation to sustainable transport modes, the application confirms that sustainable transport, by both pedestrians and cyclists can be achieved to the site. Due to the sites position on the edge of Penrith, the proposed development would enable access to the site by both means, with sustainable footpath and pavement connections providing a safe and sustainable pedestrian link to the remainder of Penrith and also Penrith Train Station which is located approximately 1 to 1.5 miles from the site. The applicant does propose 4 cycle spaces as part of the proposal. 8.8.6 As such, whilst future employees may likely access the site by means of car, and the number of cycle spaces is not significant, nonetheless the site would not sit in an isolated location which would solely rely or be dependent upon the use of the car. As such, the site can be considered a sustainable location and development, and afforded appropriate weight in the determination of this planning application. 8.8.7 As such, it is considered that appropriate highway access can be achieved for the site and the proposed development. No concerns arise in relation to highway safety or capacity impacts, with the local highway network being capable of absorbing the vehicle movements generated by this development. This view is supported by the Highway Authority who raise no objections to the proposal subject to the aforementioned conditions as further mitigation. 8.8.8 Accordingly, it is considered that there would be no adverse impacts relating to highways or access arising from this development, with sustainable transport options available to future employees. As such, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights

Page 75 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10. Conclusion 10.1 The application proposes a D1 Use, seeking the erection of a private training pool, which would employ up to 5 members of staff. 10.2 As an allocated site for employment land within the Eden Local Plan for employment growth associated with Penrith, and as an extension to Gilwilly Industrial Estate, the principle of the proposed development is considered to be acceptable and established. This application would utilise a portion of the land allocated for an appropriate use. 10.3 A number of objections have been raised to the proposal, including a 60 name signed petition. The objections raise a number of concerns, primarily in relation to the adverse impacts upon neighbouring amenity, the character of the area, the appropriateness of the use of the land, and the adverse impacts they consider will result to Thacka Nature Reserve. 10.4 Notwithstanding the objections that have been received, and whilst it is noted that the proposed building is relatively large in size, it is considered that the design, scale and appearance of the building are appropriate and in-keeping with the wider Gilwilly Industrial Estate, to which this proposal will serve as an extension. 10.5 It is considered that there are no adverse visual impacts result from the development to the character of the area, beyond those expected when the site was allocated for employment land use and as an extension to Gilwilly Industrial Estate. Furthermore, the development can be satisfactorily served by appropriate infrastructure in terms of access and drainage provision. 10.6 There would undoubtedly be an impact upon the amenity of the nearby residential dwellings of ‘Melbourne Cottage’ and ‘Melbourne House’, and in this regard the application is more finely balanced. However, whilst the extent of the impact is noted, it is considered that the development would not be so significantly harmful as to warrant the refusal of this planning application. Furthermore, additional mitigation will be offered through the imposition of conditions to further reduce the extent and impact of the harm to an acceptable level. 10.7 Overall, the planning balance is considered to be weighted in support of this application, which is considered to be in-compliance with the requirements of the Eden Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. 10.8 Therefore, the application is recommended for approval.

Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Development

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 03.02.2021

Background Papers: Planning File 20/0402

Page 76 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Date of Committee: 18 February 2021

Planning Application No: 20/0771 Date Received: 15 October 2020

OS Grid Ref: NY 362026, Expiry Date: 10 December 2020 534778 (time extension to 26 February 2021)

Parish: Ousby Ward: Hartside

Application Type: Outline

Proposal: Proposed residential development

Location: Site adjacent Meadow Close, Ousby

Applicant: Mr Boulton

Agent: Graham K Norman (Architect) Ltd

Case Officer: Caroline Brier

Reason for Referral: Proposal has been called in on material planning grounds by the Parish Council and a member of the public.

Page 77 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 78 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: Time limit for commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of two years from the date of the approval of the last reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the latter. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. Application for approval of all reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 3. Approval of the details of the scale, layout, and external appearance of the building, means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: The application is in outline form only and is not accompanied by full detailed plans. Approved Plans 4. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved: i. Application Form received 9 October 2020 ii. Location Plan (120-171-01) received 9 October 2020 iii. Design and Access Statements received 15 October 2020 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Before the development is commenced 5. The carriageway, footways, footpaths, cycleways etc. shall be designed, constructed, drained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is complete. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the

Page 79 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE policies of the Development Plan. 6. Full details of the surface water drainage system (incorporating SUDs features as far as practicable) and a maintenance schedule (identifying the responsible parties) 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 thereafter in accordance with the schedule. Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. To ensure the surface water system continues to function as designed and that flood risk is not increased within the site or elsewhere. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. Pre-occupancy or other stage conditions 7. The dwelling shall not be occupied until the vehicular access and turning requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan and has been brought into use. The vehicular access turning provisions shall be retained and capable of use at all times thereafter and shall not be removed or altered. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of access provision when the development is brought into use. Ongoing Conditions 8. Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems. Reason: To secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. 9. Construction works shall be carried out only between 0800 – 1800 hours Mondays – Fridays; 0900 – 1300 hours on Saturdays and there shall be no activity on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of residents living nearby. 10. The occupation of any of the approved dwellings at Site adjacent Meadow Close, Ousby shall be limited to a person(s) with a local connection to the locality, or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident Dependants. Locality refers to the parish and surrounding parishes. In the first instance, if a property has been actively marketed for at least six months and an occupier cannot be found then the definition of locality will be extended out to include the County of Cumbria. A person with a local connection means a person who meets one of the following criteria:  The person lives in the locality and has done for a continuous period of at least three years.  The person works permanently in the locality for a minimum of 16 hours per week. Where a person is employed in an established business that operates in multiple locations, their employment activities should take

Page 80 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE place predominantly inside the locality.  The person has a firm offer of permanent employment, for a minimum of 16 hours per week in an already established business within the locality.  The person has moved away but has a strong established and continuous links with the locality by reason of birth or long term immediate family connections.  The person needs to live in the locality because they need substantial care from a relative who has lived in the locality for at least three years, or needs to provide substantial care to a relative who has lived in the locality at least three years. Substantial care means that identified as required by a medical doctor or relevant statutory support agency. Reason: To provide housing to meet local needs and support the village in accordance with policy HS2 of the local development plan. 11 The dwellings hereby approval shall not exceed 150 sqm gross internal floor space. Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the area and in accordance with Policy HS2 Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets. Informative:  If the application is approved the applicant must not commence works, or allow any person to perform works, on any part of the highway until in receipt of an appropriate permit allowing such works. They will need to contact Streetworks East [email protected] for the appropriate permit. 2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 This proposal seeks outline planning approval for a residential development with all matters reserved. The submitted indicative layout plan indicates the development of a detached dwelling and a pair of semi-detached dwellings. However, the matters of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale would be considered at the Reserved Matters stage. 2.1.2 The access is shown as being gained through Meadow Close, this would appear to be the only available access to the site, however it is noted that the plan provided is indicative and may not reflect the final proposal if approved. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site is located on a small parcel of undeveloped grazing land to the southern end of Ullesby Gardens and Meadow Close which recently gained planning permission for housing developments. 2.2.2 The site is within the centre of the village of Ousby and measures approximately 0.3 acres. 2.2.3 The site sees residential curtilages on all sides, with 3 and 4 Meadow Close being to the north and approximately 2 metres and 7 metres from the boundary respectively. Bradley Cottage is located approximately 15 metres to the south of the boundary and its curtilage wraps around the southern and eastern boundary. Also to the south is Fell View, located approximately 20 metres from the boundary and to

Page 81 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE the west/south west is Bradley Foot, which is a grade II listed building and located approximately 25 metres from the boundary. 2.2.4 The site is not listed, or within a conservation area and is within a flood zone 1. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority A response was received on the 19 November 2020 raising no objection and noting that the access is to be taken from within the new Ullesby Gardens and Meadow Close which are currently private though the details state to be adopted roads. It is also noted that adequate parking has been provided. Conditions and an informative are recommended (see recommendation). Lead Local Flood Authority A response was received on the 19 November 2020 raising no objection and noting there are no records of minor surface water flooding to the site. It is noted that no foul or surface water details have been provided and a plan would be required to show both separate foul and surface water drainage. Conditions are recommended in this regard (see recommendation). 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response United Utilities A response was received on the 17 November 2020 raising no objection to the proposal and advising ‘it is the applicant's responsibility to investigate the possibility of any United Utilities’ assets potentially impacted by their proposals and to demonstrate the exact relationship between any United Utilities' assets and the proposed development’. Environmental Health A response was received on the 29 October 2020 advising ‘details should be submitted with regards to the disposal of foul effluent for the development. To be agreed with the Planning Department’. Housing A response was received on the 4 December 2020 advising: ‘I note there had been previous advice from the housing team regarding these three sites also and would firstly comment on that advice; 16/0014 Joanna Smails (e mail 26 January 2016) stated the requirement was for 30% affordable

Page 82 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE units. As per the current table this would have been a commuted sum, especially as there is no demand for this area. I note Joanna took this opportunity to advise about the discounted sales and perhaps this was a viable option at that time. 17/0432 Joanna Smails (e mail 23 June 2017) Joanna stated there was no requirement for a development of 5 but did highlight the piecemeal nature of the site. It would have been a more opportune time for combining these two applications in relation to affordable housing supply. 20/0771 My comments would firstly address this parcelling of land (in my opinion to evade the obligation in relation to affordable housing supply, although there could be other benefits to not applying for all three sites as one). The design and Access statement provided by their agent, states; ‘The proposed dwellings will fit ‘snugly’ into the site and will efficiently and effectively terminate the development of this site at Ousby’. This confirms the relationship between the previous applications and the layout. This outline application is for 3 market led dwellings and as such and in its own right, this would have no affordable housing or financial contribution applied. However if the three applications were to be connected, this would give a total of 14 dwellings. This number would be eligible for 30% contribution, (4.2 rounded down to 4). As 1 affordable unit may have already been provided, this would leave a deficit of 3 or all of the 3 within this application. As mentioned above, this would have been better applied at the time of the 2017 application and it may be worth getting a technical legal opinion as to whether it could be applied in retrospect. If this is not the case, the developer could merely abandon plans for the remaining 3 units and in effect cut his losses when really and for the first 2 sites, there would be an outstanding balance of 2 affordable housing units (11 X 30% = 3.3, rounded down to 3 minus the one provided). I hope this provides enough input from the housing team however it appears the issue of parcelling and piecemeal development need to be clarified, along with some legal input perhaps. Below, I have included my observations in this regard along with the relevant extracts.

Page 83 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE The SPD (HS1 2.2.6) 2020 states; 2.2.6 It will not be acceptable to sub-divide sites and submit applications in a piecemeal fashion to avoid making affordable housing contributions. The Council will consider land ownership arrangements, connectivity between sites (including services and access), fragmentation of units or land, age of previous permissions, etc. A field that is subsequently sub-divided and brought forward in a piecemeal fashion as separate parcels affordable housing requirements will apply and take into account dwellings on previous developments, which are considered to form part of one site. Given the considerations within the SPD (which was also highlighted within the previous version of the SPD 2013, page 13) above, I would find as follows; • Ownership; there is definite land ownership connectivity, (between Willan Trading Ltd and Mr J Boulton). This is demonstrated on the land charges information exchanged as part of the 16/0014 legal and deed modifications. It is also demonstrated throughout the section 106 (and the deed of variation) attached to the land and attached to application 16/0014, (land charges ID78097). The applicant details for each of the applications also corresponds with this. (The ownership is also mentioned in the extract from Nick Atkinsons report below). • Connectivity between sites; It is obvious that the sites are connected and that access to each and every subsequent site has been left for future development. The 3 applications together form a very cohesive development (i.e. as though it was conceived as one). Also see below, the extract from Nick Atkinsons committee report for the 17th of August 2017 planning committee (appeal re 17/0432), whereby the developer uses this cohesion as their argument for approval. • Age of permissions; It appears the applications which are relevant (16/0014, 17/0432 and 20/0771) are all within the last 3 years or so and definitely within the current local plan period. There is therefore not enough time lapse between these applications that could be considered material to any case for the applicant.

Page 84 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Extract from 17 August 2017 appeal report; 2.1.3 The applicant considers that the current application represents a logical extension to the adjacent housing development located to the north of the site, which is currently under construction following the grant of planning permission 12/0345. The land subject of planning permission 12/0345 was previously within the same ownership as the current applicant, and was considered to be one planning unit. The land has subsequently been sold separately prior to the submission of this planning application’. Planning Policy A response was received on the 16 December 2020 advising: ‘We have come to the conclusion that it would be unreasonable to require affordable housing at this late stage in the development of the wider site. The application site is a small part of a wider site, which appears to have been sub-divided into three separate applications. The current guidance in paragraph 2.2.6 of the Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2020) states: ‘It will not be acceptable to sub-divide sites and submit applications in a piecemeal fashion to avoid making affordable housing contributions. The Council will consider land ownership arrangements, connectivity between sites (including services and access), fragmentation of units or land, age of previous permissions, etc. A field that is subsequently sub-divided and brought forward in a piecemeal fashion as separate parcels affordable housing requirements will apply and take into account dwellings on previous developments, which are considered to form part of one site’. The 2010 Housing SPD did contain similar wording to the above and was adopted at the time the previous applications were considered. ‘It will be important to ensure that applications are not submitted in a piecemeal manner in order to avoid the requirements for affordable housing. This possibility will be addressed by the Council requiring the numbers of affordable housing units to be specified at the outline planning application stage and by requiring comprehensive development proposals for the development of sites, including numbers of affordable units to be specified along with phasing schemes and the refusal of applications on the grounds of

Page 85 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE insufficient information where such information is withheld’. However, there does not appear to be information relating to a plan for the entire site included in the outline applications for the northern area of the site (12/0345 and 17/0432), nor is there reference to the above guidance in the Committee and Appeal Reports for these applications. Although it appears that applications on this site have been submitted in a piecemeal fashion and the 2010 and 2020 guidance does not support this, it should be taken into account that at the time the previous applications were considered they were not deemed to be piecemeal and no information regarding phasing schemes was submitted. Furthermore they were not refused on the grounds of insufficient information on this matter. Therefore it would be unreasonable to apply the guidance now and consequently require 30% affordable housing across the whole site’. 4. Parish Council Response Please Tick as Appropriate No View Parish Council Object Support No Response Expressed Ousby  4.1 A response was received on the 12 November 2020 advising ‘As owner of Ousby village green, Ousby parish council objects to planning application 20/0771 and makes the following observations: 1. Ousby village green is located to the north east in close proximity to the above proposed development site. Ousby village green was registered by Cumbria County Council (reference VG 15) under the Commons Registration Act 1965 Section 8 (3). Ousby parish council was also recorded as the rightful owner of Ousby village green with the Land Registry in August 2016. 2. When initial planning application 12/0345 was submitted to commence, in stages, development of this open green space (field number 0086), Ousby parish council expressed concern about future arrangements for the surface water drains from Ousby village green. These drains had been located without any maintenance problems for decades in the agricultural field proposed for development. 3. At no time since 2012 has the landowner, building contractor, their agent or their architect made contact with Ousby parish council about alternative arrangements for the relocation of surface water drains from Ousby village green, now presumed to be buried somewhere under properties in Ullesby Gardens and Meadow Close.

Page 86 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 4. Since occupation of the residential units erected in Meadow Close (phase II of the development programme by the same landowner and building contractor under planning application 17/0432), the children’s play area at the lower side of the village green nearest to the proposed site has become permanently sodden and slippery. At times, the parish council has needed to notify children and parents that the play area is temporarily unusable. This flooding of the play area cannot be solely attributed to climate change, as the recreational land which was previously dry and solid now remains noticeably boggy, even in extended periods of warm, dry weather. Our investigation has identified there would seem to be a problem with the land drain soakaway serving Ousby village green. 5. The government’s flood warning information service identifies there is a long- term high risk of flooding from surface water at a property in Bradley that almost adjoins the proposed site, if the postcode for the proposed development site is entered on their search website. Ousby parish council requests that application 20/0771 is considered against criteria contained within policy Dev 2 (water management and flood risk) of Eden Local Plan 2014-32, which states that development will not be permitted in critical drainage areas which have a history of groundwater flooding or where it would increase flood risk elsewhere. Ousby parish council is concerned that the proposals of planning application 20/0771 for a further 3 dwellings will exacerbate the relatively recent surface water flooding issues on Ousby village green and further damage the children’s play area that was provided by local residents’. 4.2 A further response was received from the Parish Council on the 12 November 2020, stating: ‘Ousby parish council objects to outline planning application 20/0771 and makes the following observations: 1. Outline planning application 20/0771 proposes the construction of 3 No. market- led residential units of 3 bedroom size, one potentially with a separate garage. The three properties are to be squeezed into a small open field area adjacent to Meadow Close, where 5 No. market-led properties were recently completed as phase II of a development programme by the same landowner and contractor. The phased development of field 0086 has already been considered and refused by EDC planning committee on several previous occasions, namely planning applications 04/1077, 12/0345 and 17/0432. Although the design statement that accompanies application 20/0771 refers to the proposed development area as a “vacant building plot”, this is not how local residents view the green space. Many have suggested it could become a garden extension for neighbouring properties in Meadow Close or Bradley, village allotments or even be let as grazing for a pony or donkey. 2. Ousby is included within the list of ‘smaller villages and hamlets’ at policy LS1 of Eden Local Plan 2014-2032. The policy explanation states that any development in a smaller village or hamlet will be constrained by the requirement for any proposal to meet local demand only and will be restricted by the local connection criteria identified Eden Local Plan appendix 6. This requirement is reiterated at paragraph 3.1.5. There is documented housing survey evidence of the local need for ‘affordable’ rented accommodation. The

Page 87 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE proposed 3 No. dwellings offering 3 bedrooms are intended for the open market and are therefore unlikely to be financially accessible to local people already living and working in the area. 3. The application indicates that drainage arrangements will be similar to those in phases I (Ullesby Gardens) and II (Meadow Close) where surface water will be directed into soakaways in individual gardens and foul water will drain to a shared treatment plant and soakaway currently serving Meadow Close. Alarmingly, no mention has been made of the drainage systems from existing homes to the south in Bradley (Fell View and The Bungalow) that criss-cross the same proposed green development area. These existing surface water drains were recently relocated within the proposed 20/0771 development area by the building contractor responsible for Meadow Close. Contrary to Eden Local Plan policy DEV 2, the combined surface water and sewerage treatment plant run-off for the proposed development could place adjacent properties at increased risk of flood, particularly if the drainage systems from existing homes in Bradley are compromised by the proposed building work. Residents of both Ullesby Gardens and Meadow Close can attest to the serious on- going difficulties experienced with inadequate surface water drainage facilities and the existing foul water treatment plant and associated outflow drainage system. The plans indicate that the three proposed new dwellings will connect to the existing foul water drainage system in Meadow Close, which from evidence to date, is unable to cope with current volumes, let alone any additional foul water. It should be noted once more that there are no mains sewerage treatment facilities in Ousby. Further development in Ousby should be constrained by the lack of adequate sewerage treatment facilities, yet housing applications continue to be approved. 4. Contrary to the criteria of Eden Local Plan policy DEV 3, Ousby has no regular public transport that can be used for access to employment, education, health services etc. The location of this proposed residential development in Ousby will make the residents of the new dwellings reliant on private cars to access shops, services and employment opportunities. If given approval, the plans indicate it is anticipated that a minimum of 9 additional vehicles will increase traffic congestion along the C3004 lane in/out of the village The C3004 can only be accessed from the proposed development area via the un-adopted road through Meadow Close. The maintenance of this un-adopted road is funded by the five Meadow Close householders. 5. The explanation for Eden Local Plan policy DEV 4 states it is essential that new development is supported by the infrastructure it needs to function and that new development does not increase pressure on existing infrastructure. Over the last eighteen months, there have been regular interruptions to power supplies in the centre of Ousby, which Electricity North West engineers have attributed to the inadequacy of the electricity circuit to accommodate the demands of the Meadow Close households. The power demands of three further proposed households will not improve the unreliable performance of the existing electricity infrastructure. 6. The development of field 0086 started in 2012 and has since been ‘salami- sliced’ into three sequential phases of 6, 5 and 3 dwellings. As confirmed in the

Page 88 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE letter accompanying previous application 17/0432, there was a deliberate decision to construct no more than 5 units in phase II (Meadow Close) so that there would be no requirement for any ‘affordable’ accommodation to be provided. If the latest 20/0771 proposal for three additional residential units is approved, this will bring the total number of houses in field 0086 to 14. According to Eden Local Plan policy HS1, on schemes with 11 or more units 30% of all new housing should be ‘affordable’ units. Regrettably, acceptance of three development phases for field 0086 has denied local people access to potentially 4 ‘affordable’ units – to date, only one has been provided in phase I (Ullesby Gardens). In light of the observations above, Ousby parish council requests that application 20/0771 is referred to EDC Planning Committee so that Members can assess for themselves the detrimental effect this phased residential development has had, and could continue to have, on the local community. If the referral is agreed, Ousby parish council also requests that arrangements are made for one of their councillors to address the planning committee’. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 3 November 2020. No of Neighbours Consulted 18 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 9 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 9 5.2 Letters of objection raised the following material considerations to the application:  Road safety will be impacted due to extra traffic and overspill car parking.  Considerable amount of drainage under the proposed plot which could possibly be damaged.  Ground surrounding buildings very boggy.  Site too small for 3 houses and out of character with existing development.  Ousby is classified in your local plan as a Village/Hamlet. Your target build within this classified area was 479 properties of which 125 have already been built and a further 647 have either been permitted or are under construction. This allocation gives an overbuild projection of 293 and the development of this site will add more to the overbuild projection Ullesby Gardens and Meadow Close are accessed via a Private road to the two small estates.  Dev 2 Water Management and Flood Risk, currently properties suffer from considerable drainage problems as soakaways are not keeping up with the amount of water accumulating in and around the area. The proposed development site currently helps with the drainage issues of all the surrounding properties.  Although the large soakaway and two infiltration field areas are detailed on the plans the actual area affected by water runoff is going to be larger as the water percolates into the surrounding ground. The Defra groundwater vulnerability map (datasets provided by the Environment Agency) defines the proposed development site and the surrounding area as a vulnerable ‘High Risk’ ground water flood area. https://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx. Two surface water flood areas have already been identified. One on the boundary of the proposed

Page 89 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE development and one large High Risk’ area in Bradley Farm which is within 50- 60m of the plot, see: https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/long-term- flood-risk/map?easting=362019.44&northing=534835.99&map=SurfaceWater. Storm water runoff from these areas already significantly impacts properties locally.  Should drainage issues be exacerbated by the proposed new built then there is ample potential for future structural damage or subsidence to existing properties on the Meadow Close/Ullesby Garden Site. Be aware, structural issue have already had be addressed on one of the properties on the Meadow Close site with cracking on the sides of the property.  DEV 4 Infrastructure and Implementation. The Village of Ousby lacks capacity to continually build properties in this area. Existing infrastructure is limited, and no mains sewerage is available therefore the dwellings have to rely on septic tanks or sewage filtration systems to remove human waste. This, in the medium term must have a detrimental impact on the surrounding land particularly on the sight of these treatment plants/cesspits. Building more and more properties without modern sewage systems in place is having a significant environmental impact on the surrounding land particularly as Ousby lies in or is extremely close to a designated area of outstanding natural beauty.  Affordable Housing your HS1 policy states that 30% of all new houses on sites 11+ units should be affordable. With the proposed new build this completed development (potentially 14 residences) should provide for 4 affordable units. However, the site has been divided into 3 sub sites and no consideration has been given to the additional 2 affordable properties that should have been built had the site been sold as a single plat. These affordable homes would obviously benefit young residents living locally, many of whom are unable to afford properties in their own villages.  Village infrastructure is extremely limited. The access to the site is via the private road. Waste disposal is currently carried out by the council and occupants of both estates leave household waste at the end of the road at the access point. There is barely sufficient room for the waste of the current households let alone adding additional waste removal requirements for thee additional properties.  Whilst I understand the need to house build, this proposed development offers no benefit to this small village community whatsoever. The village lacks mains gas and mains sewage and the cost to install the necessary pipework to rectify this would be prohibitive. In effect we have a village with 19th century infrastructure that developers are being allowed to build 21st century housing estates upon with no regard to the local populous concerns or worries.  The soakaway for Fell View is located somewhere in the proposed development plot.  The proposed development land is higher than the Meadow Close properties and is significantly higher than all the Low Bradley buildings and curtilage which have Grade II Listed protection. Therefore, any storm water runoff from the proposed development will transfer to the roads and properties downhill of the site.  It is our view that to allow the development to be built will cause flooding issues not only to the neighbouring properties but also to properties further down the valley towards the junction next to the Fox Inn car park and beyond. Having read previous planning applications made by Willan Trading Limited, numerous

Page 90 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Ousby residents and the Parish Council voiced concerns about ground saturation and flooding – they were right to do so!  All the buildings within Bradley Foot and its curtilage are Grade II Listed and as such are afforded protection. We would like to make the following representations:  Bradley Foot is only about 60m from the edge of the development and the land drops down by about 0.5 – 1 metre over that distance towards the buildings of the listed property. Therefore, the building could easily become prone to flooding.  Bradley Foot would not be protected in terms of conservation, setting, aspect, character and appearance due to the close proximity of a new and compact housing development that would become the complete backdrop of the property. Harm would be caused to a designated heritage asset where the public would get no benefit at all. 5.3 Letters of objection raised the following non-material considerations:  Soakaway system for two neighbouring properties in the land subject to this proposal.  Written permission from original land owner for drainage into this land.  Drainage moved into this area of land when Meadow Close being built as existing drainage was too close to this new development.  The two semi-detached houses proposed would be on top of neighbouring properties drains which is illegal.  Existing residents have to pay monthly to an Estate Management Company for the roads maintenance and also public liability insurance. More traffic will mean more wear and tear.  Will these houses be part of the estate rules and covenants, no parking for trade persons, no more than two pets, no trees above fence line etc.?  How will sewerage work for residents of Meadow Close who have their own treatment plant, which is also included in the monthly maintenance charges?  The current owner of the proposed build site has had no input into the costs or the upkeep of the current estate but is expecting to access the building site, potentially causing damage to the road and underlying sewage system pipes and other utility works. Substantial issues have already arisen with the sewage system feeding Ullesby Gardens with broken pumps and pump electrical installation issues.  Surface water on the road, drains not adequate to take it.  A house would overshadow No. 3 Meadow Close and properties adjacent.  Housing Type and Mix your HS 4 Policy. Outline Plans submitted for this development shows a build of 1 detached and 2 semi-detached properties. The scale of the works particularly the development of Properties 2 and 3 will have an oppressive impact as the width of the land is just over 20 metres with these properties being described as having a snug fit. This is not in keeping with the current development on Meadow close and Ullesby Gardens where each property has sizable surrounding land.  The house annotated as number 1 to be built on the Eastern side of the development is completely out of character with the current estates as all properties on the Eastern side are Bungalows and the outline plan suggests a house. Should this be the case then the house would significantly overshadow the bungalow at 3 Meadow Close as it is to be built to the south of this property,

Page 91 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE potentially blocking sunlight and casting a long shadow of the said bungalow Household waste disposal area.  Due to the close proximity of the proposed building site to currently occupied private residences, there would be unacceptable significant intrusion in the form of building noise nuisance, general disturbance, site vehicular traffic nuisance and general traffic access problems for occupants of Meadow Close. Parking for tradesmen is not available and Meadow Close road parking will block/disrupt everyday access for current residents. Building of these proposed properties will entail extensive disruption to residents as vehicular access is only available via the single access to the estate. Properties on the Close will be subject to significant noise and dust disruption, muddied roads and up to 12 months of unacceptable disturbance.  Access to the suggested development is gained by travelling along a small country road then turning in the Ullesby Gardens/Meadow Close estate via a sharp narrow opening. Access is restricted due to the width of both the village road and the estate entrance road. Moreover, all properties on the 2 conjoint estates are occupied and small children play in the area, currently in full safety. Continuous movement of HGV and Trade transport will be an important issue as there is no parking area for Tradesmen/Builders to park or for HGV Lorries to manoeuvre or turn within the estate.  The proposed building land adjacent to my house is helping to drain excess water prior to it arriving on the estate. My garden is sodden wet and unusable from October until early March due to excessive waterlogging. The current soakaways in the gardens are not able to handle the amount of water coming from the roofs of the properties and this coupled with water currently draining downstream from this proposed building land in only making matter worse.  With heavy rainfall, the water runs down the road outside the front of our property and the drainage system cannot handle this outflow as it is. Additionally, significant problems are coming to light at the sewage treatment works between Meadow Close and Ullesby Gardens (feeding the latter estate with effluent disposal). This septic system is not working correctly to process the effluent and waste. Sewage is backing up and not being processed as it should be with what appears to be raw sewage leaking into the soakaway from the system. The environmental agency is being informed of this.  Drainage is so poor that the village green at the bottom of my garden is waterlogged to the point that the children’s play area is effectively unusable.  The outline plan for this development shows 3 houses are to be built with separate septic tanks for each property coupled to parking facilities for 8 vehicles. Even this plan suggests that this is a snug fit build. (A technical term for crammed dwelling I suggest) The current owner of the land is only interested in maximising his profits as the land has been sold in 3 separate plots, possibly to avoid building 30% of the properties as affordable homes. Additionally, a turning circle is apparently to be added on the same small piece of land. The size of the build site is nowhere near large enough for this size of development.  There will be a noticeable increase in traffic in the vicinity considering outline planning has allocated parking for nine resident’s vehicles including a garage. That is without taking into consideration visitor and delivery vehicles driving to and from those addresses. Can it please be noted the ‘Design and Access Statement’ refers to the proposed development as being a, “small level cul-de- sac with sufficient allowance for turning”. On viewing the basic plan, it is obvious

Page 92 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE no allowance has been made for vehicles to turn within the proposed development. What will happen is either vehicles visiting the three properties will park in Meadow Close or reverse into Meadow Close prior to leaving. The main purpose of the short section of Meadow Close that turns towards the side of 4 Meadow Close is to allow maintenance vehicles to access the sewage treatment plant and to maintain the common areas.  The majority of properties built in Phase I and II of the Willan Trading Limited development experience considerable drainage problems because the domestic soakaways are not large enough to cope with storm water runoff from roofs and hard surfaces within the property curtilage. The rear gardens of all the Meadow Close properties and three in Ullesby Gardens are like a quagmire for a large part of the year. An example of this is the domestic soakaway for our property has not been installed anywhere near the location agreed during the planning process and does not appear to have the required capacity to deal with storm water runoff.  None of the Meadow Close properties have concrete permeable paving blocks laid on their driveways as per 18/0445, Proposed-Site-Plan.pdf. Therefore, none of the driveways are Sustainable Urban Drainage (SuDS) compliant. Currently storm water runoff is either sent into the road storm water runoff soakaway that appears to be struggling to deal with the volume of water or into the undersized and poorly located domestic soakaways. I refer to the video: Storm water backing up in road prior to road gulley due to flow from drive and road.MOV which clearly shows water runoff from my drive into the road. Also please see, 1 Meadow Close ‘expanded screenshot view of driveway.docx’ which shows the majority of our driveway slopes towards the road.  There are large areas of land already trying to cope with storm water runoff in Meadow Close these are:  Two large effluent infiltration fields, for both Ullesby Gardens and Meadow Close.  One large road storm water runoff soakaway located very close to the Ullesby Gardens effluent infiltration field.  Three relocated domestic soakaways for Hamara Ghar, The Hawthorns and Eden Croft, none of these properties have any links to the Willan Trading Limited development? All three soakaways have been located in the lawn to the side of 4 Ullesby Gardens which boarders 1 Meadow Close.  Although not directly linked to the current planning application but all the same still extremely concerning is the fact the Phase I and II of the Willan Trading Limited development are continually experiencing major issues with the Ullesby Gardens sewage treatment system. 6. Relevant Planning History Application No Description Outcome 04/1077 Outline application for erection of two Refused 13/01/05 – dwellings Appeal Dismissed 12/07/05 12/0345 Erection of 6 dwellings including 1 Refused 18/10/12 – affordable dwelling (outline) Appeal Allowed 25/04/13

Page 93 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 16/0014 Reserved matters application for the Approved 21/07/17 creation of 6 dwellings including 1 affordable dwelling 16/0099 Variation of conditions 4 (layout), 5 Withdrawn (access), 6 (access and parking) and 7 (access and turning) attached to planning application 12/0345 17/0048 Discharge of conditions 5 (visibility Approved 23/03/17 splays), 8 (drainage), 9 (sewerage details) and 10 (landscaping) attached to approval APP/H0928/A/12/2188596 17/0059 Discharge of conditions 2 (carriage way Approved 23/03/17 and footpaths) and 3 (external materials) attached to approval 16/0014 17/0291 Non material amendment to approval Approved 09/05/17 16/0014 comprising of alternative finishing materials on plots 1 and 2 17/0432 Outline application for residential Refused 17/08/17 – development with all matters reserved Appeal Allowed 12/01/18 17/0455 Variation of land / dwelling on S106 Approved 13/09/17 18/0445 Reserved matters application for access, Approved 02/08/18 appearance, landscaping, layout, scale attached to appeal approval APP/H0928/W/17/3183181 (17/0432) 18/0638 Non Material Amendment comprising of Approved 23/08/18 change of window colour to Irish Oak 18/0738 Discharge of conditions 3 (construction Approved 29/10/18 traffic) and 4 (surface water drainage) attached to Reserved Matters approval 18/0445 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan (2014-32)  LS1 Locational Strategy  DEV1 General Approach to New Development  DEV2 Water Management and Flood Risk  DEV3 Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way  DEV5 Design of New Development  HS2 Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets  ENV10 The Historic Environment Supplementary Planning Documents:  Housing (2010) 7.2 Other Material Considerations

Page 94 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE National Planning Policy Framework:  Chapter 2 Achieving sustainable development  Chapter 4 Decision-making  Chapter 5 Delivering a sufficient supply of homes  Chapter 11 Making effective use of land  Chapter 12 Achieving well-designed places  Chapter 16 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment National Planning Practice Guidance 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Landscape and Visual Impacts  Residential Amenity  Scale and Design  Infrastructure  Historic Environment  Other 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy LS1 ‘Locational Strategy’ sets the settlement hierarchy where the Council expects the focus for residential, employment and commercial provision. Ousby is identified as a ‘smaller village and hamlet’ in which development (inter alia) is restricted to infill sites, which fill a modest gap between existing buildings within the settlement. 8.2.2 Furthermore, Policy DEV1 of the Eden Local Plan ‘General Approach to New Development’ advises that the Council will always work proactively with applicants to find solutions which mean the proposals can be approved wherever possible, and to secure developments that improves economic, social and environmental conditions in the area. 8.2.3 In addition, Policy HS2 of the Eden Local Plan ‘Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets’ advises that permission will be given for housing of an appropriate scale, which reflects the built form of adjoining and neighbouring development to the site and the service function of the settlement, where it meets all of the following criteria:  Where development is restricted to infilling and rounding off of the current village settlement pattern, in accordance with policy LS1.  The resultant dwelling does not contain more than 150m2 gross internal floorspace.  In the case of Greenfield sites a condition or legal agreement restricting occupancy to only those meeting local connection criteria, defined in Appendix 6, will be applied. 8.2.4 The proposal site is located within the designated ‘smaller village’ of Ousby. It is a 0.3 acre area of grazing land bounded by residential curtilages on all sides. As such

Page 95 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE it is considered to be a greenfield, infill site in accordance with policies LS1 and HS2 of the Eden Local Plan. Due to the greenfield nature of the site, the occupancy restriction condition has been included in the recommendation. 8.2.5 In principle this proposal for a residential development is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the Policies LS1 and HS2 of the Eden Local Plan. Further considerations on other material matters such as landscape and visual impacts, residential amenity, scale and design and infrastructure are discussed further below. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 The application site is not located within an area of any landscape designation or sensitivity despite its rural village setting. 8.3.2 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy DEV5 requires that proposed development demonstrates that it shows clear understanding of the form and character of the District’s built environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area. 8.3.3 The application is in outline form; as such it is difficult to fully assess how the proposed development would impact on the landscape and amenity of the area. However, the development of the field immediately to the north has been established for residential development through the past grants of planning permission, which have altered the visual appearance and status of the field. As such, this proposal is not an isolated and undeveloped field, its character has been altered through the previous planning permissions granted. 8.3.4 An indicative site plan is provided, demonstrating a possible layout on the site of three dwellinghouses, however it is important to note that this detail could be subject to change at a reserved matters stage. 8.3.5 The landscape and visual impacts would be fully assessed at a reserved matters stage. However, the application site is not viewed within any significant public realm and there is no interconnectivity between the site and the surrounding landscape or countryside, as such, it is considered that a scheme could be achieved that would not adversely impact upon the landscape in this location given its immediate built up nature in accordance with the requirements of Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy DEV5 requires that (inter alia) development shall protect the amenity of existing residents and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. 8.4.2 To the north of the site are numbers 3 and 4 Meadow Close, who’s southern side boundaries adjoin with the proposal site. The side elevation of number 3 is approximately 2 metres from the boundary of the host site and number 4’s side elevation is approximately 7 metres from the boundary of the host site. 8.4.3 To the east and south of the site is Bradley Cottage, whose curtilage appears to wrap around the south eastern corner. There is a distance of approximately 15 metres from the rear of this property to the boundary of the host site. Next to Bradley Cottage, on the southern side of the site is Fell View. There is a distance of approximately 20 metres from the rear of this property to the boundary of the host site.

Page 96 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.4.4 To the west/south west of the proposal site is Bradley Foot which is grade II listed. The rear of this building is approximately 25 metres from the boundary of the host site. 8.4.5 It is acknowledged that objectors have raised concerns of potential overshadowing and overbearing to the existing residential amenity in this area. Whilst this is unable to be assessed in the applications outline form, it is considered reasonable to suggest that that a final design and layout could be achieved for this residential development which provides sufficient separation distances to ensure that the development would not result in any adverse or significantly harmful impacts upon the amenity of any neighbouring property. However, this impact would be fully assessed at a reserved matters stage should this outline application be approved, when the final layout, orientation, size and design of the properties would be proposed. 8.4.6 It is considered reasonable and necessary to include a construction hours’ condition to protect nearby residents from noise and disturbance during a construction phase, should approval be granted. 8.4.7 For the reasons detailed above, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in any adverse impacts upon the amenity of any neighbouring property, in accordance with Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.5 Scale and Design 8.5.1 Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan require the design of new development to be to high standard, reflecting the form and character of the locality. 8.5.2 The application is purely outline with all matters reserved for the construction of a residential development. As such, only the principle of the residential development of the site is under consideration at this time and the scale and design is for assessment at a reserved matters stage. 8.5.3 However, in accordance with policy HS2, any resultant dwelling(s) are not to contain more than 150m2 gross internal floorspace. 8.5.4 It is considered that an appropriate layout and final high quality design could be achieved for a residential development on this site, in accordance with Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.6 Infrastructure 8.6.1 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy DEV2 ‘Water Management and Flood Risk’ states that new development must incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), where practicable, to manage surface water run-off. 8.6.2 It is acknowledged that the Parish Council and objectors raise many concerns in terms of drainage in this area. In terms of this outline planning application, considerations as to its acceptability are purely within the redline boundary for which permission is sought. 8.6.3 Whilst fully appreciating the issues raised and details provided in objections to drainage issues in the area, the following matters are not considered to be material to this outline planning application;  drainage issues arising from other developments within the vicinity;

Page 97 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  existing drainage within the proposal site for properties to the south – this is considered to be a legal matter between parties that would dealt with separately to planning. 8.6.4 It is advised that there is currently a live enforcement case under investigation with regards to drainage issues outwith of the redline boundary of this proposal. These matters are being dealt with separately to this outline planning application and as such they are outside of the considerations for this proposal and therefore, are not relevant to the determination of this planning application. 8.6.5 Cumbria County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority raises no objection to the application and notes that there are no records of minor surface water flooding to the site, which is located in a Flood Zone 1 being an area of lowest flood risk. It is noted that no foul or surface water details have been provided at this stage due to the outline nature of the application. However, conditions are recommended in this regard and would be required to meet Cumbria County Council’s requirements before being discharged and the commencement of any works on site, should approval be granted. This approach and the inclusion of appropriately worded conditions is supported by the Lead Local Flood Authority. 8.6.6 Notwithstanding the concerns raised by objectors, the flooding information provided shows that the proposal site is not within an area of any ‘Flood Risk Management Priorities’ on the Defra mapping and is within a ‘very low’ risk area for surface water flooding. 8.6.7 Given the advice from Cumbria County Council, it is considered that the inclusion of conditions in terms of foul and surface water drainage, which are required to demonstrate their acceptability before being discharged and the commencements of any works on the site are acceptable for this proposal. In this regard the proposal can reasonably be considered to be in accordance with the development plan and therefore, such matters do not warrant the refusal of this application. On the basis that such conditions are included; and appropriate drainage scheme approved and fully implemented on site, there is no reason to suggest that any adverse issues would arise from drainage. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development accords with Policy DEV2 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.6.8 In relation to highways access and impacts, Policy DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan seeks to ensure that all new development can be serviced by appropriate access and would not result in any adverse impacts upon highway safety or capacity. This position is further supported by Paragraph 109 of the NPPF which confirms that, ‘Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. 8.6.9 In the case of the current application, it is noted that both the Parish Council and objectors raise concern regarding increased traffic congestion that would be created through this proposal. Cumbria County Council as the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal, noting that the access is to be taken from within the new Ullesby Gardens and Meadow Close which are currently private though the details state to be adopted roads. It is also noted that adequate off street parking provision has been provided according to the indicative plan. The Highway Authority has requested standard conditions in terms of surface water drainage and vehicle turning within the site, which are included as conditions within the recommendation in Section 1 of the report.

Page 98 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.6.10 Concerns are raised regarding construction vehicles accessing the proposal site and potential disturbances during a construction phase. Whilst it is acknowledged that this would be temporary in nature for the duration of the construction phase, should approval be granted, it is considered reasonable and necessary to attach a construction hours’ condition in terms of protecting the residential amenity. 8.6.11 For the reasons detailed above, and in consultation with Cumbria County Council as the Highway Authority, it is not considered that a severe impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion would occur through this proposal Therefore, the development is considered to be compliant with Policy DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.7 Historic Environment 8.7.1 It is duly noted that the Bradley Foot is a grade II listed building and located approximately 25 metres to the west/south west of the proposal site boundary. 8.7.2 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 s 66(1) requires a decision-maker, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. 8.7.3 Paragraph 192 of the NPPF, 2019: In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Paragraph 193 of the NPPF, 2019 states ‘when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. This is irrespective of whether the potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance’. 8.7.4 Policy ENV10 ‘The Historic Environment’ of the Eden Local Plan says the Council will require proposals for development to conserve and enhance the significance of heritage assets and their setting. 8.7.5 The proposal site would have obscure views to the rear of the listed building. Whilst exact separation distances cannot be confirmed at this time due to the outline nature of the application, it is considered that they are unlikely to be closer than existing dwellings and as such would follow the theme of this built up area. 8.7.6 It is considered that a scheme is achievable that would not result in a harm to the listed building, either to its appearance, setting, character or significance. This would be further assessed at a reserved matters stage, should this outline application be approved, when the design of the dwellings and proposed materials would be known. 8.7.7 Therefore, in principle, the development is considered to be in accordance with the conservation policies as outlined within the Planning LBCA Act 1990, the NPPF and ENV10 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.8 Other 8.8.1 In accordance with Policy HS2 of the Eden Local Plan, a condition has been included in the recommendation with regards to local occupancy restrictions to only those meeting local connection criteria. This is due to this site being considered to be greenfield.

Page 99 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.8.2 A query has been raised in terms of piecemeal development, due to this being the third area of land brought forward for development in close succession of the previous two and the requirement for affordable housing, given that should approval be granted, a total of 14 properties would have been built on this area, with only 1 affordable dwelling provided. According to policy HS1 ‘Affordable Housing’ a development of 14 properties should provide 4 affordable units. 8.8.3 A response from the Council’s Housing department does consider this application to be piecemeal development due the planning history and previous advice provided by Housing. 8.8.4 The Housing SPD 2020 states ‘2.2.6 - It will not be acceptable to sub-divide sites and submit applications in a piecemeal fashion to avoid making affordable housing contributions. The Council will consider land ownership arrangements, connectivity between sites (including services and access), fragmentation of units or land, age of previous permissions, etc. A field that is subsequently sub-divided and brought forward in a piecemeal fashion as separate parcels affordable housing requirements will apply and take into account dwellings on previous developments, which are considered to form part of one site’. 8.8.5 Advice from the Council’s Planning Policy team states ‘although it appears that applications on this site have been submitted in a piecemeal fashion and the 2010 and 2020 guidance does not support this, it should be taken into account that at the time the previous applications were considered they were not deemed to be piecemeal and no information regarding phasing schemes was submitted. Furthermore they were not refused on the grounds of insufficient information on this matter. Therefore it would be unreasonable to apply the guidance now and consequently require 30% affordable housing across the whole site’. 8.8.6 The above advice and comments are duly noted. It is also noted that the previous applications were not assessed against the current Eden Local Plan (2014-2032) criteria, which requires the inclusion of local occupancy restrictions for proposals on greenfield sites as that Plan was not adopted at that time. As such, should approval be granted, local occupancy housing would be provided through this proposal. 8.8.7 When considering the planning history of the land next to the proposal site, it is duly noted that outline application 17/0432 which was allowed at appeal, was not considered to be piecemeal development due to it being in a separate ownership to the first development area. It is confirmed that the ownership certificate of application 17/0432 shows the land to be in a different ownership (Willan Trading Ltd) to ownership certificate submitted for this outline application (Mr Boulton). As such, in accordance with guidance from Planning Policy, it is not considered to be reasonable to require 30% affordable housing across the whole site. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the

Page 100 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: 11.2 The proposal would result in the creation of local occupancy housing within an identified ‘smaller village’ on an infill site and is considered to be compliant with policies LS1, DEV1, DEV2, DEV5 and HS2 of the Eden Local Plan (2014-2032) and as such is supportable. 11.3 Therefore, it is recommended that this outline application be approved. Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Development

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 02.02.2021

Background Papers: Planning File 20/0771

Page 101 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 18 February 2021

Planning Application No: 20/0866 Date Received: 9/11/20

OS Grid Ref: 3838 5141 Expiry Date: 5/1/21 Extension of time agreed to 19/2/21 Parish: Stainmore Ward: Brough

Application Type: Householder

Proposal: Proposed single storey double garage and workshop

Location: Littlethwaite, North Stainmore

Applicant: Mr and Mrs Goude

Agent: Mr Ian Smart – ips architects

Case Officer: Mat Wilson

Reason for Referral: An objector wishes to speak against the application at Planning Committee.

Page 102 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 103 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the application form and drawings hereby approved: i. Location plan submitted with the application received 9/11/20. ii. Plans and elevations as existing and proposed ref ps1322.01 rev F dated Jan21 received 18/1/21. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Ongoing Conditions 3. Prior to the installation of any light source on the exterior of the building, a lighting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The external lighting of the building and the adjacent parking area shall be installed/constructed in accordance with the approved scheme, and shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the neighbours. 4. The building hereby approved shall remain ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as Littlethwaite. It shall not be used for any commercial purposes. Reason: The site is not a suitable location for a commercial use, and in the interests of the amenity of the neighbours. 5. All external materials to be used in the development shall match the appearance of those of the existing house, in size, type, colour and texture. Reason: To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings. 2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The application seeks to erect a single-storey detached double garage and workshop and store to the front of Littlethwaite in North Stainmore. The building will be sited just north of the access drive to the property and built into the rising land, its footprint 12m x 5.5m, being 3m high at the front with a monopitch roof sloping away to the rear. It will be constructed with an outer leaf of natural random rubble stonework to the front and south end elevation, the discrete rear and north elevations being rendered. Composite insulated grooved panels are proposed for the roof. 2.1.2 The plans have been revised to incorporate a covered storage area for domestic fuel on the north end elevation. 2.2 Site Description

Page 104 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2.2.1 Littlethwaite is a detached house in a relatively isolated location half a mile south of the A66 and a little under 3 miles east of Brough. It does though have one near neighbour: Littlethwaite Barn is situated immediately south of the applicant’s dwelling. This property is screened by a series of outbuildings behind a row of trees on the boundary. 2.2.2 There are no specific planning constraints on the site. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority It can be confirmed that the Highway Authority has no objection to the proposed development as it is considered that the proposal will not have a material effect on existing highway conditions. Local Lead Flood Authority The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) has no objection to the proposed development as it does not increase the flood risk on the site or elsewhere. 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Environmental Health The use of the garage/garden workshop for residential use does not give great concern. You are going to condition that the workshop is not to be used for commercial use. It is not unreasonable to use a workshop for domestic use with the doors open for light and ventilation. Any unreasonable noise would be dealt with as a statutory nuisance investigation. Cumbria County Council No comments. Minerals and Waste 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Object Support No Response No Objection Council/Meeting Stainmore  4.1 No comments received from the Parish Council. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 26 November 2020.

No of Neighbours Consulted 2 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 3 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 3

Page 105 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 5.2 Letters of objection were submitted by, and on behalf of, the immediate neighbouring property raising the following concerns insofar as they are materially relevant to the application:  Existing issues of light pollution from light flooding the parking area at the application site will only be exacerbated by the development, as the building will be illuminated by existing lighting.  Potential commercial use of the workshop.  The garage will be overbearing and overlook neighbouring spaces.  The siting does not optimise the use of the site; the building could be sited elsewhere to address impacts on the neighbour.  Noise from use of the workshop and vehicles accessing the building will adversely affect amenity; the proposals do not include any noise mitigation.  Biodiversity impact.  No drainage information. 5.3 The objections also raised the following non-material issues:  The scheme does not justify the need for two workshops.  The proposals do not justify why a more suitable location has not been considered for the building. 6. Relevant Planning History 6.1 05/0041 - Construction of first floor extension to part of rear elevation and conservatory to front elevation. Granted 22/2/05. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Local Plan 2014-2032 Relevant Policies  LS1 Locational Strategy  DEV1 General Approach to New Development  DEV5 Design of New Development 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Chapter 2 - Achieving sustainable development;  Chapter 12 - Achieving well designed places; 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Streetscene/Landscape Impact  Residential amenity  Infrastructure/Flood Risk/Drainage  Natural Environment 8.2 Principle

Page 106 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2.1 The principle of residential extensions are acceptable providing they comply with the aims and objectives of Policy DEV5 – Design of New Development - which supports high quality design that reflects local distinctiveness and shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s building environment. Such extensions to residential properties are expected to reflect the existing street scene through the use of appropriate scale, mass, form, layout, high quality architectural design and use of materials. 8.2.2 Furthermore, under Policy DEV5, the Council tends to support any scheme that protects the amenity of existing residents and business occupiers and provide an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. 8.2.3 Overall, the principle of extending this residential property is considered acceptable and in accordance with Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan, subject to further consideration of material considerations set out below. 8.3 Streetscene/Landscape Impact 8.3.1 Local Plan Policy DEV5 requires that development reflects the existing streetscene through its scale, form, layout and materials. All new development shall demonstrate a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area. 8.3.2 The building would be relatively prominent in the context of the site, being situated adjacent to the front boundary which is open to views from the highway. In the wider site context however the building would be recessive in terms of its scale, use of appropriate materials, and use of the natural landform, being dug into the rising slope of the land. As such, any visual impact is limited to the immediate surrounding area. 8.3.3 The design, siting and materials of constriction are all considered appropriate. The building will be finished in random rubble stone to match the existing dwelling, with the discrete elevations rendered. 8.3.4 The scheme is considered to achieve the aims of Policy DEV5 as regards the visual impacts of the building and how it would be seen in the landscape, and is therefore acceptable in this respect. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan requires that developments shall protect the amenity of existing residents and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. It further requires that new development optimises the potential use of the site and avoids overlooking. Paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires that planning decisions on development should ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. 8.4.2 The concerns raised by the neighbouring residents are acknowledged; however it is considered that the issues are potentially over-stated and that the use of the proposed building as a garage/workshop in this location would have no significant adverse impacts on their amenity. Concerns raised over optimal use of the site, overbearing impacts, overlooking, and visual impact of the building from their main aspect, have limited merit given the relative position of the proposed building from the neighbour in terms of separation distances which are approximately 25m, the building’s low stature, absence of windows and in particular the existing range of outbuildings and band of trees between the neighbour and the application site.

Page 107 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.4.3 Impacts from the existing lights which are stated to flood the applicant’s parking area, adversely affecting the neighbour, are acknowledged and it is accepted that the proposal should not exacerbate the situation. A lighting scheme may therefore be appropriate to provide an element of control over potentially adverse light pollution affecting the neighbour, and as such it is recommended a condition to achieve this is included should permission be granted. 8.4.4 A condition requiring that no commercial use of the building shall take place has been accepted by the applicant. They have further written in support of the proposal, setting out that this is the most suitable location for the building, as it could not be accessed by cars if sited on the opposite side of the dwelling from the neighbour. The main use would be storage with occasional use for repairs/ maintenance of gardening equipment and household DIY jobs, and would be more accurately called a garden store rather than a workshop. The applicant continues that the proposal is for a domestic garage/ storage and any noise would be no more than that caused by normal domestic activities; no internal lighting would be visible, although some outside lighting could be anticipated for use when coming or going with the cars – the applicant states he is conscious of keeping this to a minimum and avoiding it shining into the neighbours. 8.4.5 An assessment on the proposal was sought from the Council’s Environmental Health department. Having considered the scheme, they have stated that the application does not give them any great concerns. It is not unreasonable to use a workshop for domestic use with the doors open for light and ventilation. Any unreasonable noise would be dealt with as a statutory nuisance investigation. 8.4.6 Given the applicant’s further supporting information it is considered that the proposal – subject to appropriate conditions governing its use and to control external lighting – would have no significant bearing on the neighbour’s privacy or amenity. 8.4.7 Policy DEV5 of the Local Plan requires that development protects the amenity of existing residents. Whilst it is accepted that there appears to be an ongoing issue with light pollution, the proposal would not result in further significant adverse impacts and there is no basis at all on which to reject the proposal on amenity grounds. Subject to appropriate conditions, it is considered that the development would maintain an appropriate level of amenity for the neighbouring residents, and is therefore acceptable in respect of residential amenity. 8.5 Infrastructure/Flood Risk/Drainage 8.5.1 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy DEV3 seeks to ensure that all new development can be serviced by appropriate access and would not result in any adverse impacts upon highway safety or capacity. This position is further supported by Paragraph 109 of the NPPF which confirms that, ‘Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. 8.5.2 In the case of the current application, the development will have no material effect on highway conditions, the property retaining substantial parking and manoeuvring space on its drive. This position is confirmed by the Highway Authority which raises no objections to the proposal. 8.5.3 In terms of drainage, Policy DEV2 of the Eden Local Plan seeks to ensure that appropriate drainage can be achieved for new development which does not increase the risk of flooding at the site or to any surrounding land. In the case of the current application, it is relevant to take into account the very small area of the proposed

Page 108 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE development, the Flood Zone 1 designation of the location reflecting the lowest level of flood vulnerability, and the conclusion of the Lead Local Flood Authority to raise no objection to the proposed development as it does not increase the flood risk on the site or elsewhere. It is therefore considered the proposal is acceptable in terms of infrastructure in accordance with Policies DEV2 and DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.6 Natural Environment 8.6.1 No harm is likely to arise to protected species or habitat. The proposal will build off a small section of the applicant’s garden in a residential plot with no loss of habitat for protected species. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. Each application is determined on the planning merits. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10. Conclusion 10.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations. 10.2 The proposed outbuilding is considered to be appropriate in terms of scale and design with no harm arising to the character of the locality. In terms of residential amenity, the development will be discrete from the neighbouring property, and conditions addressing use of the building and lighting will ensure their amenity is not adversely affected. As such it is recommended that the proposal be granted. Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Development Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 02.02.2021 Background Papers: Planning File 20/0866

Page 109 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 18 February 2021

Planning Application No: 20/0346 Date Received: 21 August 2020

OS Grid Ref: NY 371950, Expiry Date: 27 November 2020 546781

Parish: Alston Ward: Alston

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Erection of two light industrial sheds and eight self-storage shipping containers

Location: Nentforce Caravan Park, Station Road, Alston

Applicant: Mr Shepherd, Ayle Colliery Co Ltd

Agent: Mr C Reed, AR Design Plan Ltd

Case Officer: Caroline Brier

Reason for Referral: The application has been called in on material planning grounds by the Councillor for Alston Moor Ward.

Page 110 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 111 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: Time limit for commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved: i. Application Form received 2 June 2020 ii. Site Plan (20/842/1.A) received 2 June 2020 iii. Block Plan as Proposed (20/842/2.D) received 2 October 2020 iv. Industrial Unit Elevations (20/842/3) received 16 June 2020 v. 40ft Standard Cargo Worthy Shipping Container received 16 June 2020 vi. Small Shipping Container received 2 June 2020 vii. Flood Risk Assessment received 1 September 2020 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Before the development is commenced 3. Full details of the surface water drainage system 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 thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time would result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 4. A maintenance scheme for the shipping containers shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to the development being commenced. The shipping containers shall be maintained in accordance with the details approved thereafter. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the site in the interests of visual amenity. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time would result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. Ongoing Conditions

Page 112 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 5. The two light industrial sheds hereby approved, shall be used within the remits of Use Class B1(c) replaced by E(g) and the eight self-storage shipping containers hereby approved, shall be used within the remits of Use Class B8 (Storage) of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order). Reason: In accordance with the permission being applied for. 6. In the event that the use hereby approved of any of the approved shipping containers ceases on site for a period in excess of three months, the container(s) shall be removed from site. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the site in the interests of the visual amenity of the area and protection of the North Pennines AONB. 7. The shipping containers hereby approved shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition on or before three years from the date of this approval. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the site in the interests of the visual amenity and protection of the North Pennines AONB. 2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 This proposal seeks to erect two light industrial sheds and eight self-storage shipping containers. 2.1.2 Industrial Unit 1 would measure 15 metres in width and 13 metres in length. It would be 6.4 metres in height and be constructed of olive green plastisol sandwich panel insulated profiled metal cladding to the elevations and roof. An up and over insulated door, window and door are proposed to the front elevation, with blank side elevations and a fire exit door to the rear elevation. 2.1.3 Industrial Unit 2 would measure 30 metres in width and 15 metres in length. It would be 6.8 metres in height and constructed of the same material as Unit 1. It is designed with up and over insulated doors at each end of the front elevation and two windows and doors at the centre of the building. As with the above Unit, the side elevations are to be blank and two fire exit doors are proposed to the rear. The design suggests this building will be separated into two, although the block plan shows the building fully open. This does not raise any concerns. 2.1.4 The four large shipping containers would measure 12.2 metres in length, 2.44 metres in width and 2.62 metres in height. The four smaller shipping containers would measure 6.1 metres in length, 2.44 metres in width and 2.62 metres in height. They would be green in colour. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site is accessed from the A686 road to the north end of the Town along an approximate 100 metre track. 2.2.2 It is flat site, well screened by trees and not visible from the public realm. 2.2.3 The site does not affect the setting of any listed buildings and is outside of the Alston conservation area, however is within the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The River Nent runs along the south of the site and as such part of the site is within flood zones 2 and 3.

Page 113 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority A response was received on the 16 September 2020 advising of no objection and stating that the revised details show the required visibility splays are provided in both directions. It is requested for them to be drawn to the nearside edge of the carriageway and confirms that parking and turning and surface water drainage has been provided. It goes on to request 2 conditions be attached to any approval granted. The Agent disputes these conditions and this is discussed further in the ‘Infrastructure’ section below. Lead Local Flood Authority A response was received on the 16 September 2020 advising of no objection and to contact the Environment Agency due to the site being adjacent to Flood Zones 2 and 3. The response also states that both foul and surface water drainage have been provided. It goes on to say that calculations for the surface water to soakaway with overflow to the river and restricted to greenfield run-off rate should be provided. A condition is requested in this regard (see recommendation). It is a pre- commencement condition and the Agent has agreed to this condition, should approval be granted. 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response United Utilities A response was received on the 30 June 2020 raising no objection to the proposal. Environmental Health A response was received on the 25 June 2020 advising of no comments or recommendations for this application. Environment Agency Initially the Environment Agency objected to the proposal due to the absence of a flood risk assessment (FRA). Following the submission of a FRA the objection was withdrawn and the following condition requested to be included: ‘The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted flood risk assessment (ref flood risk assessment, Nentforce Caravan Park) and the following mitigation measures it details: • No buildings shall be sited within Flood Zones 2 or 3. These mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently

Page 114 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE in accordance with the scheme’s timing/phasing arrangements. The measures detailed above shall be retained and maintained thereafter throughout the lifetime of the development. Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants’. The plans clearly show that there are no buildings to be sited within Flood Zones 2 and 3 and the development would be in breach of condition if it was not built/sited in accordance with the approved plans. Should the applicant wish to site the two light industrial sheds, or eight self-storage shipping containers in any other location than shown on the plans, a variation of condition application would be required. It is there for not considered to be reasonable or necessary to impose this requested condition as it would already be covered in the ‘Approved Plans’ part of any decision notice issued. Ministry of Defence A response was received on the 15 July 2020 advising of no safeguarding objections to this proposal. Minerals and Waste A response was received on the 1 July 2020 advising that Cumbria County Council as minerals planning authority does not object to this application. North Pennines AONB The AONB were consulted on the 17 June 2020, however have not provided a response. 4. Parish Council Response Please Tick as Appropriate No View Parish Council Object Support No Response Expressed Alston  4.1 A response was received on the 14 July 2020, recommending the approval of the application. No further comments were provided by the Parish Council. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 28 June 2020. No letters/emails of response have been received. No of Neighbours Consulted 8 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 0 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 0

Page 115 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

6. Relevant Planning History Application No Description Outcome 98/0360 North Pennines Countryside Centre and Full Approval re-opening short section of Nentforce 01/09/98 level. Reclamation of derelict land, car parking and riverside walk. 01/0234 Change of use to park for residential Full Approval caravans. 21/06/01 14/0246 Change of use from redundant shed to Full Approval storage, vehicle maintenance and repairs 13/05/14 workshop (partly retrospective application). 18/0646 Retrospective planning permission for the Full Approval permanent retention of steps, platforms 02/10/18 and associated handrails and fencing, and permission for the installation of a new water monitoring structure. 19/0533 Erection of light industrial shed and siting Withdrawn of 10 storage containers. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan (2014-32)  LS1 Locational Strategy  DEV1 General Approach to New Development  DEV2 Water Management and Flood Risk  DEV3 Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way  DEV5 Design of New Development  EC3 Employment Development in Existing Settlements  ENV3 The North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Supplementary Planning Documents:  North Pennines AONB Planning Guidelines (July 2011)  North Pennines AONB Building Design Guide (2011) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Chapter 2 Achieving sustainable development  Chapter 4 Decision-making  Chapter 6 Building a strong, competitive economy  Chapter 11 Making effective use of land  Chapter 12 Achieving well-designed places National Planning Practice Guidance 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application.

Page 116 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Landscape and Visual Impacts  Residential Amenity  Scale and Design  Infrastructure 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy LS1 ‘Locational Strategy’ sees Alston named as a ‘Market Town’ in the settlement hierarchy which supports moderate development appropriate to the scale of the town. The proposal site is on the outskirts of the north of the town and is considered to be incorporated within the settlement. 8.2.2 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy DEV1 ‘General Approach to New Development’ advises that the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development when considering development proposals. 8.2.3 Policy EC3 ‘Employment Development in Existing Settlements’ sets out the following specific criteria that are to be met:  Development is of a scale, type and design sympathetic to the location within which it is proposed.  Development would not have an unacceptable impact on highways or other forms of infrastructure.  Development would not cause harm to local amenity, landscape, ecology, historic environment or other environmental and cultural heritage considerations.  The development is capable of achieving appropriate standards of access, servicing, parking and amenity space. 8.2.4 Policy ENV3 ‘The North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ advises that development will only be permitted where it meets a set criteria:  Individually or cumulatively it will not have a significant or adverse impact upon the special qualities or statutory purpose of the AONB.  It does not lessen or cause harm to the distinctive character of the area, the historic environment, heritage assets and their setting.  It adheres to any formally adopted design guides or planning policies, including the North Pennines Management Plan, the North Pennines AONB Planning Guidelines and the North Pennines AONB Building Design Guide. 8.2.5 The businesses that would eventually take up the two light industrial sheds are unknown nor, what items would be stored in the eight self-storage shipping containers. However the application form specifies Use Class B1(c) – Light Industrial is being applied for. From the 1 September 2020, use class B1(c) was revoked and replaced with the new Class E(g). For any planning applications submitted before the 1 September 2020, the Use Classes in effect when the application was submitted will be used to determine the application. 8.2.6 To ensure the use of the sheds and shipping containers would remain as per the permission being sought for, it is considered reasonable and necessary to restrict the

Page 117 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE two light industrial sheds to B1(c) replaced by E(g) and include use class B8 (storage) for the eight self-storage shipping containers. Therefore if the businesses/users wishing to go into these buildings/containers were not within these use classes, a change of use planning application would be required and could be fully assessed through the planning process. 8.2.7 For clarification, this application is applying to erect two light industrial sheds under use class B1 Business, which is set out as follows within the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended):  B1(a) Offices – Other than a use within Class A2  B1(b) Research and development of products or processes  B1(c ) Industrial processes Which has now been replaced by class E(g):  E(g) Uses which can be carried out in a residential area without detriment to its amenity: (i) Offices to carry out any operational or administrative functions; (ii) Research and development of products or processes; (iii) Industrial processes. 8.2.8 It is also noted that eight of the self-storage containers proposed under this application would be under use class B8 – storage or distribution. 8.2.9 The proposal site is not identified in the Eden Local Plan as an employment allocated site, however policy LS1 is supportive of moderate development, appropriate to the scale of the town in the Market Towns. The proposal is considered to meet all four of the criteria of policy EC3. The introduction of further moderate business/employment use on this site which is currently mostly redundant, is considered to be of benefit to Alston. 8.2.10 As such, the erection of two light industrial sheds and eight self-storage shipping containers, next to an existing industrial shed in a well screened location, is considered to be in accordance with the development plan and is acceptable in principle, subject to further considerations on the potential impacts on the AONB. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy DEV5 requires proposals to optimise the potential use of the site, show a clear understanding of the form and character of the districts built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area. 8.3.2 The site is well screened by trees and not visible from the public realm. An existing light industrial building is sited at the entrance of the site. The two proposed light industrial buildings would be beyond this existing building to its east and the eight self- storage shipping containers further to the east again. 8.3.3 The two light industrial buildings and eight self-storage shipping containers are to be green in colour and this is considered to be a sympathetic colour to reduce visual impacts, due to the site being surrounded by trees. The topography of the area sees the wooded area to the north of the site on a steep bank and surrounding the site to the east and west. To the south of the site is the River Nent, which sees steep banks on each side with thick landscaping.

Page 118 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.3.4 The site is within the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Policy ENV3 of the Eden Local Plan, requires proposals to not have a significant or adverse impact, either individually or cumulatively, upon the special qualities or statutory purpose of the AONB. It also requires that developments do not lessen or cause harm to the distinctive character of the area. 8.3.5 Due to the location of the application site being on the edge of the town of Alston, with other buildings in the vicinity, although sited within the North Pennines AONB, it is considered that the site makes a limited contribution to the character and value of the surrounding landscape by virtue of the limited inter-visibility between it and the surrounding North Pennines area and its current partially derelict state. 8.3.6 Notwithstanding this, the permanent siting of shipping containers raises concerns regarding the visual impacts on the proposal site and as such conditions are recommended regarding the shipping containers maintenance, removal if their use ceases and removal after a temporary three year period. This is particularly the case as although located on the edge of the settlement, the site is surrounded by open countryside which forms the North Pennines AONB landscape which is afforded the highest level of protection in both the Eden Local Plan and also the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This period would enable the business to grow and develop to a point whereby the containers could be replaced by more appropriate permanent features, in-keeping with the sensitive nature of the area. 8.3.7 Whilst there is the future potential of the trees being felled from around the site, which would then make it much more prominent in the landscape, this potential harm is not considered to outweigh the public benefits of the scheme, being the creation of business/employment to the area. 8.3.8 Through the mitigation measures of the recommended conditions, specifically limiting the period the containers would be retained on site, the development is considered to be accommodated into the local landscape without any significant or adverse impacts upon the character of the area or to cause an unacceptable level of harm to the visual amenity. 8.3.9 For the reasons detailed above, it is considered that the development would have an acceptable impact upon the character of Alston and the surrounding AONB landscape and to be in accordance with policies DEV5, EC3 and ENV3. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 Policy DEV5 requires that (inter alia) development shall protect the amenity of existing residents and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. 8.4.2 The closest residential properties are approximately 70 metres away from the proposal site. 8.4.3 Given the existing use of the site, the separation distances to the nearest residential dwellings, the existing landscaping and the orientation of the residential properties, it is not considered that there would be an adverse impact on the living conditions or amenity for the neighbouring residents. As such, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with policy DEV5. 8.5 Scale and Design 8.5.1 Chapter 12 of the NPPF and DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan require the design of new development to be to high standard, reflecting the form and character of the locality.

Page 119 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.5.2 Industrial Unit 1 would measure 15 metres in width and 13 metres in length. It would be 6.4 metres in height and be constructed of olive green plastisol sandwich panel insulated profiled metal cladding to the elevations and roof. An up and over insulated door, window and door are proposed to the front elevation, with blank side elevations and a fire exit door to the rear elevation. 8.5.3 Industrial Unit 2 would measure 30 metres in width and 15 metres in length. It would be 6.8 metres in height and constructed of the same material as Unit 1. It is designed with up and over insulated doors at each end of the front elevation and two windows and doors at the centre of the building. As with the above Unit, the side elevations are to be blank and two fire exit doors are proposed to the rear. The design suggests this building will be separated into two, although the block plan shows the building fully open. This does not raise any concerns. 8.5.4 The four large shipping containers would measure 12.2 metres in length, 2.44 metres in width and 2.62 metres in height. The four smaller shipping containers would measure 6.1 metres in length, 2.44 metres in width and 2.62 metres in height. They would be green in colour. 8.5.5 Shipping containers are not considered to be the most appropriate in this location or aesthetically pleasing of structures and concern is raised over their permanent siting within the AONB, which as noted above is afforded the highest level of protection in both the Eden Local Plan and also the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It is therefore considered reasonable and necessary to include a condition requiring a maintenance scheme to be submitted to the Council for them. Also a condition requiring the shipping container(s) removal if they cease to be used for a period in excess of three months and the temporary siting of them for three years. This is considered to be a reasonable length of time for the applicants to demonstrate how the business evolves, with the potential of a more permanent solution, which is more in- keeping with the sensitive nature of the area and surrounding landscape. 8.5.6 This application was due to be approved under delegated powers. It is a requirement for any pre-commencement conditions to be approved by the applicant/agent before a decision is issued. Whilst not a pre-commencement condition the applicant requested that condition 7 (temporary three year siting of shipping containers) be lifted/revoked or extended. They do not consider three years to be financially viable for the business and have projected five or six years to break even. 8.5.7 The proposed condition is not intended to forbid the business continuing after the period of three years, it is considered that it would allow the business to establish and hopefully show it thriving, which would allow a solid justification to either retain the containers for a further temporary period of time, or perhaps even apply for a permanent building for this element of the business. The condition is intended to allow time for the business to establish whilst also striking a balance between supporting economic and business growth, whilst also reducing the impacts on the AONB and preserving its special character and appearance. 8.5.8 Officers offered to consider amending the condition to five years, however requested that justification be provided to support this length of time, as no supporting information in this regard has been provided with the application. 8.5.9 The applicant did not engage in any further discussions with Officers or provide any justifications or predictions to allow for an assessment to be carried out on amending

Page 120 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE the condition from three years to a longer period of time. The application was then called into Planning Committee by the Ward Member. 8.5.10 Without the requisite justification, it is considered to be reasonable and necessary to include the condition regarding the temporary siting of the shipping containers for three years, for the reasons detailed previously. 8.5.11 Overall, the proposals are considered to be of an appropriate scale, mass, form and design which is in-keeping with this type of development, sympathetic to the location in which it is proposed for a temporary period only to support the growth of the business, and also matching the existing building on the site. The proposals are therefore considered to meet the aims and requirements of policies DEV5, EC3 and ENV3 in terms of scale and design. 8.6 Infrastructure 8.6.1 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy DEV3 ‘Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way’ states that development will be refused if it will result in a severe impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion. This is supported by Paragraph 109 of the NPPF which notes that, ‘Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. 8.6.2 Whilst Cumbria Country Council as the Highway Authority does not object to the proposal, it was initially requested the following 2 conditions be attached to any approval granted: ‘The development shall not commence until visibility splays providing clear visibility of 60 metres in both directions and back measured 2.4metres down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the carriageway edge have been provided at the junction of the access road with the county highway. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grown within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. Any existing highway fence/wall boundary shall be reduced to a height not exceeding 1.05m above the carriageway level of the adjacent highway in accordance with details submitted to the Local Planning Authority and which have subsequently been approved (before development commences) (before the development is brought into use) and shall not be raised to a height exceeding 1.05m thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety’. 8.6.3 The Agent has queried both conditions due to the visibility splays being shown on plan and that they have been existing for decades therefore cannot be constructed before general development of the site commences. The Agent also comments that there are no fences or walls in the line of the visibility splays, and therefore does not agree to the proposed condition. 8.6.4 The Highway Authority was re-consulted with the updated visibility spays plan showing them drawn to the nearside edge of the carriageway as requested. A response was

Page 121 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE received on 12 November 2020 confirming that the revised details provided show the required visibility splays are provided in both directions on drawing 20/842/2.D and that parking and surface water drainage has been provided. As such, the two conditions were no longer required. 8.6.5 In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in any adverse impacts upon the highway network in terms of safety or capacity. Appropriate levels of safe access can be achieved to the site for the likely levels of traffic movements that would be generated if approved. Therefore, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with Policy DEV3 which requires safe and convenient access and to not create a severe impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10. Conclusion 10.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations. 10.2 The proposal for the erection of two light industrial sheds and eight self-storage shipping containers is considered to be supportable with the inclusion of the proposed conditions, to ensure that the containers are not retained on a permanent basis within the valuable and protected landscape of the AONB. 10.3 The consideration between supporting the local economy and also protecting the protected landscape is finely balanced. Without the proposed conditions the proposed development would be considered differently due to the long term harm of the siting of containers within the AONB.

Page 122 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.4 Overall, with the inclusion of conditions, the proposal is appropriate and in accordance with policies LS1, DEV1, DEV2, DEV3, DEV5, EC3 and ENV3. Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Development

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 26.01.21

Background Papers: Planning File 20/0346

Page 123 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 18 February 2021

Planning Application No: 20/0580 Date Received: 19 August 2020

OS Grid Ref: 375639 545028 Expiry Date: 22 February 2021

Parish: Alston Moor Ward: Alston Moor

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Change of use of land to allow the siting of 3no. Yurts and 3no. Camping Pods with associated infrastructure including communal shower/toilet block, internal footpaths and a package treatment plant

Location: Land at High Galligill Farm, Nenthead, Alston, CA9 3LW

Applicant: High Galligill Farm Ltd

Agent: Mr D Addis

Case Officer: Miss G Heron

Reason for Referral: An objector has requested for the application to be heard before Planning Committee.

© Crown Copyright and Database Rights (2016) Grid Ref: NY

Page 124 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

© Crown Copyright and Database Rights (2016) Grid Ref: NY

Page 125 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: Time Limit for Commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved: i. Application Form dated 19 August 2020 ii. Location Plan. Drawing Number: A01a received by the Local Planning Authority on 25 January 2021 iii. Site Plan and Site Section Plan as Proposed. Drawing Number: 2015/PL 200 Rev F received by the Local Planning Authority on 15 January 2021 iv. Survey for Bats, Barn Owls and Breeding Birds by Steve Wake received by the Local Planning Authority on 19 August 2020 v. Ecological Appraisal by E3 Ecology Ltd received by the Local Planning Authority on 1 October 2020 vi. Ancillary Block – Proposal. Drawing Number: 2015/PL 300 received by the Local Planning Authority on 19 August 2020 vii. Camping Pod Elevations and Floor Plan by Walker Brothers Pine Lodges received by the Local Planning Authority on 15 January 2021 viii. Proposed Yurt Type Elevation and Plan. Drawing Number: 2015/PL 301 received by the Local Planning Authority on 15 January 2021 ix. Rowan Tree Survey ‘BS5837 Tree Survey, Arboricultural Report and Tree Constraints Plan’ Report Number: 0400 received by the Local Planning Authority on 19 August 2020 x. Visibility Splays. Drawing Number: A02 received by the Local Planning Authority on 7 December 2020 xi. Email from Agent dated 11 October 2020 with external lighting details and material details for Ancillary Building xii. Arboricultural Method Statement by Rowan Tree Surveys. Report Number: 0053 received by the Local Planning Authority on 29 January 2021 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Before the Development is Commenced 3. Prior to the commencement of development, the mitigation measures as outlined in Section E of the Bat, Barn Owls and Breeding Birds Survey by Steve Wake

Page 126 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE received by the Local Planning Authority on 19 August 2020 shall be fully installed on the site and shall remain in place on the site. Reason: In the interests of protecting the habitat of protected species. The condition is considered necessary to be complied with prior to other works commencing as compliance with the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 4. Details of all measures to be taken by the applicant/developer to prevent surface discharging onto or off the highway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to the development being commenced. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained operational thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management. 5. The development shall not commence until visibility splays providing clear visibility as demonstrated on ‘Visibility Splay’ Plan, Drawing Number A02 received by the Local Planning Authority on 7 December 2020 have been laid out. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order) relating to permitted development rights, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grow within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 6. Prior to the commence of the development, the Tree Protection barriers as stated in Paragraph 6.8 of ‘Rowan Tree Survey BS5837:2012 Tree Survey, Arboricultural Report and Tree Constraints Plan’ shall be fully installed on the site in accordance with Drawing Number: 2015/PL200 Rev F received by the Local Planning Authority on 15 January 2021 and shall remain in place until the completion of the development. Reason: To prevent damage to the trees in the interest of the visual character and appearance of the area. Pre-Occupancy or Other Stage Conditions 7. The approved landscaping scheme as shown on Drawing Number: 2015/PL200 Rev F received by the Local Planning Authority on 15 January 2021 shall be carried out within six months of the date of the first use of the site or completion of the development whichever is the sooner. Any planting, hedgerows or trees which die, are removed or diseased within a period of 5 years from the date of this planning permission, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size, species and quality. Reason: In the interest of the visual amenity of the site and surrounding area.4. 8. The access drive shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials and shall be constructed and completed before the development is brought into use. This surfacing shall extend for a distance of at least 5 metres inside the site as measured from the carriageway edge of the adjacent highway.

Page 127 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 9. The use shall not commence until the access and parking requirements have been constructed in accordance with Site Plan and Site Section as Proposed, Drawing Number: 2015/PL200 Rev F received by the Local Planning Authority on 15 January 2021. Any such access and parking provision shall be retained and be capable of use when the development is completed and shall not be removed or altered. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of access provision when the development is brought into use. 10. Prior to the first use of the site, any existing highway fence/wall boundary shall be reduced to not exceed 1.05 metres above the carriageway level of the adjacent highway. This shall be fully carried out prior to the first use of the site. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 11. Prior to their installation on the site, the final schedule of materials for the camping pods and the Yurts shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interest of the visual amenity of the site and surrounding area. Ongoing Conditions 12. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied other than for holiday purposes and shall not be used as a sole or main residence. It shall not be let to any person or connected group of persons for any period exceeding eight weeks in any one calendar year. The owner shall maintain an up to date register of names and addresses of the occupiers of all of the holiday accommodation, together with their dates of occupation and shall make the register available to the Local Planning Authority upon request. Reason: To ensure the accommodation remains available for holiday accommodation purposes and is not used for unauthorised permanent residential occupation. 13. No more than three camping pods and three Yurts shall be situated on the site at any one time. Reason: In order to protect the visual amenity of the site and surrounding area. 14. No external lighting shall be installed on the external walls of the Ancillary Block as identified under Drawing Number: 2015/PL300 received by the Local Planning Authority on 19 August 2020. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the site and surrounding area. 15. The external lighting for the development as shown on Drawing Number: 2015/PL200 Rev F and details as per email from Agent on 11 October 2020 shall be the only external lighting for the site. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the site and surrounding area. Note to Developer 1. All Bats and their Roosts are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000) and are

Page 128 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE further protected under Regulation 41(1) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulation 2010. Should any Bats or evidence of Bats be found prior to or during the development, work must stop immediately and in the first instance, contact the National Bat Helpline on 0845 1300 228. Developers/Contractors may need to take further advice from Natural England on the need for a European Protected Species Licence in order to continue the development in a lawful manner. Natural England can be contact at: [email protected] or by calling 0300 060 3900, or Natural England Consultation Service, Hornbeam House, Crewe Business Park, Crewe, CW1 6GJ.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The proposal seeks full planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to allow the siting of 3no. Yurts and 3no. Camping Pods. The proposal includes a toilet/shower block with internal footpaths and a package treatment plant. 2.1.2 The proposed camping pods will be sited within the existing trees on the site and will approximately measure 4.8 metres by 2.5 metres. They will be of a typical design of a camping pods with a door to one gable elevation and one window to the other under a curved roof to be constructed from timber. The three Yurts will each have a diameter of approximately 6 metres, standing to 1.5 metres to the eaves and 2.5 metres to the top of the Yurt. They will be positioned to the north of the site. 2.1.3 The proposal includes an ancillary block which will provide toilet and shower facilities alongside laundry and washing up area for the holiday users of the site. It will be single storey standing to the eaves at 2.4 metres and the ridge at 3.9 metres. It will be constructed from reclaimed local stone with a slate roof with Grey UPVC windows. 2.1.4 The application includes a vehicle access area and pedestrian footpaths finished in compacted hardcore within the site to access each camping pod or Yurt with the paths marked by bollard lighting which will LYCO Lucide Combo Outdoor Led Post light finished in black with a Warm White 7W LED which will have a diameter of 90mm and stand to 0.25 metres in height. No lighting is proposed on the ancillary building. 2.1.5 The proposal includes the removal of approximately 12 trees which are indicated on the site plan for the development with the rest of the existing trees to be retained on the site. The application also includes the planting of six additional trees along the north boundary, three additional trees between the access track and camping pitches and a new hedgerow to the north boundary comprised of 40% laurel, 40% blackthorn and 20% elder and holly in equal proportions. 2.1.6 The application also includes a package treatment plant to be sited alongside the ancillary building to deal with the wastewater from the development. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site relates to a parcel of agricultural land located approximately 2 miles to the south east of Alston town centre. The site slopes from south to north, with the most northern section of the site sitting at a considerable lower level than the highway. There are an array of existing trees on the site with a dry stone wall to mark its boundaries. The site is bound by agricultural land to the north, High Galligill Farm to the east, the public highway (U3113 101) to the south and further agricultural land to the west.

Page 129 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2.2.2 The site is located within Flood Zone 1 and the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The site is not within a Conservation Area and there are no Listed Buildings in the vicinity of the site. The site slopes from south to north away from the public highway. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Local Highway Authority and Responded on 7 December 2020 with the Lead Local Flood Authority following: Having provided speed survey and results with amended plans, the layout details shown are considered satisfactory from a highway perspective. I can therefore confirm that that Highway Authority has no objection to the proposed development but would recommend the following: The development shall not commence until visibility splays providing clear visibility as Drawing No A 02 of 215 metres north westerly by 2.4 metres and 110 metres south easterly by 2.4 metres measured down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the carriageway edge have been provided at the junction of the access road with the county highway. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grown within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. Any existing highway fence/wall boundary shall be reduced to a height not exceeding 1.05m above the carriageway level of the adjacent highway in accordance with details submitted to the Local Planning Authority and which have subsequently been approved (before development commences) (before the development is brought into use) and shall not be raised to a height exceeding 1.05m thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

Page 130 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Consultee Response The access drive shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or otherwise bound and shall be constructed and completed before the development is brought into use. This surfacing shall extend for a distance of at least 5metres inside the site, as measured from the carriageway edge of the adjacent highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 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 thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management. The use shall not be commenced until the access and parking requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan. Any such access and or parking provision shall be retained and be capable of use when the development is completed and shall not be removed or altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of access provision when the development is brought into use. 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Environmental Health Responded on 27 August 2020 with the following: I have viewed the supporting information and cannot see a drawing showing the location of the package treatment plant and direct discharge to the watercourse. Surface water from the communal building should not go to the package treatment plant. This should discharge to soakaway. The applicant should provide further information relating to the size and positioning of the package treatment plant with consideration to any increase in accommodation. The application form and supporting information do not mention drinking water for the development.

Page 131 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Consultee Response There are many private water supplies in the area. Some are surface supplies. Environmental Health will need to know what is proposed and how it is treated if deciding upon a private supply. Suggested Conditions Before the development, including demolition, is commenced, a drainage scheme detailing how foul drainage is to be dealt with shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. None of the [dwellings] shall be occupied until the agreed sewage disposal, and drainage works have been completed. The approved scheme shall be maintained for the life of development. Reason: to prevent the risk of pollution of land and watercourses and maintain public health. Informative: The package treatment plant/septic is required to be compliant with the Building Regulations Approved document H (including minimum distances, details of total usage/specifications) and may require a discharge consent from the Environment Agency. A permit from the Environment Agency is required where there is discharge to a well, borehole, or deep structure; the volume is more than 2 cubic metres per day (2,000 litres); constructed in accordance with BS6297:2007. Guidance should be sought from DEFRA document ‘Small sewage discharges in England – General Binding Rules – 2015 – https://www.gov.uk/guidance/general-binding-rules- small-sewage-discharge-to-a-surface-water If Private Water Supplied: Prior to occupation the applicant must submit a report from a suitably qualified and competent person which identifies the source of the private water supply, the proposed treatment process and demonstrates the capability of the treatment system to achieve a sufficient and wholesome supply of water in accordance with Regulation 4 of the Private Water Supplies (England) Regulations 2016 (as amended). Once agreed in writing with the local planning authority the treatment system must be installed and the water sampled by the local authority, prior to occupation, to ensure that the water is wholesome and safe to drink. Informative - the local authority has a statutory duty

Page 132 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Consultee Response to risk assess and monitor all commercial and small shared supplies to ensure that the water supply meets all of the prescribed concentrations or values set out in the Private Water Supplies (England) Regulations 2016 (as amended). Reason: To ensure that private water supplies comply with all of the regulatory standards and are wholesome and safe to drink. An additional Environmental Health response was received on 8 September 2020 with the following: I have no comment or objection to make regarding this application. Should the application be successful the person in control of the land or owner must apply for a caravan site licence with this department. United Utilities Responded on 1 September 2020 with the following: In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), the site should be drained on a separate system with foul water draining to the public sewer and surface water draining in the most sustainable way. The NPPG clearly outlines the hierarchy to be investigated by the developer when considering a surface water drainage strategy. We would ask the developer to consider the following drainage options in the following order of priority: 1. Into the ground (infiltration) 2. To a surface water body 3. To a surface water sewer, highway drain or another drainage system 4. To a combined sewer. We recommend the applicant implements the scheme in accordance with the surface water drainage hierarchy outlined above. Tree Officer Responded on 20 October 2020 with the following: The amended plan is acceptable. The specification for the tree protection barriers should be as described in paragraph 6.8 Rowan Tree Surveys BS5837:2012 Tree Survey, Arboricultural Report and Tree Constraints Plan dated 16 July 2020. A condition is also required for the submission of an Arboricultural Method Statement prior to development commencing.

Page 133 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Consultee Response Environment Agency Responded on 27 August 2020 with no objections with an informative in relation to foul drainage. North Pennines Area of Responded initially on 9 September 2020 with the Outstanding Natural Beauty following: The site incorporates a small area of mature woodland that contributes positively to landscape character. The details of which trees are likely to be removed (if any) or mitigating the effect of construction on those intended for retention is not clear and should be provided. There will be an inevitable biodiversity value of a small woodland of this sort that is not wholly quantified, or, considered against an intention to ensure net gain for biodiversity through development. Additionally, there is no assessment of the potential impact of the development on any adjacent breeding territories of wading birds. Details of proposed lighting and signage do not seem to be provided. Though the site benefits from association with the existing property and from partial screening, the nature of the proposal as made will introduce new features into the landscape that will not accommodate well (the example yurts are white in colour and the car park and other features have no effective screening proposed). In summary, there is missing information and issues with the proposal as made that we feel make it unacceptable in its present form. Amended information and details have since been submitted for the application and an amended response has been received on 6 November 2020 with the following: The amended plan looks better than the original with the inclusion of additional (replacement) trees and hedgerow. I assume these will be native broadleaf with local provenance but that would need specifying if permitted. The green example of the yurt will accommodate better into the setting (material colour should be specified). The outstanding question was regarding biodiversity and the balance of the impact and we would ask if an ecology report has been undertaken. The Case Officer notified the AONB of the Ecology Appraisal and Bat and Barn Owl Survey which has been submitted as part of the application and no

Page 134 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Consultee Response consequent response has been received. 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response Parish No View Object Support No Response Council/Meeting Expressed Alston Moor Parish  Council 4.1 Alston Moor Parish Council responded on 16 September 2020 with the following: ‘Concerns about the water supply mentioned, with the possibility of some propertied being on spring water with an irregular supply. Recommended for approval subject to satisfactory arrangements for fresh and foul drainage’. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 26 September 2020 by the applicant on behalf of the LPA due to COVID-19 working arrangements. No of Neighbours Consulted 0 No of letters of support No of Representations Received 4 No of neutral representations 1 No of objection letters 3 5.1.1 Letters of objection raised the following material considerations to the application which can be summarised:  Excessive noise and disturbance to residents, livestock and wildlife which would be contrary to Paragraph 170 and 180 of the NPPF.  Due to significant increase in disturbance, traffic, noise and light pollution the proposal will not protect the amenity of the existing or future residents which is contrary to Policy DEV5.  Light pollution would impact the landscape which is renowned for its dark landscape and have detrimental effects on the biodiversity.  Increased road traffic on the unclassified single track that has no passing places and the proposal would have a significant impact on this.  Damage to the visual character of the landscape due to its prominent location, structure sizes and heights. The structures will not be screened by the existing topography and will present significant visual impact to neighbouring properties and wider landscape. The tree coverage will not offer enough screening to conceal the camping pods as it is sparse. The proposal does not accord with Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan.  The size and scale of the Yurts.  The impact of the development on the tranquillity of the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty with the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) showing that the North Pennines is one of the few large areas of tranquillity left in England. The proposal devalues the landscape and impacts on the tranquil nature.

Page 135 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  The development is not capable of being removed without damage or material change to the woodland as per Policy EC4.  The proposal does not comply with Policy ENV3 as the development will lessen the distinctive character of the local area.  There is no existing farm business at this property with a local farmer occasionally grazing sheep on the field and therefore, the proposal does not meet the criteria of Policy RUR4 in terms of sustaining an existing farm business.  Proposal includes a waste water treatment plant but no additional details have been provided to safeguard any impacts. Another development at the Barn at High Galligill includes a waste water treatment plant and required full details of the proposed plant to be submitted.  Flood risk to the site and surrounding area, including other residential properties. 5.1.2 Letters of objection raised the following non-material considerations which are summarised below:  Loss of quality of life.  Increase in refuse/littering.  Concern over what other or additional development will follow should this application be approved and what further detriment to the amenity of the existing and future residents will there be.  A number of existing businesses of a similar nature are already well established on the more suitable location along the main A689 which lies directly on the Coast to Coast Cycle Route.  The unclassified road is a favourite for dog walkers.  Potential risk to livestock and wildlife from unrestrained pet dogs being allowed into adjacent fields.  Increased risk of petty crime. 6. Relevant Planning History Application No Description Outcome 20/0400 Notice of intention for proposed private Prior approval not way for agricultural required 22/07/2020 20/0428 Porch to north east elevation, single Full Approval storey outbuilding extension to the north 20/08/2020 west elevation 20/0812 Erection of an agricultural building and Full Approval associated operations 15/12/2020 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan (2014-2032):  Policy LS1: Locational Strategy  Policy DEV1: General Approach to New Development

Page 136 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Policy DEV3: Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way  Policy DEV5: Design of New Development  Policy EC4: Tourism Accommodation and Facilities  Policy ENV2: Protection and enhancement of Landscapes and Trees  Policy ENV3: The North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Supplementary Planning Documents:  North Pennines AONB Planning Guidelines (July 2011)  North Pennines AONB Building Design Guide (2011) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Chapter 6: Building a strong, competitive economy  Chapter 12: Achieving well-designed places  Chapter 15: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Cumbria Landscape Assessment Toolkit 7.3 The policies and documents detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to the determination of this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Landscape and Visual Impacts  Residential Amenity  Infrastructure  Natural Environment  Historic Environment 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan sets out the locational strategy for the Eden District. The application site is located in an isolated position approximately 2 miles to the south east of Alston town centre. The site is considered to be located in the ‘Other Rural Areas’ of which Policy LS1 outlines: ‘Development will be restricted to the re-use of traditional buildings, the provision of affordable housing as an exception to policy only, or where proposals accord with other policies in the Local Plan’. 8.2.2 In accordance with this, Policy EC4 relates to tourism accommodation and facilities and supports small scale tourism development where it meets all of the criteria. It states: ‘Small scale tourism development will be permitted for temporary accommodation (caravan, camping and chalet sites) where it meets all of the following criteria:  The site is screened by existing topography and vegetation.  Suitable access and parking arrangements are defined and the site does not give rise to unacceptable impacts on the local road network either through traffic generation from the site itself or through cumulative impacts alongside other sites.

Page 137 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  The development is capable of being removed without damage or material change to the land on which it is sited’. 8.2.3 As the supporting statement outlines that the proposal is a farm diversification scheme relating to the existing small holding on the site but little other information has been provided in terms of the small holding at present. In relation to this, Policy RUR4 relates to farm diversification in rural areas, however, limited weight has been placed on this policy in the determination of the application due to the lack of information presented to the Council in relation to this element of the proposal. Although, for reference to Members, Policy RUR4 states the following: ‘Diversification of activities on existing farm units will be permitted provided:  They help to sustain an existing farm business.  They are of a scale which is consistent to the location of the farm holding.  They would not prejudice the agricultural use of the unit’. 8.2.4 Paragraph 83 of the NPPF 2019 supports the sustainable growth and expansion of all type of business in rural areas and in general, the Local Planning Authority are supportive of this. However, the economic benefits of three camping pods and three Yurts to the wider tourism economy of Eden is considered to be a relatively small contribution to the rural economy and limited weight has been attached to this in the determination of the application. 8.2.5 Also, the application site is located in the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) with the purpose of the designation to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area. Unlike national parks, recreation is not a primary reason for its designation. The long-term preservation and enhancement of the AONB is of the utmost importance. Therefore, Policy ENV3 of the Eden Local Plan applies to this application, alongside Paragraph 172 of the NPPF 2019. Policy ENV3 states: ‘Development within or affecting the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) will only be permitted where each of the following criteria apply:  Individually or cumulatively it will not have a significant or adverse impact upon the special qualities or statutory purpose of the AONB.  It does not lessen or cause harm to the distinctive character of the area, the historic environment, heritage assets and their setting.  It adheres to the formally adopted design guides or planning policies, including the North Pennines Management Plan, the North Pennines AONB Planning Guidelines and the North Pennines AONB Building Design Guide’. 8.2.6 As outlined above, Policy ENV3 does not categorically preclude development in the AONB and neither does the relevant sections of the NPPF. It does however place great weight on the preservation and enhancement of the AONB in the determination of any planning application. Therefore, the principle of development within the AONB is not resisted or prevented by the Eden Local Plan. However, it is necessary to place great weight in conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area. 8.2.7 Overall, in considering the principle of this form of development, whilst the application site is located in an ‘Other Rural Area’ in accordance with Policy LS1, Policy EC4 of the Eden Local Plan supports tourism accommodation and facilities within the Eden District in principle. There is also support for the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas in Paragraph 83 of the NPPF. In terms of the AONB

Page 138 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE designation, it is acknowledged that the purpose of the AONB is not for recreational purposes; it is designated to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area. However, Policy ENV3 of the Eden Local Plan and Paragraph 172 of the NPPF do not preclude development in this landscape designation. These policies place great weight in conserving and enhance the landscape in the determination of this application. 8.2.8 Therefore, in considering this, the principle of the development on this site is considered to be acceptable under Policy EC4 of the Eden Local Plan and Paragraph 83 of the NPPF, subject to other material planning consideration and by placing great weight on the AONB designation which shall be discussed below. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 Policy DEV5 states development which “shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area” could be supported. 8.3.2 Policy ENV2 concerns the protection and enhancement of landscapes. It states “new development will only be permitted where it conserves and enhances distinctive elements of the landscape character and function”. 8.3.3 Policy EC4 outlines that the site must be screened by existing topography and vegetation as well as the development must be capable of being removed without damage or material change to the land on which it is sited. 8.3.4 The site is located within the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and therefore, Policy ENV3 of the Eden Local Plan applies. Policy ENV3 states: ‘Development within or affecting the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) will only be permitted where each of the following criteria apply:  Individually or cumulatively it will not have a significant or adverse impact upon the special qualities or statutory purpose of the AONB.  It does not lessen or cause harm to the distinctive character of the area, the historic environment, heritage assets and their setting.  It adheres to the formally adopted design guides or planning policies, including the North Pennines Management Plan, the North Pennines AONB Planning Guidelines and the North Pennines AONB Building Design Guide’. 8.3.5 The North Pennines AONB Building Design Guide 2011 under LC9 states ‘Look to the local landscape for design inspiration. Pay particular attention to the scale, mass, form and detailing of local buildings, local vegetation patterns and local styles of wall, hedges, fencing, gates and paving materials. Under this guide, LC10 states ‘use natural materials in construction where possible and particularly local stone and timber’. 8.3.6 Paragraph 172 of the NPPF indicates that in relation to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) ‘great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty.’ It further adds that locations such as AONBs ‘have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues’. 8.3.7 The application site is located immediately adjacent to an existing residential property, High Galligill, which has an existing access from the unclassified road. In terms of public vantage points, there are a number of Public Rights of Way (PROW) which are in the vicinity of the application site; to the immediate west there is Public Footpath 302087 which continues northbound, to the east of the site after the existing dwelling is

Page 139 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Public Footpath 302098 which also continues northbound which both of these PROW joining another Public Footpath 302102 which travels west to south east to the north of the site. 8.3.8 In terms of the camping pods, they are considered to be of a relatively small scale and of an appropriate standard with a visually unimposing design. They will be situated within the midst of the existing small woodland which is situated on the site which is a mixture of mature, well-grown trees. Plans have been submitted to show that the majority of the trees will be retained on the site and this will be secured through the use of a planning condition. It is considered that the camping pods, although partially visible from the identified PROWs, they will be seen within the context of the existing trees on the site and will be situated at a considerable lower level than the existing highway which will use the existing topography of the site to screen the development from the highway. The use of timber as a material will allow the camping pods to blend in with their surrounding area and this is considered to be an acceptable material for the development. The camping pods are not considered to cause significant harm to the landscape or North Pennines AONB designation and on balance, are acceptable in this location. 8.3.9 In relation to the three Yurts to be sited along the north boundary of the site, they will be visible from the PROWs in the immediate surrounds of the application site. However, they will be screened by the existing unclassified highway to the south of the site due to the change in land levels, leaving the Yurts at a considerably lower level than the highway. From public views to the north from the PROWs, the Yurts will appear in the context of the existing trees on the site which are to be retained on the site and will be of a subdued material colour to allow them to blend into the landscape to be sympathetic to its designation which will be secured by condition. The application also secures additional planting along the north boundary of the site which will enhance the existing screening and topography of the site to allow the Yurts to accommodate into the landscape. It is considered that although the Yurts will be a new feature in the landscape, the existing topography and planting on the site allows for them to not cause any significant harm to the AONB and wider landscape which is considered to be acceptable. 8.3.10 In regards the ancillary building, it will be positioned in close proximity to the residential property High Galligill. It is recognised by Officers that Policy EC4 states that the development must be capable of being removed without damage or material change to the land on which it is sited. Whilst the ancillary building will be a permanent building, it is of a high quality design in considering its proposed purpose, being constructed from reclaimed stone and natural slates which will be in-keeping with the existing residential property High Galligill. In considering the design and visual amenity of the ancillary block, whilst it may not necessarily accord with Policy EC4 in regards to the specific requirement of being able to be removed, the quality use of materials and siting of the building is considered to be outweigh this in the planning balance. It is also partially screened from the highway due to the land being situated at a lower level than the highway to the south. From PROWs to the north, it will also appear within the context of the existing residential property and will not appear to be a stark feature in the landscape. It is considered to be acceptable in terms of scale, size and design. 8.3.11 In addition, the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Partnership have been consulted as part of the application. Following the submission of an amended plan in relation to the overall site, comment that the amended plan looks better than the original with the inclusion of additional planting and the use of green for the Yurt will

Page 140 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE accommodate better into the setting. Whilst elevation plans have been submitted for both the camping pods and the Yurts, the final material details have not been submitted and will be secured under a planning condition. In reviewing these details, the LPA will make sure that the Yurt material is a green colour to be in keeping with the surrounding landscape and to be in accordance with the North Pennines AONB Partnership’s comments on the application. The proposal is not considered to cause harm or lessen the AONB’s distinctive character of the area which would warrant the refusal of the application under Policy ENV3 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.3.12 Concerns have been raised by objectors in relation to light pollution and its impact in the wider landscape. However, details of the external lighting has been submitted as part of the application and there will be LED bollards marking the pedestrian paths within the site which will be a maximum of 0.25 metres in height. A condition will also be imposed to prevent the use of lighting on the external walls of the ancillary building. It is considered that whilst the development will inevitably introduce light into the area, this has been mitigated during the determination of this application and will be secured by planning conditions. Also, as outlined above, the North Pennines AONB Partnership do not object to the application. 8.3.13 Overall, there will be a change in the appearance of the site and it will appear differently within the wider landscape, however it is considered that the existing trees and planting on the site effectively screen the development in order to protect the natural landscape and will be conditioned to be retained on the site. The design of the camping pods, Yurts and ancillary building is considered to be acceptable. However, on balance, the proposal is not considered to cause significant harm to the appearance, setting or character of the North Pennines AONB or affect its designation which would warrant the refusal of this application under Policy ENV2, Policy ENV3, Policy EC4 and Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-32 states that development should “protect the amenity of existing residents” and provide an “acceptable amenity for future occupiers”. 8.4.2 Concerns have been raised by objectors in relation to the impact of noise and disturbance to the existing and future residents in the vicinity of the site. The nearest existing residential property is located approximately 110 metres to the south of the site and it is acknowledged there is an existing barn immediately adjacent to east of the site which has planning approval for three dwellings (19/0875). 8.4.3 In considering this, it is acknowledged that the proposal does change the nature of how the land will be used, bringing additional tourism into the area. It is acknowledged there will noise generated by the occupants of the site which is to be expected with such tourism development. However, at present the site is agricultural land and there are no restrictions in place on the land which prevents its use at any date or time by a range of agricultural activities which also have the potential to generate noise in the area. Overall, the proposal is not considered to cause significant enough harm in terms of noise and disturbance which would tilt the planning balance to warrant the refusal of the application under Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.5 Infrastructure 8.5.1 Policy DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan seeks to ensure that all development would not result in any adverse impacts upon highway safety or congestion.

Page 141 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.5.2 Policy DEV2 seeks to ensure that all new development does not result in any increased flood risk at the site or to any surrounding land. 8.5.3 The supporting statement identifies that the surface water from the camping pods and yurts will discharge directly into the adjoining ground. Surface water and waste water from the communal building will discharge into the package treatment plant with treated water eventually discharging into the watercourse. The application site is also located in Flood Zone 1. In terms of the treatment plant, the Environment Agency have been consulted have no objections to the application but highlight that under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 there may be a need for the applicant to apply for a permit. This is controlled outside of the legislative requirements of planning and it is the applicant’s responsibility to ascertain if a permit is required for the package treatment or not. 8.5.4 It is acknowledged that the Council’s Environmental Health Team have provided comments on the application in relation to drainage and water supply. However, as they are not a statutory consultee on this matter and the conditions they request relate to different legislative requirements outside of Planning legislation, it is not considered to be reasonable or necessary to request this information or for it to be conditioned. 8.5.5 Access to the site will be directly from the public highway to the south of the site to be constructed from compacted hardcore which will provide on-site parking for six cars in a central on-site parking area. Concerns have been raised by objectors about the impact of the development upon the unclassified road especially as there are no passing places. In relation to this, Cumbria County Council as Local Highways and LLFA have been consulted as part of the application. They required the applicant to submit a speed survey for the development. They have responded on the application with no objection stating that the speed survey and the revised plans show adequate visibility splays for the proposal, recommending the following conditions:  Visibility splays  Highway fence/wall boundary  Access drive shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials  Details of surface water to be submitted 8.5.6 The above conditions recommended by Cumbria County Council as Local Highways and LLFA will be included in the recommendation for the proposal. 8.5.7 Overall, the proposal does not cause any significant harm in terms of the infrastructure it proposes, being acceptable in accordance with Policy DEV2 and Policy DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.6 Natural Environment 8.6.1 Policy ENV1 seeks to ensure that all new development does not result in any net loss to biodiversity. 8.6.2 The proposal would result in a loss of a small area of agricultural land, although the extent of this loss is not considered to be significantly adverse due to the likely low ecological value that this parcel of land holds given the existing constraints of the small woodland of trees. The proposal includes Tree Protection Measures to be installed on the site and this will be secured with a planning condition which will ensure no adverse harm to any of the surrounding trees. 8.6.3 The application is accompanied by an Ecological Appraisal and a Bat and Barn Owl Report. The Bat and Barn Owl Report states there is no mitigation required for Barn

Page 142 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Owls and that Bat boxes will be placed in trees at four metres in height and will be north facing prior to the start of works. This will be secured with a planning condition. 8.6.4 The proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to the natural environment and in accordance with Policy ENV1 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.7 Historic Environment 8.7.1 Policy ENV10 requires great weight to the attached to the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment, heritage assets and their settings. 8.7.2 The application site is not within a Conservation Area and there are no Listed Buildings in the vicinity of the site which need to be considered as part of this application. The proposal is acceptable in this regard. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10. Conclusion 10.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: 10.2 Overall, in considering the principle of this form of development, whilst the application site is located in an ‘Other Rural Area’ in accordance with Policy LS1, Policy EC4 of the Eden Local Plan supports tourism accommodation and facilities within the Eden District in principle. There is also support for the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas in Paragraph 83 of the NPPF. Policy ENV3 and Paragraph 172 of the NPPF do not preclude development in the AONB. Therefore, in considering this, the principle of the development on this site is considered to be acceptable under Policy EC4 of the Eden Local Plan and Paragraph 83 of the NPPF, subject to other material planning consideration.

Page 143 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.3 In terms of the landscape, AONB designation and overall visual amenity, whilst there will be a change in the appearance of the site and it will appear differently within the wider landscape, it is considered that the existing trees and planting on the site will effectively screen the development with the site lying at a lower level than the main highway. The design of the camping pods, Yurts and ancillary building is also considered to be acceptable. Therefore, on balance, the proposal is not considered to cause significant harm to the appearance, setting or character of the North Pennines AONB or affect its designation which would warrant the refusal of this application under Policy ENV2, Policy ENV3, Policy EC4 and Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan. 10.4 The proposal is not considered to cause any significant harm in terms of the infrastructure it proposes, being acceptable in accordance with Policy DEV2 and Policy DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan. 10.5 The proposal is not considered to cause unacceptable harm to the residential amenity of the site or the surrounding area. It is acknowledged that the proposal does change the nature of how the land will be used, bringing additional tourism to the area which will generate an element of noise from the occupants. However, the surrounding area is characterised as rural with the nearest neighbouring existing residential property located approximately 110 metres from the site. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to cause significant enough harm in terms of noise and disturbance which would tilt the planning balance to warrant the refusal of the application under Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan. 10.6 The proposal would result in a loss of a small area of agricultural land. However, the application has been accompanied by an Ecological Appraisal and a Bat and Barn Owl Survey which are considered to be acceptable in relation to the natural environment and in accordance with Policy ENV1 of the Eden Local Plan. 10.7 Therefore, the proposal, on balance, is considered to accord with Policy EC4, Policy ENV2, Policy ENV3, Policy DEV2, Policy DEV5 and Policy ENV1 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-32 as well as the NPPF 2019.

Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Development

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 26.01.21

Background Papers: Planning File 20/0580

Page 144 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 18 February 2021

Planning Application No: 20/0744 Date Received: 9 October 2020

OS Grid Ref: 350943 529795 Expiry Date: 4 December 2020

Parish: Penrith Ward: Penrith West

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Erection of concrete batching plant with aggregate bays; retention of existing storage and welfare buildings; and installation of interceptor

Location: Unit 7B, Mardale Road, Penrith Industrial Estate

Applicant: DA Harrison - Mr N Harrison

Agent: Stephenson Halliday Ltd - Mr Adam Perry

Case Officer: Mr Ian Irwin

Reason for Referral: The recommendation is contrary to that of the Town Council.

Page 145 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 146 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that permission is granted subject to the following conditions: Time Limit for Commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the application form dated 29 September 2020 and the following details and plans hereby approved; i. Location Plan, dated September 2020; ii. Proposed Block Plan, dated September 2020; iii. Proposed Concrete Batching Plant, dated September 2020; iv. Planning Statement with Flood Risk Assessment, dated September 2020. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the approved details. Prior to commencement 3. Prior to the commencement of any development, a surface water drainage scheme, based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions (inclusive of how the scheme shall be managed after completion) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage scheme must be in accordance with the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards and no surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly. If necessary, the surface water drainage scheme shall include a restricted rate of discharge and it shall also include a timetable for the implementation of the scheme. The development shall be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. This condition is imposed in light of policies within the NPPF and NPPG. 4. Prior to the commencement of the development, A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:  all previous uses  potential contaminants associated with those uses  a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors  potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site (a) A site investigation scheme, based on the above to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off-site.

Page 147 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE (b) The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (a) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. (c) 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 in (b) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. Once approved, any approved details shall be adhered to and implemented for the duration of the development. Reason: To ensure that the development does not contribute to, and is not put at unacceptable risk from or adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of water pollution. 5. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP), for construction of the proposed development, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The statement shall outline the potential impacts and mitigation measures from all construction activities to prevent pollution of groundwater and public water supply and to protect the integrity of existing utility assets. The development shall then be undertaken in accordance at all times with the approved Construction Management Plan (CEMP). Reason: To promote sustainable development, to manage the risk of pollution, and to protect the public water supply and the groundwater environment. Prior to Operations Commencing 6. Prior to the commencement of the hereby approved development operating, an Operational Management Plan (OMP), for day to day operations, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The statement shall outline how the site will be maintained and contribute to ensuring that no materials contaminate adjacent land or any body of water how complaints if received would be dealt with. Thereafter, the development shall then be undertaken in accordance with the Operational Management Plan (OMP) at all times. Reason: In the interests of amenity and to manage the risk of pollution and contamination. 7. Prior to the commencement of the development, details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval in relation to a dust action plan. The dust action plan shall detail dust control measures that shall be employed to minimise the emission of dust from the site. The plan shall also include details of water suppression of materials where necessary during periods of high winds and/or dry weather. Thereafter, the development shall then be undertaken in accordance with the dust action plan. Reason: In the interests of the amenity the area. On-going conditions 8. The hereby approved development shall be permitted to be operational between the following hours –

Page 148 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 07.30 – 18.00 – Monday to Friday; and 07:30 – 13.00 – Saturdays. And there shall be no use any Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area. 9. The existing lighting columns shall only be used between the following hours – 07.30 – 18.00 – Monday to Friday; and 07:30 – 13.00 – Saturdays. And shall not be used on any Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area. 10. No new mobile or fixed lighting shall be installed on site. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area. 11. If during any works hereby approved any areas of contamination are discovered, it shall be assessed all operational activity cease and a report submitted to the local planning authority describing the nature, extent and method of dealing with such contamination. Once approved, that report and its content shall be adhered to throughout the operational life of the hereby approved development and the hereby approved development re-commence activity on site. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to ensure any risk of pollution is mitigated. 12. Vehicle loading or unloading bays and storage areas involving chemicals, refuse or other polluting matter shall not be connected to the surface water drainage system. Reason: To protect the local area from unnecessary pollution and contamination. 13. All cleaning and washing operations shall be carried out in designated areas indicated on the Proposed Block Plan, dated September 2020 and shall be isolated from any surface water system and only draining to the foul drainage system or sealed system. All cleaning and washing operations shall be carried out in this designated area for the duration of the development. Reason: To protect the local area from unnecessary pollution and contamination. 14. Any facilities, above ground, for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata or sewer. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund. Reason: To protect the local area from unnecessary pollution and contamination. Note to developer: 1. This decision notice grants planning permission only. It does not override any existing legal agreement, covenant or ownership arrangement. It is the applicant’s

Page 149 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE responsibility to ensure all necessary agreements are in place prior to the commencement of development. 2. If the applicant intends to obtain a water supply from United Utilities for the proposed development, we strongly recommend they engage with us at the earliest opportunity. If reinforcement of the water network is required to meet the demand, this could be a significant project and the design and construction period should be accounted for. To discuss a potential water supply or any of the water comments detailed above, the applicant can contact the team at [email protected]. Please note, all internal pipework must comply with current Water Supply (water fittings) Regulations 1999. 3. It is the applicant's responsibility to investigate the possibility of any United Utilities’ assets potentially impacted by their proposals and to demonstrate the exact relationship between any United Utilities' assets and the proposed development. A number of providers offer a paid for mapping service including United Utilities. To find out how to purchase a sewer and water plan from United Utilities, please visit the Property Searches website; https://www.unitedutilities.com/property-searches/ 4. You can also view the plans for free. To make an appointment to view our sewer records at your local authority please contact them direct, alternatively if you wish to view the water and the sewer records at our Lingley Mere offices based in Warrington please ring 0370 751 0101 to book an appointment. Due to the public sewer transfer in 2011, not all sewers are currently shown on the statutory sewer records and we do not always show private pipes on our plans. If a sewer is discovered during construction; please contact a Building Control Body to discuss the matter further. Should this planning application be approved the applicant should contact United Utilities regarding a potential water supply or connection to public sewers. Additional information is available on our website http://www.unitedutilities.com/builders-developers.aspx 5. The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 require a permit to be obtained for any activities which will take place:  on or within 8 metres of a main river (16 metres if tidal)  on or within 8 metres of a flood defence structure or culverted main river (16 metres if tidal)  on or within 16 metres of a sea defence  involving quarrying or excavation within 16 metres of any main river, flood defence (including a remote defence) or culvert  in a floodplain more than 8 metres from the river bank, culvert or flood defence structure (16 metres if it’s a tidal main river) and you don’t already have planning permission For further guidance please visit https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-activities- environmental-permits or contact our National Customer Contact Centre on 03708 506 506. The applicant should not assume that a permit will automatically be forthcoming once planning permission has been granted, and we advise them to consult with us at the earliest opportunity.

Page 150 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 This application is a full application for erection of a concrete batching plant with aggregate bays, the retention of existing storage and welfare buildings and the installation of an interceptor. 2.1.2 The Concrete Batching Plant would comprise aggregate feeders, storage bins and bays, an elevating conveyor and Cementous material mixing silo hoppers. The applicant confirms that the silo hoppers would have a maximum height of 9.6 metres and be served by a dual shaft mixing conveyor. All plant proposed would be positioned upon a concrete hardstanding. 2.1.3 In order to make cement, aggregate would be brought onto site by HGV and stored in the proposed storage bays. The materials would then be fed into aggregate bins that are transferred into the aggregate mixing part of the feeder. Once this process is completed and cementitious materials are added along with water from the silos, the cement product would then be transferred via a pan mixer to the mobile concrete unit that would transport any concrete made to site. 2.1.4 The applicant proposes that output would be approximately 75 to 100 cubic metres of cement per day and if such typical output was achieved, this would amount to 7-8 vehicle loads of aggregate, sand and cement along with 15 vehicle loads of ready mixed concrete being taken to customers. Some additional vehicle movements associated with staff attending site for maintenance and operation of the plant would take place. The applicant would utilise the already constructed access of the existing industrial unit. 2.1.5 The applicant proposes that works would be undertaken from 07.00 to 19.00 hours per day. They confirm that the development would result in x 2 full time jobs were the scheme approved and subsequently implemented. 2.1.6 The applicant has also proposed an interceptor to treat surface water to remove sediment from the water that is generated by the concrete batching plant process. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application site is an existing but apparently unused and vacant industrial unit. It is 0.28 ha in size and is almost square in shape. It is located within the existing Penrith Industrial Estate and is surrounded by existing industrial and commercial uses. 2.2.2 The site is bordered to the South by a plant hire business whilst to the North is a Civil Engineering company. The nearest residential properties to the site are located to the North of the application site, off Norfolk Place, approximately 90 metres from the application site, beyond the adjacent County Wildlife Site and another industrial unit. The nearest of these properties have rear elevations which look out towards both the application site and wider industrial estate. 2.2.3 The site is located in both Flood Zones 2 and 3. The site is not located in an area subject to any ‘special’ designation in terms of landscape or heritage zones and there are no scheduled ancient monuments in or within the vicinity of the site. To the North of the site is a Public Right of Way (PROW) along with the aforementioned County Wildlife Site.

Page 151 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 3. Consultees 3.1 Consultees Consultee Response Cumbria County Council - Responded on the 6 November 2020 and confirmed Local Highway Authority that ‘it is considered that the proposal would not have a material effect on existing highway conditions and that the site has an existing permitted access arrangement onto Mardale Road’. The response confirmed that the Local Highway Authority had no objection to the principle of the development proposed. Cumbria County Council – Responded on the 6 November 2020 and confirmed Lead Local Flood Authority that further details would be required in terms of the drainage proposal. They confirmed that, ‘in terms of drainage Cumbria County Council would need to see more detail to show how the site will be drained. It is appreciated that the section 3.1.12 of the Planning Statement provided by Stephenson Halliday and dated Sept 2020 that there is a main sewer on Mardale Road which is under the ownership of United Utilities, CCC would need to see how that permission has been granted by UU for a connection and a demonstration as to how the connection will be made and the location of the drainage infrastructure on the proposed site. The drainage design should also take into consideration the comments made by the Environment Agency with regards to the sensitivity of the site in relation to Myers Beck (Main River). As such CCC as LLFA would requested that the inclusion of the following condition in any permission the Local Planning Authority may consider granting’ is attached to any subsequent approval. That condition related to surface water drainage. Environment Agency Responded on the 28 October 2020 and confirmed that ‘The previous use of the proposed development site as engineering storage presents a risk of contamination that could be mobilised during construction to pollute controlled waters. Controlled waters are particularly sensitive in this location because the proposed development site is adjacent to Myers Beck. The application demonstrates that it will be possible to manage the risks posed to controlled waters by this development. Further detailed information will however be required before built development is undertaken. We believe that it would place an unreasonable burden on the developer to ask for more detailed information prior to the granting of

Page 152 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE planning permission but respect that this is a decision for the local planning authority. In light of the above, the proposed development will be acceptable if a planning condition is included requiring the submission of a remediation strategy. This should be carried out by a competent person in line with paragraph 178 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Without this condition we would object to the proposal in line with paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework because it cannot be guaranteed that the development will not be put at unacceptable risk from, or be adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of water pollution’. The condition sought remediation strategy assessment and details related to contamination risk and potential. Natural England Responded on the 21 December 2020 and confirmed that ‘The proposed site is adjacent to Myers Beck. This is hydrologically linked to the River Eden and Tributaries SSSI and River Eden SAC downstream. Therefore a Surface Water Drainage Plan is required and should be secured through Condition’. Cumbrian Wildlife Trust Were consulted on the 20 October 2020 no response has been received. Network Rail Were consulted on the 20 October 2020 no response has been received. United Utilities Responded on the 4 January 2021 and confirmed that were the scheme to be approved, they would wish to see conditions related to surface and foul water to be attached to any subsequent decision. Environmental Health Officer Responded on the 10 November 2020 and confirmed (EHO) that ‘The proposed site, although in an existing industrial area is in close proximity to Myers Beck, residential properties (Norfolk Close 90m), a public footpath and Myers Beck County Wildlife Site. Other consultees have dealt with potential pollution to water and land. Consideration has therefore been given to the likely impact on air pollution and nearby residential properties in terms of dust and noise. Emission to Air Based on the information contained within the application, the Environmental Protection Team have no objection to the principle of the proposed development subject to the applicant obtaining an Environmental Permit under the LAPPC regime prior to the operation of the proposed cement batching plant. Obtaining a permit prior to the operation of a

Page 153 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE prescribed process is a legal requirement under The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 and is designed to ensure that any potential air pollution associated with the process is prevented or minimised. An insignificant impact on the local air quality is envisaged from the proposed use subject to the installation being operated in accordance with the conditions of an Environmental Permit. Noise Emissions Based on the information contained within the application, stating likely hours of operation 07.00 to 19.00 and daily vehicle movements of 7/8 load deliveries and 15 load of ready-mix I have no objection to the principle of the proposed development’. The case officer responded to the EHO to confirm that they did not consider any formal assessment were necessary. A second response was therefore received on the 1 December 2020. It stated that ‘I can confirm that further assessment with respect to odour and dust would not be required from this Department as no odour emissions are envisaged with the operation of a concrete batching plant and the control of dust would be covered by conditions in an Environmental Permit which the operator would legally have to obtain prior to the plant coming into operation, Thereafter, the process would have to be in compliance with the permit conditions with inspections occurring at a prescribed frequency. With respect to potential light pollution, it would be prudent to limit the use of any artificial light in line with the hours of operation of the process. There are 3 existing light towers on the site. I had checked our complaints system and no complaints concerning light pollution in respect of this site had been received. With respect to potential noise emissions, it is considered that the operation of the proposed concrete batching plant during the day would be unlikely to result in significant impact at the closest residential properties, however the potential does still remain. The proposed development is located on an existing industrial estate with varied use and is near a railway line however the proposed site has got residential to the rear which many of the other ‘plots’ on the estate do not have. Due to the hours of operation proposed, requiring a full noise assessment under BS4142 may not be required, limiting the hours of operation could control any potential noise impact in this instance and I agree that the hours that you

Page 154 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE propose would offer better protection of the amenity to nearby residential receptors. The proposed development is a borderline case as to whether a noise assessment would be required, if you would prefer to be cautious then a BS4142 assessment could be requested’. 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response Town Object Support No Response Comments Council/Meeting Penrith   4.1 Penrith Town Council responded with an initial objection on the 3 November 2020 that stated ‘a response be returned to EDC objecting to the application which is only 90m from the nearest house on the grounds of noise and disturbance to residents resulting from use and proposed hours of operation. Should EDC be minded to approve the application, Penrith Town Council would wish there to be conditions relating to noise and dust repression, working hours and screening from the houses and adjoining footpath’. 4.2 The case officer requested further clarification from the Town Council as their response made reference to the possibility of conditions being imposed on any subsequently approved development. Given that the aim of conditions is to make development acceptable, if the Town Council were seeking their inclusion, was their response a full objection. The Town Council therefore provided a further response on the 26 November 2020 that confirmed ‘Although this application is on the periphery of an industrial area, it is also only 90m from the nearest residential houses. Penrith Town Council wishes to OBJECT to the application on the following grounds: 1. The application goes against a provision in Policy EC3 as the operation, noise and disturbance would adversely affect the local amenity of local residents only 90m away and those using the adjoining amenity land and footpath. This will be exacerbated by the working hours proposed. 2. The application goes against Policy ENV9 as a concrete batching plant creates dust, odour and vibration. The prevailing wind direction in the area is from the west and will therefore drift across the residential area close by thereby affecting further the residential amenity of residents’. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours of the site on the 20 October 2020 and a site notice was posted on site on the 4 November 2020 on behalf of the Local Planning Authority by the applicant. No of Neighbours Consulted 6 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 0 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 0 6. Relevant Planning History None relevant

Page 155 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan 2014-2032: The specific policies considered relevant in the determination of this particular application are as follows;  LS1 - Locational Strategy  DEV1 - General Approach to New Development;  DEV2 - Water Management and Flood Risk;  DEV3 - Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way;  DEV5 - Design of New Development;  ENV1 - Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Geodiversity;  ENV2 - Protection and Enhancements of Landscapes and Trees;  EC3 - Employment Development in Existing Settlements;  ENV7 - Air Pollution;  ENV8 - Land Contamination;  ENV9 - Other forms of Pollution. 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework February 2019:  Chapter 2 - Achieving sustainable development;  Chapter 4 - Decision-making;  Chapter 6 - Building a strong, competitive economy;  Chapter 9 - Promoting sustainable transport;  Chapter 11 - Making effective use of land;  Chapter 12 - Achieving well designed places;  Chapter 14 - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change;  Chapter 15 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment. The policies detailed above are considered the most relevant policies relating to this application. 7.3 National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle of development  Design  Landscape and Visual Impacts  Drainage  Natural Environment  Amenity  Highways and Safety  Historic Environment

Page 156 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

8.2 Principle 8.2.1 In terms of the principle of any development, consideration is given to the Development Plan. This consists of the adopted Eden Local Plan (2014-2032) and the policies which it contains. 8.2.2 Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan, entitled ‘Locational Strategy’ sets out the hierarchy of settlements where development should be focused in the most sustainable locations, the most sustainable being Penrith, the Market Towns and Key Hubs. 8.2.3 The Local Plan document confirms that that in relation to Policy LS1 ‘the following policy sets out our settlement hierarchy and shows which areas we expected to be the focus for residential, employment and commercial provision’. The Policy clarifies that Penrith is the most sustainable settlement and will benefit from ‘sustained development’ not limited to but including housing and employment development. It further confirms that ‘We expect that Penrith will continue to be the main centre, with a range of housing provided to meet the needs of its residents and facilitate further economic growth. Gilwilly Industrial Estate/Eden Business Park will continue to develop and provide an enhanced provision of employment floorspace’. 8.2.4 Policy DEV1 entitled ‘General Approach to New Development’ states that ‘‘Planning applications that accord with policies in this Local Plan (and, where relevant, with policies in neighbourhood plans) will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where there are no policies relevant to the application or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision then the Council will grant permissions unless material considerations indicated otherwise – taking into account whether:  Any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole; or  Specific policies in that Framework indicate that development should restricted’. 8.2.5 Policy EC3 of the Eden Local Plan, entitled ‘Employment Development in Existing Settlements’ states; ‘Development is of a scale, type and design sympathetic to the location within which is it proposed; Development would not have an unacceptable impact on highways or other forms of infrastructure; Development would not cause harm to local amenity, landscape, ecology, historic environment or other environmental and cultural heritage considerations; The development is capable of achieving appropriate standards of access, servicing, parking and amenity space’. 8.2.6 Chapter 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) entitled ‘Building a strong, competitive economy’ states that “significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity”. When specifically referring to the rural economy, it also states that planning decisions should enable “the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas”, “the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses” and “sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside”.

Page 157 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2.7 The Council’s own Local Plan highlights the role that Penrith plays in the Locational Strategy and from an employment/economic point of view. This scheme is proposed for an existing Industrial Estate. Its purpose is to facilitate the siting and positioning of development such as this. The current unit is vacant and this proposal would ensure its re-use. Given the settlement hierarchy and the site being located upon an existing Industrial Estate, the principle of the development and the use proposed, is considered acceptable, subject to the consideration of all other relevant material considerations. 8.2.8 Accordingly then, the principle of the development is considered acceptable and is therefore supported. 8.3 Design 8.3.1 Policy DEV5 states development which “shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area and reflecting the streetscene through use of appropriate scale, mass, form, design and materials” could be supported. 8.3.2 If further states ‘New development will be required to demonstrate that it meets each of the following criteria:  Shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area.  Protects and where possible enhances the district’s distinctive rural landscape, natural environment and biodiversity.  Reflects the existing street scene through use of appropriate scale, mass, form, layout, high quality architectural design and use of materials.  Optimises the potential use of the site and avoids overlooking.  Protects the amenity of the existing residents and business occupiers and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers.  Use quality materials which complement or enhance local surroundings.  Protects features and characteristics of local importance.  Provides adequate space for the storage, collection and recycling of waste.  Can be easily accessed and used by all, regardless of age and disability’. 8.3.3 Chapter 12 of the NPPF, entitled ‘Achieving well-designed places’ states that, ‘good design is a key aspect of sustainable development’. 8.3.4 Paragraph 124 of the NPPF which advises ‘the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning development process should achieve’. In addition, further consideration is given to paragraph 127 of the NPPF which confirms that ‘Planning Policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities);

Page 158 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience’. 8.3.5 Paragraph 130 says that ‘permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions’. 8.3.6 Paragraph 131 states that ‘in determining applications, great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they fit in with the overall form and layout of their surroundings’. 8.3.7 The site is noted to be an existing and vacant Industrial Estate unit on an established industrial estate. It is currently an asphalt covered, almost square in shape, surrounded by a harsh, plain metal palisade security fence. It also includes three existing lighting columns with light units facing inward. In every respect, it appears very much like an industrial unit. It is sparse, bare and has little to no architectural merit. 8.3.8 Whilst there is consideration of the scheme proposed from a design perspective, it is acknowledged that a number of the units, processes and machines used on the wider site are constructed with functionality as their primary design consideration. Whilst innovative design solutions will always be encouraged by the Local Planning Authority, in this case, the functional nature of not just the site but the industrial units around it, are noted. 8.3.9 In that context, whilst there is little architectural merit in the scheme proposed, that being a concrete batching plant, it is also recognised to be functional and in-keeping with the appearance of the existing wider industrial estate setting in which the application site is located. The design proposed is considered to be of an acceptable standard, and in the backdrop of the existing industrial estate, would be viewed entirely within this context and undiscernible from the existing site. In that context, the scheme is considered to be acceptable and it would accord with Policy DEV5, reflecting its immediate area. 8.3.10 On that basis, the scheme, in terms of its design, is considered acceptable and consistent with Policy DEV5 of the Local Plan. 8.4 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.4.1 A consideration in relation to this application is the Landscape and Visual Impact of the proposal. 8.4.2 Policy DEV5 also seeks to ensure that development protects and where possible enhances the rural landscape. One of its several criterion states that development should ensure that it ‘Protects and where possible enhances the district’s distinctive rural landscape, natural environment and biodiversity’.

Page 159 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.4.3 Policy ENV2 entitled ‘Protection and Enhancements of Landscapes and Trees’ confirms that ‘new development will only be permitted where it conserves and enhances distinctive elements of landscape character and function’. It also confirms that as per criterion 5, the ‘tranquillity of the open countryside’ should be taken account of by any proposals submitted by an applicant. 8.4.4 In assessing the visual impact of the proposed attenuation basin, consideration should be given to Paragraph 124 of the NPPF which advises ‘the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning development process should achieve’. In addition, further consideration is given to paragraph 127 of the NPPF which confirms that ‘Planning Policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience’. 8.4.5 As has been acknowledged the site is located within an existing Industrial Estate. As such, it is within that context that the local landscape is set. It is dominated by industrial type uses, buildings and paraphernalia. There are residential dwellings approximately 90 metres to the north of the site, also to the North are further industrial units as well as to the West, South and East. In addition, to the North of the site is a County Wildlife Site. This area of open ground is noted to be a welcome area of amenity space, in a part of Penrith dominated by development and in this case, Industrial type development. Further East is the West Coast Main Line. 8.4.6 Given the context within which the site is located, the scheme being proposed for an active and operational Industrial Estate, it is not considered that an Industrial type use, being utilised on land allocated as an Industrial Estate can be considered harmful in landscape terms. Whilst there would be two silos utilised in the operation of the cement batching plant, these would be seen from the North in the context of the wider Industrial Estate and would not be considered to be incongruent and ultimately significantly harmful. At 9.5 metres in height, the proposed silos and plant would not be any higher than existing buildings and structures on the industrial estate. As such, the proposed development would not appear dominant in the context of the existing industrial estate, nor alter the visual appearance and skyline of the wider site.

Page 160 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.4.7 The site is not located in any specially designated landscape areas and thus, given that the proposed development would be seen entirely within the context of the wider industrial use, it is not considered that it would be demonstrably harmful were it to be approved and subsequently become operational. 8.4.8 Accordingly, the proposal is considered to merit support and is compliant with Policies DEV5 and ENV2 of the Eden Local Plan as well as the NPPF. 8.5 Drainage 8.5.1 Policy DEV2 of the Local Plan, entitled ‘Water Management and Flood Risk’ confirms that ‘new development’ should ‘meet the sequential approach to development in flood risk areas’. 8.5.2 The Policy confirms that ‘new development must incorporate sustainable drainage systems (SUDs), where practicable, to manage surface water run-off. All applications for major development, defined in Appendix 2, will be subject to review by the Lead Local Flood Authority. Surface water should be discharged in the following order of priority: 1. To an adequate soakaway or some other form of infiltration system. 2. By an attenuated discharge to a watercourse. 3. By an attenuated discharge to a public surface water sewer. 4. By an attenuated discharge to a public combined sewer. Applicants will need to submit clear evidence demonstrating why there is no alternative option but to discharge surface water to the public sewerage system and that the additional discharge can be accommodated. The presumption will be against the discharge of surface water to the public sewerage network’. 8.5.3 Chapter 14 of the NPPF entitled ‘Planning for Climate Change’ confirms in paragraph 155 that, ‘Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere’. 8.5.4 Paragraph 158 of the NPPF states that, ‘The aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding. The strategic flood risk assessment will provide the basis for applying this test. The sequential approach should be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding’. 8.5.5 Paragraph 163 states that, ‘When determining any planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere. Where appropriate, applications should be supported by a site-specific flood-risk assessment. Development should only be allowed in areas at risk of flooding where, in the light of this assessment (and the sequential and exception tests, as applicable) it can be demonstrated that: a) within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location; b) the development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient;

Page 161 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE c) it incorporates sustainable drainage systems, unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate; d) any residual risk can be safely managed; and e) safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate, as part of an agreed emergency plan’. 8.5.6 It is acknowledged that the site is located within and upon an existing industrial estate. The purpose of the industrial estate is to provide specific land for such relevant uses which is a mix of B1, B2 and B8. In order to ensure that the site was fit for purpose, infrastructure has been installed at the outset as well as being augmented by applicants as they came along to develop specific units within the estate. 8.5.7 In this case, the site is known to have had a previous use and the applicant asserts that drainage infrastructure is already implemented upon site. The site is noted to be located within both Flood Zone 2 and 3 with all (along with rather large elements of the surrounding industrial estate within Flood Zone 2 and a far smaller portion of the north of the site within Flood Zone 3. As the land is classified as general industrial land, it is considered to be ‘less vulnerable’ and as such no exception test is required. Furthermore, it is acknowledged that the site is already covered with concrete and this proposal would not introduce any additional hardstanding. Accordingly, there would be no loss of permable or indeed non-permable ground. 8.5.8 The Environment Agency (EA) were consulted upon the proposed scheme and responded by confirming that were the scheme to be approved, they would wish to see details of mitigation measures considered necessary to prevent contamination of any nearby water body or watercourse. Officers were of a similar view that this could be necessary and consider that the draft conditions proposed would achieve the intended outcomes. 8.5.9 It is further noted that the EA acknowleged that seeking this information prior to determination would be unreasonable. Further consideration of this particular matter is discussed later in this report. The overarching aim related to contamination is agreed, however, the mechanism upon which this is achieved, must be within the scope of tests that apply when imposing planning conditions upon any development that may be granted or indeed recommended to be granted planning permission. The specific wording of the EA’s requested condition relates to ‘phasing’ which the applicant has not quantified and as a whole it feels unreasonable and unnecessary. Such a condition would not, therefore be considered acceptable and appropriate to attach to any subsequent decision were the scheme approved. Accordingly, it is considered that the requirement for a CEMP, day-to-day management plan and a condition that were any unexpected contamination issues found, the development halt and mitigation provided are more appropriate and reasonable. They have been included as proposed conditions should this application be approved as further mitigation. 8.5.10 The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) have also been consulted upon the application and confirmed that the principle of the proposal would be acceptable. They added that they required further information to assist in their assessment of the specific detail of the scheme once the applicant had finalised this. As such, a condition requesting a formal surface waster drainage plan be submitted prior to the commencement of the development, were it subsequently approved, which is also included as a proposed condition should this application be approved.

Page 162 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.5.11 The LLFA also acknowledged the applicants intentions to connect into existing infrastructure which is understood to be owned and maintained by United Utilities. Whilst they have been consulted upon this application, no response has been received thus far. Whilst the LLFA’s comments are noted, the fact that the applicant intends to utilise this approach, using existing infrastructure maintained by United Utilities, this in itself, is not a direct planning matter. The applicant can propose this, but whether it was achievable will be for them to discuss with United Utilities (if they haven’t already got such an agreement in place). If they don’t, the scope of the condition sought by the LLFA would still allow the applicant to submit an alternate drainage scheme, which would be considered and if acceptable, supported by the Lead Local Flood Authority. 8.5.12 Therefore, whilst the intention of the applicant is known, Planning Permission does not hinge upon whether a statutory undertaker would allow for drainage to connect to their network or not. That is a consideration for after the land use determination and it is that land use determination that must occupy the Local Planning Authority and upon which the decision for the determination of this application rests. At this stage, the LLFA offer no objection to the scheme but do wish to see more specific detail provided at the pre- commencement stage and this is secured by the surface water drainage condition contained in the draft conditions. If, after securing Planning Permission, the applicant was unable to provide an appropriate drainage strategy, then the permission could not be implemented. 8.5.13 As such, the scheme has been considered acceptable by both the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Environment Agency in principle subject to the submission of final details that would be required by proposed condition. The drainage aspect is also relevant to the Natural Environment in this case, which is specifically considered further in the next section of this report. 8.5.14 On that basis, the scheme is considered to be compliant with Policy DEV2 of the Local Plan and the NPPF and should be supported. 8.6 Natural Environment 8.6.1 Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan, entitled ‘Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Geodiversity’ confirms that ‘new development will be required to avoid any net loss of biodiversity, and where possible enhance existing assets. Should emerging proposals identify potential impacts upon designated sites, regard should be given to the objectives for each of the hierarchy of sites’. 8.6.2 Chapter 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) entitled ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ confirms the national guidance on such matters. Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states that ‘Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan); b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland; c) maintaining the character of the undeveloped coast, while improving public access to it where appropriate;

Page 163 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans; and f) remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate’. 8.6.3 The site is noted to be located adjacent to a County Wildlife Site to the North. Natural England and the Cumbria Wildlife Trust were consulted upon the application. The Wildlife Trust have not responded but Natural England have confirmed that were planning permission to be granted they would wish a surface water plan condition to be attached to any subsequent decision, which is included as a proposed condition should planning permission be granted. 8.6.4 As has been made clear in this report, the site is located within an existing Industrial Estate. The applicants propose no works (other than drainage connections) to go beyond ground level and the scheme itself involves the importation of aggregate (along with the retention of water) to make the concrete they need as required. These materials are proposed to be stored in ‘bays’. 8.6.5 Previously, this report referred to a condition sought by the Environment Agency which sought the submission of details to prevent land contamination, including a land contamination assessment because of its industrial uses. This is considered un- necessary. Even if the applicants were proposing to construct foundations, some evidence to underpin the requirement for a land contamination survey would be needed otherwise, such a condition could be considered to be unreasonable and/or unnecessary and therefore fail some of the tests associated with the imposition of planning conditions. 8.6.6 A more reasonable approach is considered to be that were the applicant to develop beyond ground level except for the installation of the drainage connection and encounter unexpected ground contamination then works would cease until the mitigation measures were submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 8.6.7 The wider aim of the Environment Agency to protect water from pollution is supported by the Local Planning Authority but it is considered there are more reasonable methods to achieve this. 8.6.8 In order to achieve this then, Officers consider that the requirement of a Construction Environment Management Plan along with a contamination mitigation plan, to ensure that during any construction, measures to prevent any environmental impacts are detailed and that during operations, contamination is also mitigated. This would include how spillages of the concrete product would be dealt with, in the event that this were to happen. 8.6.9 A further condition, preventing the keeping of any fuels upon site would mean that the development would operate only with the more inert materials on site needed to create the concrete product on site and Officers consider that these conditions would be reasonable, but achieve the intention of protection the locality from any contamination

Page 164 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE events. Even so, such events are considered unlikely and it is noted that the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) has not sought any such land contamination surveys to be completed in association with this proposal. 8.6.10 This is partly due to the development also needing an Environmental Permit in order to operate on site. Such a permit is aimed at providing Environmental Protection and would be issued and monitored by the Council’s own Environmental Protection team. 8.6.11 The Natural Environment is considered to be very important to Officers and Members. However, this site is an Industrial Unit, located within an existing industrial estate. It has no trees located upon it and is designed to be a place where industrial type operations take place. The Wildlife Site was not created to prevent the future use of the Industrial Estate (which can be subject to a wide array of industrial uses without the need for Planning Permission) but to augment it. Both land uses co-exist and have done so for some time with success. This is not considered to be at risk were this application approved and subsequently implemented. 8.6.12 The protection of the Natural Environment is achieved in this case by the recommended conditions. Planning Conditions are used to make development acceptable. The comments from Natural England are noted as are those of the EHO. Namely, that they do not object to the application as submitted. 8.6.13 The Environment Agency believe that a condition should be imposed to protect natural resources with officers in full agreement on this point. However, any condition(s) must meet the relevant tests and in this case, the Environment Agency suggestion is not considered to achieve that in this case. That being said, the overarching aim is considered reasonable and Officers consider that the aims and intentions of the EA are being met through the conditions proposed within Section 1 of this report, whilst ensuring that the conditions are reasonable and thus meet the aforementioned tests. 8.6.14 It is therefore considered that the proposal is compliant with Policy ENV1 of the Eden Local Plan as well as the NPPF and can be supported on the basis that appropriate condition(s) are imposed upon any subsequent grant of planning permission. 8.7 Residential Amenity 8.7.1 A further aim of Policy DEV5 is to ensure that development ‘Protects the amenity of the existing residents and business occupiers and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers’. 8.7.2 The aim of this policy in relation to amenity is to ensure that a proposal protects the amenity of any existing residents and business occupiers as well as preserving the amenity of future occupiers. 8.7.3 As has been identified within this report the nearest properties to the application site are approximately 90 metres to the North, located off Norfolk Place. The nearest properties overlook the adjacent Wildlife Park and adjacent, closer industrial unit, along with the unit subject of this application and indeed the wider Industrial Estate. The location of existing, other businesses in the locality has also been noted earlier in this report. 8.7.4 It is noted that the Town Council object to the scheme citing unacceptable amenity impacts, contrary to both Policy DEV5 and EC3 of the Eden Local Plan. They consider that the scheme would result in unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance affecting local amenity land (the County Wildlife Site) and local residents. They also consider that such a plant will create dust, odour and vibration and due to the prevailing wind

Page 165 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE direction (which they confirm is a Westerly) will blow across the site into the residential area. It should be noted however, there has been no evidence or information provided by the Town Council to substantiate this opinion/view. 8.7.5 The Environmental Health Officers (EHO) were consulted upon this application and responded by confirming that as the development would also require a Permit, details related to dust and odour would be dealt with by this permitting regime, even though no such odour impacts would be considered to occur in relation to this development. Whilst this is the case, further mitigation is also secured to prevent such risks through the conditions recommended to be imposed on the decision notice relating to dust prevention measures, hours of operation and pollution prevention measures. 8.7.6 In terms of lighting, Officers had considered that a condition preventing the installation of any new fixed or mobile lighting would be reasonable, which would be secured through the imposition of a suitable condition as set out within Section 1 of this report. Were additional lighting considered necessary, the operator would first need to apply for planning permission prior to it being installed where any impact could be first assessed. Although it is noted that the existing lighting on site (which is attached to columns and faces is inwards) is already permitted and would be restricted in its use for the operational hours drafted in the conditions section of this report. The EHO has confirmed that the site has not been subject to any complaints regarding light pollution an there is no reason to suggest that the application being implemented would result in any cumulative adverse impacts. 8.7.7 In regards to noise, the EHO has confirmed that there was no justification for a noise assessment. Whilst they consider the development proposed to be ‘borderline’ the hours of operation would mitigate any potential noise impacts. The EHO has also acknowledged the development is within an existing industrial estate, which is subject to varying uses and a railway line which is operational 24 hours a day. They reaffirmed that due to the hours of operation proposed, a full noise assessment may not be required. 8.7.8 When considering what information is necessary when determining a planning application, it is not whether we feel ‘we should’ because it is the ‘cautious’ thing to do or not that applies. It is whether it is demonstrably necessary. The EHO has responded twice to this application and on neither occasion have they specifically considered such a noise assessment is necessary, on the basis that they do not consider it likely that the development would result in adverse noise impacts. In that context, it is considered that requesting such an assessment would be unnecessary, unreasonable and unjustified. The conditions proposed achieve their intended aim to make development acceptable. The Local Planning Authority should not request applicants to provide surveys or other information at potentially significant expense, without appropriate justification. Given the responses from the EHO, no such justification is considered to apply in this case. 8.7.9 As such, whilst the Town Council’s concerns are duly noted, they are not based on any substantive facts or evidence. They are assumptions but without demonstrable aspects considered necessary to support them. The reference to prevailing winds is also noted. However, given the nearest residential development is located to the North and the prevailing wind is considered to be from the West, that would ensure that the wind was not blowing any material from the site to those particular residents during prevailing conditions.

Page 166 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.7.10 Specifically what the Town Council consider would be blown into residential developments nearest the site is not quantified. Officers suspect dust would be one particular concern. Whilst these are noted, both the draft conditions and aforementioned permit would require the operator to control and prevent any potential dust issues, even though these are considered to be largely unlikely events. Nevertheless, the mitigation would be in place to satisfactorily prevent such an issue were it to happen. 8.7.11 In order to refuse a planning application on amenity grounds, it needs, like any other reason, to be based on demonstrable factors. In this case, the comments of the EHO are clear. They do not consider that such has been demonstrated. Officers concur. Whilst the concerns of the Town Council have been made clear in this report, the site is an Industrial Estate. It is designed to receive development of this type and whilst, of course, amenity of any nearby residents is important, it is not considered that existing amenity would be affected in any significantly demonstrable way. Concerns in themselves are not reasons and whilst the concerns of the Town Council are understood, the imposition of the conditions proposed would ensure that any future operations on site associated with the proposed concrete batching plant would be conducted within a framework of conditions, designed to ensure amenity was preserved. 8.7.12 Accordingly, the scheme is considered to comply with Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan and merits support. 8.8 Highways 8.8.1 Policy DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan, entitled ‘Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way’ states that ‘development will be refused if it will result in a severe impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion. Development should provide safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people’. 8.8.2 Paragraph 109 of the NPPF affirms that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. 8.8.3 The development would utilise an existing access onto the industrial unit and then the wider highway network. The Local Highway Authority have been consulted upon the application and have confirmed that in their opinion, ‘the proposed development would not have a material affect on existing highway conditions and that the site has an existing permitted access arrangement onto Mardale Road)’. It is noted that the roads throughout the industrial estate have been designed to a standard that can absorb and cope with larger industrial traffic associated with the use of the site. 8.8.4 Given that consideration, Officers do not believe that the development as proposed would give rise to any severe impacts in terms of road safety. Were that so, conditions, such as limiting vehicle movements etc. could be considered. In the absence of such concern, these would not and are not considered appropriate or reasonable in this particular case. 8.8.5 Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is compliant with Policy DEV3 and the NPPF and merits support. 8.9 Historic Environment 8.9.1 Within the Local Plan, Policy ENV10, entitled ‘The Historic Environment’ states that ‘where a development proposal affecting an archaeological site is acceptable in

Page 167 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE principle, the council will ensure preservation of the remains in situ as a preferred solution. Where in situ preservation is not justified, the development will be required to make adequate provision fort excavation and recording before or during development’. 8.9.2 The Policy continues, ‘Development proposal that would result in substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset or its setting will only be permitted where it can be clearly demonstrated that the public benefits of the proposal would outweigh the harm or loss, and that the harm or loss is necessary to achieve those benefits. The Council will require proposals to protect and where appropriate, enhance the significance and setting of Eden’s non-designated heritage assets, including buildings, archaeological sites, parks, landscapes and gardens. Where the harm is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposals, the Council will require an appropriate level of survey and recording, the results of which should be deposited with the Cumbria Historic Environment Record’. 8.9.3 This is further supported by paragraph 192 of the National Planning Policy Framework which notes that, ‘In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness’. 8.9.4 The application site is located within an existing Industrial Estate and is not located within a designated Conservation Area(s) adjacent to any Listed Buildings or Scheduled Ancient Monuments. 8.9.5 On this basis it is considered that the scheme would have no significant detrimental impacts on the historic environment and as such can be considered compliant with Policy ENV10 of the Eden Local Plan and the NPPF. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions.

Page 168 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10. Conclusion 10.1 This application would utilise a currently vacant industrial unit located within Penrith Industrial Estate. The purpose of the Industrial Estate is to support industrial type uses and it does so, with many varying businesses operating from the site with great success. 10.2 This application seeks to continue the use of land already allocated for industrial/commercial purposes. That proposal would involve the site being home to a concrete batching plant which would then serve the local area and economy as required. The development would also support employment within the District and given the recent effects of the pandemic, the Council should be mindful of providing support to the creation and protection of employment wherever possible. Given the site is part of the industrial estate, the aim of the industrial estate was to support industrial type businesses. 10.3 The development process is to determine appropriate land uses. In this case, given the site is already available for industrial type use, this scheme would be consistent with that and is readily supported. 10.4 When determining any application, for any land use, other material considerations must also be taken account of within the planning balance. In this instance, such considerations have been discussed within this report. 10.5 Of particular relevance is amenity of nearby residential dwellings and their occupants. The Town Council has raised concern in relation to this and contends that the scheme as proposed would result in an unacceptable set of amenity impacts were it to be approved and become operational. In the determination of this, were the Local Planning Authority of the view that should impacts would be so unacceptable and harmful as to undermine the benefits of the scheme, then likely it should be refused. 10.6 However, whilst these concerns are understood, they are not shared by the Environmental Health Officer who does not consider that the scheme would result in significantly harmful amenity impacts. In that context, it is considered very difficult to justify a refusal of this scheme. 10.7 Officers understand the Town Council’s concerns and feel that conditions should be imposed to assist in controlling operations on site. Planning Conditions should ensure development is acceptable where they meet the 6 tests. In this case, the imposition of relevant conditions related to hours of operation, dust and lighting can ensure that amenity is preserved and not affected to a significantly detrimental level. 10.8 Given that is considered to be the case and in the absence of any other demonstrable reasons, the scheme is considered to accord with the development plan and is recommended for approval.

Page 169 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Development

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 22.01.2021

Background Papers: Planning File 20/0744

Page 170 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 18 February 2021

Planning Application No: 20/0907 Date Received: 23/11/20

OS Grid Ref: 561 230 Expiry Date: 18/01/21 Extension of time requested Parish: Great Strickland Ward: Morland

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Proposed 2no. Local Occupancy Dwellings

Location: Land west of Church of St Barnabas, Great Strickland

Applicant: Messers Burne

Agent: Kate Bellwood Associates

Case Officer: Mat Wilson

Reason for Referral: The applicant and members of the public have exercised their right to address the Committee to speak about the proposal; application called in by Cllr Tonkin

Page 171 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 172 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons: 1. The development is considered to be unacceptable on the grounds that the proposal will result in the loss of an important open space which makes a significant contribution to the character of the village. The proposal will introduce built development on a field regarded as an important gap forming a transition from the village to the church and the open countryside beyond, and its loss would adversely affect the character of the area. The Eden Housing Supplementary Planning Document requires that infill development should not diminish an existing gap that is considered important to the setting and character of the settlement. The proposal cannot conform with this requirement, and the resultant harm to village character is deemed to outweigh the benefits of the scheme. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies LS1, HS2 and DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-2032 and the Housing SPD. 2. The development would result in the loss of views of St Barnabas’ Church with open countryside as its backdrop, and the position of the proposed dwelling of Long Cottage adversely impacts upon the secluded setting of this listed building. The resultant moderate harm to the setting of a designated heritage asset is not considered to be outweighed by public benefits, and therefore the proposal conflicts with Policy ENV10 of the Eden Local Plan and paragraphs 193-196 of the NPPF. 2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 A development of two dwellings is proposed adjacent to St Barnabas’ Church at Great Strickland. This would comprise bespoke designs: Bethel House, a two-storey property at the front of the development, set back from but facing the road, stone-faced to the front and the gable facing the church, with rendered west and south elevations; and the single-storey Long Cottage situated gable-end on to the road to the east of the plot, mostly rendered with stone features, and set just behind the adjacent church. Each dwelling provides 3 bedrooms and would be subject to a local occupancy restriction. The proposal is for self-build/custom build housing. A third property initially included in the proposal, Stackyard Barn at the rear of the plot, has been withdrawn from the scheme. 2.1.2 The development would infill a gap of around 40m between dwellings to the west and the church to the east, at the eastern end of Great Strickland village. 2.1.3 This application is a re-submission of a previous scheme which was withdrawn prior to determination in 2020, ref 19/0917. This scheme differs from the previous submission by setting the dwellings back from the road, to maintain views across the site to the church. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application site is an undulating strip field enclosed by stone walls to the front and sides, with a road access at the northwest corner just beyond a small timber garage (which is to be removed) fronting the road. The site extends around 70m into the field, which is rough pasture with evidence of earthworks at the northeast corner.

Page 173 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2.2.2 Great Strickland is designated as a Smaller Village and Hamlet in Policy LS1 `Locational Strategy’ in the Local Plan. In terms of planning constraints the site is Flood Zone 1 (least vulnerable) and within a National Grid Buffer Zone. It is not within a Conservation Area or a Coal Risk Zone, although the adjacent St Barnabas’ Church is a Grade II listed building. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority (Cumbria I can confirm that Cumbria County Council as the County Council) Local Highway Authority has no objection to the proposed development. CCC as Local Highway Authority would request the inclusion of conditions addressing provision of visibility splays to be provided without obstructions greater than 1.05m in height; surfacing of the access drive; gates to be hung to open inwards; and completion of access works prior to occupation. 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Local Lead Flood Authority I can confirm that Cumbria County Council as the (Cumbria County Council) Lead Local Flood Authority has no objection to the proposed development. CCC as Lead Local Flood Authority would request the inclusion of conditions requiring full details of the surface water drainage system and details of all measures to prevent surface water discharging onto or off the highway. United Utilities The site should be drained on a separate system with foul water draining to the public sewer and surface water draining in the most sustainable way, and in accordance with the hierarchy of sustainable surface water drainage. Housing This is a resubmission and the original consultation advice stands. [Previous comments for 19/0917] The proposed development is located in Great Strickland which is designated as a Smaller Village and Hamlet under Policy LS1. Policy HS2 states that, within the Smaller Villages and Hamlets listed in policy LS1, permission will be given for housing of an appropriate scale, which reflects the built form of adjoining and neighbouring development to the site and the service function of the settlement, where it meets all of the following criteria:

Page 174 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Where development is restricted to infilling and rounding off of the current village settlement pattern, in accordance with Policy LS1.  The building does not contain more than 150m2 internal floorspace (gross).  In the case of Greenfield sites a condition or legal agreement restricting occupancy to only those meeting local connection criteria, defined in Appendix 6, will be applied. I can confirm that there is no affordable housing requirement. Whether or not this proposal can be considered as infill or rounding off falls outside of my remit. National Grid Searches based on your enquiry have identified that there is no record of apparatus in the immediate vicinity of your enquiry. Cadent and National Grid therefore have no objection to these proposed activities. Environmental Health Regarding planning application 20/0907, I would recommend the standard restriction on construction hours: Monday – Friday 8:00 – 18:00 Saturday – 09:00-13:00 Sunday / Bank Holidays– no activity County Historic Environment It is considered that there is the potential for buried Officer archaeological assets to be disturbed by the construction of the proposed development. I therefore recommend that, in the event planning consent is granted, the site is subject to archaeological investigation and recording in advance of development. I advise that this work should be commissioned and undertaken at the expense of the developer and can be secured through the inclusion of a condition in any planning consent. Arboriculturist There are a number of trees on or adjacent this site which it is stated the proposed development will not be affected by, or affect. However, no supporting arboricultural information has been provided to evidence this claim. I am particularly concerned about the large ash tree which, due to the repositioning of ‘Long Cottage’ would appear to be at significant risk of serious harm as there appears insufficient room to undertake the construction without encroaching into the root protection area of the tree. Also, there would be a substantial negative impact on the living conditions of the occupants of the dwelling due to the proximity of the tree including; issues around loss of

Page 175 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE light, falling debris, the overbearing and dominant nature of the tree and fears, real or perceived, that the tree could fall on the house, leading to the premature loss of this tree. The applicant should provide an arboricultural impact assessment including the heads of terms for an arboricultural method statement, and a tree constraints plan, to support their application. [Officer comment: the applicant has since provided further information which demonstrates the ash tree is a poor specimen with significantly restricted leaf growth indicating disease. No further details are therefore required in respect of tree surveys]. Conservation Officer Heritage value An assessment has been provided in application 19/0917 and so will not be repeated. However in response to the updated Heritage Statement, the following can be added on the contribution of setting provided by the application site to the significance of the Church. Whilst the spire of a church is traditionally a feature which is intended to be seen above all buildings, it is not evident that in this case it was the main feature intended to be seen at a distance. Indeed the large massing of the body of the church is more imposing than the relatively small spire atop and together with the location of the church on higher land than the road indicates that the full body of the church was intended as a landmark. The location of the church at the curve of the road in the landscape is also significant as in both westerly and easterly views from the road the church is a central landmark – this would have been intended to direct people to the church from the village and from the countryside. Whilst the view west towards the church give backdrop views of the village, the view from the east to the village, past the shed adjacent to the application site is of open countryside composed of rolling fields. In the centre of this view is the church slightly nestled within higher land, a position which both integrates it within the topography and makes it a prominent feature. This view is also important in giving the impression that the church is remote rather than located to the edge of the village. From this perspective the open grazing field is not considered to provide a fortuitous view of the church but part of its significance as it gives the church its full prominence and isolated character by physically and visually separating it from the village. Impact assessment

Page 176 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE The proposed development is a revision of the proposal in application 19/0917 and still three dwellings (Officer note – the scheme has since been amended with Stackyard Barn removed), associated landscaping and car parking, but with a changed layout. The dwellings have now been set back within the site, with Bethel House now roughly aligned within the building line of the existing Sycamore House adjacent to the site. Stackyard Barn is located to the rear of Bethel House and again roughly aligned with the neighbouring Gin Case house. Long Cottage has now been moved closer to the church and set back from its building line. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 s 66(1) requires a decision-maker, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The proposed revised layout is not considered to fully address the concerns expressed in application 19/0917 with regards to the development’s impact on the setting of the Church. Whilst the relocation of the buildings further inland retains a part of the field which contributes to the setting of the church, the staggered alignment of the proposed dwellings would cumulatively obstruct the open and long views of the church against the open countryside. Whilst Bethel House and to a lesser extent Stackyard Barn would close off views of the distant countryside, Long Cottage would be especially intrusive by sitting so close to the Church and therefore altogether removing its isolated nature which contributes strongly to its special character. It is therefore considered that the level of harm to the significance of the heritage asset caused by the revised proposal would be moderate. The public benefits of the proposal, which relate to housing development, are however beyond the main scope of conservation policies. Whether these would outweigh the harm caused to the setting of the listed building would therefore be a matter for the decision- maker to determine. Development on the site also has potential to cause disturbance to archaeological assets relating to the medieval development of the village, but this can be mitigated through the inclusion of a condition for an archaeological watching brief. Overall the proposed development is considered will

Page 177 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE result in moderate harm to the setting of the listed building and is therefore not supported by conservation policies as outlined within the Planning (LBCA) Act 1990, NPPF 2019 and Eden Local Plan ENV10. 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Indicative Object No Response No Objection Council/Meeting Support Great Strickland  Parish Council 4.1 Great Strickland Parish Council provided the following response: ‘Great Strickland Parish Council have not held a public meeting (because of covid regulations) to discuss the application. They have however advertised the application around the village, and EDC planning will have informed close neighbours. Comments were sought from any interested parties, but none have been received; only conversational support. Those councillors eligible to comment* have made the following points: The site appears to be an obvious site to develop; indeed, it is the only on-street site available within the main village. The current plans have addressed the points raised by objectors to the earlier plans on the same site, in particular regarding the loss of the view of the church. The Parochial Church Council are happy with the plans, as they feel the development will have little or no impact on the church. The style of the properties is felt to be in keeping with the village. The councillors support this self-build development which is for a family from this village, who wish to continue living in the village without the long term uncertainty of their current rented properties. *Two councillors are ineligible to comment; one being one of the applicants, and the second is a cousin’. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 11 July 2019.

No of Neighbours Consulted 8 No of letters of support 10 No of Representations Received 21 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 11 5.2 Letters of objection submitted from local residents raised the following material considerations insofar as they are relevant to the current application:  The previous scheme for a single bungalow (08/0832) was deemed unacceptable in 2009. Why should the development now proposed be accepted?  Adverse impacts on the setting of St Barnabas’ church, a listed building, and on the privacy of parishioners attending the church.

Page 178 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  The proposal is neither infill nor rounding off as required by planning policy.  No need for further housing in Great Strickland, with 28 houses to be built in Hackthorpe within 1 mile of the village.  Great Strickland has no schools, is not on a bus route and very limited, if any opportunities for employment.  The proposed dwellings remain out of character with the rest of the village in their design and cramped layout.  The single-storey property is far too close to the church meaning much of the graveyard overlooked with a loss of privacy for those visiting graves.  The design is pastiche.  Noise and disturbance from the use of the access immediately adjacent existing properties next to the site; use of the field access for farm machinery already causing disturbance.  The development should be restricted to exclude parking or storage of agricultural vehicles or farm equipment.  The area was previously designated as amenity open space, it remains an important open space and it is inappropriate to develop it.  The proposal has not been publicised by a site notice [Officer Note: the applicant has provided photos of the site notice displayed at the site].  The Heritage Asset Statement is misleading in claiming that 4 of 5 houses closest to the church are, relatively speaking, new.  The loss of the existing open space adversely affects visual and residential amenity.  Potential adverse impacts on ground stability, the stability of the boundary wall, and on drainage.  Justification for the proposal on local need for housing is fundamentally flawed.  The windows facing into the field from Gin Case are a primary source of light and would be open on to the development in warmer months.  The intensification in use of the existing access would be hazardous due to the slight bend and incline in the road giving poor visibility to the east.  If granted this would pave the way for more inappropriate backland development in the village. 5.3 Letters in support submitted from local residents raised the following material considerations insofar as they are relevant to the current application:  It would allow younger generations and families that have a significant link with the village for a number of generations to stay in the village.  It would provide much needed housing in a village with low turnover of available housing.  The site is an obvious infill site.

Page 179 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  The site is the last available space for in-fill on the line of current housing in a linear village.  Design of houses is sympathetic and in-keeping with existing housing in the area.  The applicants, a local village family, have taken the trouble to ensure the church and graveyard are respected and to consider impact on views from adjoining properties.  The church board support the application, and have no fear that such properties would create a negative visual impact upon our church, its operation or visitors.  There should be regular opportunities every few years for a village to add to its housing stock, so that it allows the population to be refreshed and re invigorated. 6. Relevant Planning History 6.1 Site History:  08/0832 Development of land for a single dwelling – Refused 15/1/09  19/0917 Proposed three local occupancy dwellings – Withdrawn 27/3/20 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Local Plan 2014-2032 Relevant Policies  LS1 Locational Strategy  LS2 Housing Targets and Distribution  HS2 Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets  DEV1 General Approach to New Development  DEV5 Design of New Development  ENV2 Protection and Enhancements of Landscapes and Trees  ENV10 The Historic Environment Supplementary Planning Documents:  Housing SPD 2010 (Appendix H: Residential Extensions) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Chapter 2 - Achieving sustainable development;  Chapter 4 - Decision-making;  Chapter 5 - Delivering a sufficient supply of homes;  Chapter 11 - Making effective use of land;  Chapter 12 - Achieving well designed places;  Chapter 14 - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change;  Chapter 16 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment. 7.2.1 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle

Page 180 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Design, Scale and Landscape  Residential amenity  Heritage Impact  Natural Environment  Infrastructure/Drainage 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The District’s locational strategy for development is defined at Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan. This sets out the hierarchy of settlements, ensuring that development is focused in the most sustainable locations, namely the Market Towns and Key Hubs. Settlements offering a lower provision of services and facilities are termed as Smaller Villages and Hamlets. The application site is at Great Strickland, which is designated as a Smaller Village and Hamlet within the Eden Local Plan. In these settlements, the Local Plan stipulates that development of greenfield sites such as the application site, ‘will be restricted to infill sites, which fill a modest gap between existing buildings within the settlement; or rounding off, which provides a modest extension beyond the limit of the settlement to a logical, defensible boundary; [or] existing development and the reuse of traditional rural buildings and structures’. 8.2.2 There are limited facilities in Great Strickland in terms of providing for the day to day requirements of its residents, hence its lower status down the settlement hierarchy within the Smaller Village and Hamlet classification under the Eden Local Plan. The requirement to deliver new housing in the Smaller Villages/Hamlets is therefore proportionately much lower than for the more sustainable Key Hubs and the Market Towns in Eden, as set out in Policy LS2, which ascribes a target of 479 new houses between all the Smaller Villages/ Hamlets over the whole Plan period. Yet due to a high volume of houses already commenced or with extant planning permissions within this classification at the time of adopting the Local Plan, there was already an over- supply of housing within the Smaller Villages and Hamlets. The Local Plan covers the period 2014-2032 but was not adopted until 2018. Enough housing had already been delivered to meet the identified demand for the Smaller Villages by the time the Plan had been adopted, and therefore new housing development should be directed to the more sustainable larger settlements, or where it is proposed in the Smaller Villages, should be approved solely where it fully complies with the requirements of the Eden Local Plan as set out within Policy LS1. 8.2.3 Policy HS2 of the Eden Local Plan `Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets’ does however allow development of housing ‘of an appropriate scale, which reflects the built form of adjoining and neighbouring development to the site and the service function of the settlement, where it meets all of the following criteria (inter alia):  ‘Where development is restricted to infilling and rounding off of the current village settlement pattern, in accordance with Policy LS1.  The building does not contain more than 150m2 internal floorspace (gross)’. 8.2.4 Development in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets will be permitted where it meets the criteria set out in Policies LS1 and HS2. 8.2.5 The development must therefore constitute either infill or rounding off, in a manner which reflects the pattern of development in the locality, in order to comply with the housing policies in the Local Plan. Evidently the proposal is not a rounding off of the village but it may be construed as an infill scheme. Further explanation of what

Page 181 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE constitutes infill or rounding off is given in the Housing Supplementary Planning Document. 8.2.6 The SPD advises that ‘in most cases modest (infill) development is considered to be development that would fill a gap in an otherwise continuous built frontage of not more than two dwellings. However, in non-linear settlements, the Council may consider infill development to also relate to backland development for up to two dwellings where this already exists within the settlement. In all circumstances the layout and density of the development should be in keeping with and similar to others in the surrounding built environment’. 8.2.7 In the case of the current application, the front portion of the site is left open to reduce impacts on the setting of St Barnabas’ Church. The setting back of the new housing to allow views across toward the church allows the development to respect the general building line of the church east of the site and the properties to the west. In this sense the proposal could be considered as infill development. The SPD further states however that ‘Existing areas of open space within Smaller Villages and Hamlets can make an important contribution to their appearance and character. The requirement for ‘modest infill’ development is to protect settlements from unjustified and inappropriate development eroding their character… Development should not diminish an existing gap that is considered important to the setting and character of the settlement’. 8.2.8 Earlier Local Plans, including that in force at the time the proposal for a single dwelling on the site was refused in 2009, identified this parcel of land as ‘Amenity Open Space’, conferring protection on spaces within towns and villages which were important in defining the character of the area, even if they were not accessible to the public. The policy was not carried forward in the current policy regime and so carries no weight in the determination of this application. However, it would be appropriate to apply policies DEV5 and ENV2 here. These require that development must show a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment; protect and where possible enhance the district’s distinctive rural landscape; protect features and characteristics of local importance; and conserve and enhance distinctive elements of landscape character and function. 8.2.9 Each case is assessed on its own merits, and there are occasions where land previously identified ‘Amenity Open Space’ would not necessarily be afforded such protection at the present time, due to changes in the built environment or the presence of other open spaces in the locality. In this case however the field proposed to be developed has historically formed a gap, a hinterland, between the Church and the built-up part of the village. The proposed housing would result in the loss of an open space which is an intrinsic part of the character of the village, the development of which would compromise its character. The parcel of land fulfils an important function in separating the village from the rural landscape beyond, provides a meaningful and respectful gap to the Church, and developing it would result in a significant loss of that rural character. 8.2.10 The spatial planning policy allows for development in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets where modest infill schemes can develop spaces between built frontages that do not result in loss of important gaps which contribute to the character of the settlement. The proposed development cannot comply with this aspect of the adopted housing policies. Therefore, the principle of residential development of this plot is deemed not to be acceptable.

Page 182 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2.11 It is acknowledged that the development would be for self-build/custom build housing. The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 places a duty on Authorities to grant enough suitable permissions on serviced plots to meet the need set out in the self-build register, for each year, within 3 years. Self-build and Custom build housing is defined as housing built by an individual, a group of individuals, or persons working with or for them, to be occupied by that individual. Such housing can be either market or affordable housing. It is also noted that the applicants wish to build their own homes so they can remain in their home village. 8.2.12 Policy HS2, for Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets, is ascribed in the Local Plan as allowing people to meet their own housing needs locally, particularly through self-build. The explanatory paragraph to the Policy goes on to describe: The Council wishes to support those in rural areas who wish to build or commission their own home where they have a strong local connection, as this can help meet local housing aspirations and sustain villages. Such permissions would therefore be subject to local occupancy clauses, secured through conditions of approval. 8.2.13 Whilst the requirement for providing self-build and custom build housing is acknowledged, such developments must be in accordance with the policies of the Local Plan as a whole. The requirement to provide self-build developments does not attract such overriding weight that it should outweigh fundamental spatial planning policies directing where the Council will accept residential development. The proposal under consideration is for new market housing in a location considered to be contrary to spatial planning policy. 8.2.14 Eden will need to grant sufficient suitable developments in order to meet a recent uplift in Self-build demand, although it has three years in which to do so, and as such there is no compelling need at this time to grant self-build developments which would otherwise conflict with policy. Furthermore, a recent appeal decision (concerning residential development of another site at Great Strickland as it happens) confirmed that even if the tilted balance in favour of granting permission were engaged to meet Self-build demand, this would not outweigh conflict with the clear aims of Policies LS1 and HS2 in protecting the character of the smaller villages and surrounding countryside (our ref 20/0108; Planning Inspectorate ref APP/H0928/W/20/3251997). The requirement to meet the demand for self-build and custom build housing does not overcome the fundamental policy conflict. 8.2.15 Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, it is determined that the principle of the proposed development is contrary to the requirements of Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan and is therefore unacceptable in this instance. 8.3 Design, Scale and Landscape 8.3.1 Policy DEV5 of the Local Plan, ‘Design of New Development’ requires development to demonstrate a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment, and reflect the existing streetscene through its scale, form, layout and materials. Development must protect features and characteristics of local importance. 8.3.2 The NPPF states at Paragraph 127 that ‘Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments (inter alia): are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities);

Page 183 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places’. 8.3.3 The dwellings proposed are bespoke designs which are considered to complement their setting. The building styles have been developed to respect the rural environment, echoing the form and function of agricultural buildings. Their scale, appearance, detailing and use of materials would be in keeping with the character of the local area. The layout is somewhat cramped due to setting the buildings back from the road, allowing views across to the church, but it would not appear unduly crowded. 8.3.4 Design is about more however than the appearance of the development. It must also take into account how the development would be seen in its wider setting, and how it changes the perspective of its surroundings. The dwellings are high quality design, notwithstanding the objector’s view that they are pastiche; they echo the style of agrarian buildings and in their proportions and appearance they respect the transition from the built up part of the village to the surrounding countryside. No residential development on this site however could truly pay due regard to the importance of this open space at the edge of the village. The loss of the former ‘Amenity Open Space’ planning designation, reflecting that the space is not publically accessible, should not diminish in any way the significance of this gap. 8.3.5 The field has substantial value in defining the edge of the village, providing a hinterland to the church; it provides a transitional space between the village and the countryside, and has heritage value with the landform at the front of the field indicating hidden earthworks. Whilst the quality of the bespoke design of the individual dwellings is welcomed, unfortunately this does not outweigh the landscape harm arising from the loss of this important open space. The proposal fails to accord with Policy DEV5 in respect of protecting features of local importance. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan supports schemes that protect the amenity of existing residents and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. Paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires that planning decisions on development should ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. 8.4.2 There are no concerns with the amenity afforded to each of the respective new dwellings. Each dwelling is provided with adequate outdoor amenity space and the layout of the windows avoids overlooking. Amenity and privacy levels for the new dwellings are satisfactory. 8.4.3 Two properties adjoin the application site to the west, ‘Sycamore’ and ‘Gin Case’. Concern was raised that the proposal as submitted would impact on the residents of the adjacent property Gin Case, which has side-facing windows overlooking the field and which would be compromised by the proximity of the proposed third dwelling, Stackyard Barn, at the rear of the site. That dwelling has been withdrawn from the proposal. With this property removed, there is now a gap of 23m from Gin Case to Long Cottage, which exceeds the required separation distances between habitable room windows set out in the 2010 Housing SPD. 8.4.4 The impacts on ‘Sycamore’ are considered to be within acceptable limits, notwithstanding the objections raised. This property has secondary and obscure- glazed windows in its side elevation overlooking the field in addition to an access door. Increasing use of the gate into the field to access land farmed by the applicants is

Page 184 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE raised as a concern, causing noise and disturbance; yet agriculture is the extant use of the land and the comings and goings of farm vehicles is not a matter within planning control. 8.4.5 Concerns raised over stability of the boundary walls potentially being undermined by construction works are private, civil matters between the parties and should not be afforded any weight or consideration in the determination of this planning application. 8.4.6 It is therefore considered that the proposal is in accordance with Policy DEV5, insofar as it seeks to protect the amenity of existing residents and provide an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. 8.5 Heritage Impact 8.5.1 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special regard is had to the desirability of preserving a listed building, or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest. Paragraph 193 of the NPPF states ‘when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. This is irrespective of whether the potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.’ Paragraph 194 of the NPPF requires that ‘any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration, destruction or development within in its setting), should require clear and convincing justification,’ and Paragraph 196 states that ‘where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal’. Local Plan Policy ENV10 is clear that development should preserve or enhance conservation areas and designated heritage assets. 8.5.2 St Barnabas’ Church is grade II listed and occupies an important and prominent location on entering the village. The Heritage Statement provided with the application describes the views across the field subject of the application as ‘fortuitous’ rather than designed, and the visibility of the spire as the most important feature to be preserved in considering development of the field. It is acknowledged that in revising the scheme to set the dwellings further back into the field, views across the frontage to the church are maintained. Furthermore, there was indeed at one time a large barn on the field but the neighbours state this was removed in the 1970s. 8.5.3 What is not addressed however in the Heritage Statement is that the church is actively used and that the graveyard could be overlooked by residents of the proposed adjacent Long Cottage, depending on the finished floor level of the dwelling. The ground falls away to the south and down to the churchyard, with the site of Long Cottage elevated above it. This dwelling would need to be cut into the slope of the ground to preserve privacy for churchgoers, particularly those attending graves. 8.5.4 The Heritage Statement does suggest that the earthworks visible at the front of the site are likely to be the remains of a Burgage Plot, which in the Historic Environment Records is shown south of the church but would probably more accurately be identified as belonging in the narrow field subject of the application. A Burgage Plot usually consists of a house on a long and narrow plot of land, owned by King or Lord. The site plans show that the development would retain the existing landform at the front of the site where the grass-covered earthworks are very visible. The County Historic Environment Officer acknowledges the potential for buried archaeological assets to be disturbed by the construction of the proposed development and recommends that, in

Page 185 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE the event planning consent is granted, the site be subject to archaeological investigation and recording in advance of development. 8.5.5 There will certainly be an impact on the setting of the church, a listed building, and whilst this revised proposal has acknowledged the harm the previous scheme would have caused by disrupting views across the field of the church, and now sets the buildings behind the church, those impacts are not considered to be fully resolved. The alignment of the proposed dwellings obstructs the open and long views of the church against the open countryside which are considered to be important to its setting. Moreover the position of Long Cottage is considered to be especially intrusive being so close to the church and therefore altogether removing its isolated nature which contributes strongly to its special character. The impacts on churchgoers visiting graves could be mitigated by ensuring Long Cottage is set at a lower level, but this would not overcome the harm to the setting of the church itself. It is therefore considered that moderate, or less than substantial, harm is incurred upon the setting of the listed building. 8.5.6 The NPPF requires a balancing exercise to determine whether harm from development on heritage assets, that is judged to be less than substantial, is outweighed by any public benefits. In this instance the scheme would provide two local occupancy dwellings which contribute to the local housing supply but the wider harm arising to the character of the countryside and the setting of the listed building is deemed to have the greater weight. 8.5.7 Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, it is considered that the proposal would cause moderate harm to the setting of the listed building and is therefore contrary to conservation policies as outlined within the Planning (LBCA) Act 1990, the NPPF and Eden Local Plan Policy ENV10. 8.6 Infrastructure/Drainage 8.6.1 Policy DEV2 of the Local Plan states that new development should avoid compromising flood defences, should incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) where practicable, and should discharge surface water in accordance with the hierarchy of sustainable drainage. The National Planning Policy Framework advises that, when determining any planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere (Paragraph 163). Highway impacts of new developments are addressed under Policy DEV3, stating that proposals will be refused where they would result in a severe impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion. 8.6.2 The proposed layout provides space within the site for off-street parking and turning. The existing access will be adopted and improved to provide enhanced visibility. The Highway Authority raises no objections to the proposal, and it is not considered that the development will result in any significant adverse impacts in respect of highway safety. 8.6.3 Foul water drainage will connect to the mains sewer. Surface water is to be discharged via a soakaway, and the Lead Local Flood Authority recommends conditions for prior approval of the surface water drainage scheme and measures preventing surface water discharging from the site onto the highway. Should permission be granted, conditions could be attached to ensure the parking and turning areas are formed from permeable materials. No objections are raised from United Utilities or the Flood Authority. The proposal does not give rise to any significant concerns as regards site drainage.

Page 186 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.6.4 It is considered the proposal accords with the requirements of Policies DEV2 and DEV3 and the relevant paragraphs of the NPPF in terms of highway safety, flood risk and drainage, and is therefore acceptable in respect of infrastructure. 8.7 Natural Environment 8.7.1 Impacts on the natural environment are addressed under Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan, which requires that new development shall avoid any net loss of biodiversity and geodiversity, and where possible enhance existing assets. 8.7.2 The rough pasture field is likely to have low biodiversity value. Root protection measures are indicated on the plan for the holly tree just inside the stone wall on the east boundary, details of which could be required by conditions if permission were granted, and which should also include measures to protect the tree just outside the application site adjacent to the access gate. 8.7.3 The Council Arboriculturist identified the ash tree at the southeast corner as being likely to be impacted by the development. An initial report provided by North West Arboricultural Services found the ash tree to be showing signs of significant die back as well as evidence of Ash die back. The tree has basal decay to the root plate as well as numerous cavities within the main stem. The report concluded that with the onset of Ash die back the tree will continue to decline over the next few years. 8.7.4 Notwithstanding this, the Council Arboriculturist further requested an arboricultural impact assessment including the heads of terms for an arboricultural method statement, and a tree constraints plan, in accordance with BS5837:2012. The applicant has since provided photographs showing the tree to be severely denuded in leaf growth last summer, whilst the oaks in the churchyard where in full leaf, whilst the ash tree has further lost a number of boughs and has a pronounced lean. As such, it is certainly not reasonable to request the applicant go to the expense of producing further supporting information in respect of a diseased, poor quality tree. Rather, should permission be granted, it would be preferable to include a condition requiring details of a landscaping scheme to include a replacement tree. 8.7.5 In view of the above, the impacts of the proposed development on the natural environment are not deemed to be unduly harmful and therefore the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy ENV1. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications

Page 187 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. Each application is determined on the planning merits. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 The development is considered to be unacceptable on the grounds that the proposal will result in the loss of an important open space which makes a significant contribution to the character of the village. 11.2 Notwithstanding the setting back of the dwellings from the road to allow important views across the field to St Barnabas’ Church, the considerate design of the dwellings, or the provision of self-build housing for families local to the village, all of which weighs in favour of the application, the proposal will still cause moderate harm to the setting of the church, a listed building, and will introduce built development on a field previously allocated as Amenity Open Space under the preceding Local Plan. This designation has been revised to only account for spaces accessible to the public, which this site is not; nevertheless, it is still regarded as an important gap forming a transition from the village to the church and the open countryside beyond, and its loss would adversely affect the character of the area. 11.3 The Housing SPD requires that infill development should not diminish an existing gap that is considered important to the setting and character of the settlement. The proposal cannot conform with this requirement, and the resultant harm to character is deemed to outweigh the benefits of the scheme. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies LS1, HS2, DEV5, EN10 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-2032, the Housing SPD, and the NPPF, and is therefore recommended for refusal. Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Development

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 02.02.2021

Background Papers: Planning Files 08/0832; 19/0917; 20/0907

Page 188 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 18 February 2021

Planning Application No: 20/0865 Date Received: 9 November 2020

OS Grid Ref: 353679 526243 Expiry Date: 22 February 2021

Parish: Clifton Ward: Eamont

Application Type: Householder

Proposal: Erection of a first floor extension over garage, front canopy porch and erection of rear single storey extension

Location: 4 Town End Croft, Clifton, CA10 2EP

Applicant: Mr and Mrs Mills

Agent: Mr I Cleasby

Case Officer: Miss G Heron

Reason for Referral: The Parish Council object to the application on material planning grounds.

© Crown Copyright and Database Rights (2016) Grid Ref: NY

Page 189 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

© Crown Copyright and Database Rights (2016) Grid Ref: NY

Page 190 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions/for the following reasons: Time Limit for Commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved: i. Application Form dated 16 September 2020 ii. Location Plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 9 November 2020 iii. Site Plan/Block Plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 9 November 2020 iv. Proposed Elevations. Drawing Number: 861-2 Rev P received by the Local Planning Authority on 21 January 2021 v. Proposed Roof Plan. Drawing Number: 861-3 Rev P received by the Local Planning Authority on 9 November 2020 vi. Floor Plans. Drawing Number: 861-4 Rev P received by the Local Planning Authority on 9 November 2020 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The proposal seeks full planning permission for a first floor extension over the garage, a front canopy porch and a single storey rear extension. 2.1.2 The single storey rear extension will mirror the design, size and materials of the existing single storey rear extension on the site with a dual pitched roof. It will approximately measure 4.3 metres by 3.8 metres, standing to 2.4 metres to the eaves and 5 metres to the ridge. It will have a ground floor rear window with two roof lights, one in each roof slope. It will be finished in stone with slates to match the main house. 2.1.3 The first floor extension over the garage will be see an extension built up to the existing ridge line and eaves of the dwelling. It will include two dormer windows in the front elevation. It will be finished in render with quoin detailing with slates to match the main house. It will approximately measure 6.9 metres standing to 4.2 metres to the eaves from the front and 7.2 metres to the ridge to join the existing ridge height of the dwelling.

Page 191 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2.1.4 The proposal also includes a single storey front canopy to be sited over the front door of the main house. It will be constructed from slate and render to match the main house. 2.1.5 The proposal will result in additional living accommodation for the applicants allowing for internal layout changes within the property. The existing single storey garage will be used as an office space, the first floor extension will create an additional bedroom and en-suite and the single storey rear extension will allow for a kitchen space. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application site relates to a two storey, detached residential property within the settlement of Clifton. The property has an existing driveway with a side and front garden with an existing single storey rear extension. The site is situated immediately adjacent the A6 with the property and its garden area at a considerably lower level than the adjacent pavement and A6. To the north of the site is a two storey residential property 3 Town End Croft which is approximately 4 metres from the existing building line of 4 Town Croft, to the south is 5 Town End Croft which is approximately 2 metres from the existing building line of the site, to the west is the A6 and to the east is the applicant’s front garden. 2.2.2 The site is not located in a Conservation Area and there are no Listed Buildings in the immediate vicinity of the site which will be impacted by the proposal. The site is situated in Flood Zone 1. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Local Highway Authority and Responded on 11 December with the following: Lead Local Flood Authority ‘I can confirm that the Highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority has no objection to the proposed development as it is considered that the proposal will not have a material effect on existing highway conditions nor does it increase the flood risk on the site or elsewhere’. 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response Parish No View Object Support No Response Council/Meeting Expressed Clifton Parish  Council 4.1 Clifton Parish Council responded with the following: ‘The Parish Council have concerns with this application regarding the size of the extension work and the impact on the neighbouring property. The ground floor extension will use up the little area of garden left at the rear of the property and be right up to the neighbouring boundary. The extension and changes to the garage will first remove a parking space at the property in the creation of the office space. It appears vans and cars are already parking on the road.

Page 192 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Another issue is that the second floor extension will cause impact on the light of the neighbouring property and garden that has both windows and a door that will be impacted potentially through loss of light that forms a material planning issue. The office space looks fairly substantial could be to support a home business and feel it needs to be addressed in that it should result in no additional vehicles coming to the property for business purposes in connection with the space created for an office. There appears to be no windows for natural light in the office and other areas shown in the plans that we can see. We hope that EDC would ask for further details on the usage of the office if for business purposes and also an impact study on the light restrictions the second floor extension will have on neighbouring property. We would also hope that given the substantial floor space increase a rate assessment would be carried out to cover it’. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 27 November 2020 by the applicant on behalf of the LPA due to COVID-19 working arrangements. No of Neighbours Consulted 5 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 0 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 0 6. Relevant Planning History Application No Description Outcome 09/0076 Proposed extension to the rear of the Full Approval dwelling 30/03/09 10/0046 Non-material amendment to planning Non-material approval 09/0076 comprising of amendment additional Velux window to north 16/02/10 elevation and external stable style door to south elevation 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan (2014-2032):  Policy DEV5: Design of New Development Supplementary Planning Documents:  Housing (2010) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Chapter 12: Achieving well-designed places 7.3 The policies and documents detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to the determination of this application.

Page 193 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues 8.1.1 Design and Visual Impacts 8.1.2 Residential Amenity 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The application site is an existing domestic property within a settlement which has an established residential use. It is considered that extensions and alterations to dwellinghouses are commonplace and expected in such locations. In considering this, the principle of the development is considered to be acceptable subject to further considerations relating to design, visual impacts, infrastructure and the impact on the neighbouring amenity; all of which are given further consideration below. 8.3 Design and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan states that new development will be required to “Reflect the existing street scene through the use of appropriate scale, mass, form, layout, high quality architectural design and use of materials”. 8.3.2 The proposal is considered to be of an acceptable scale, form and design. It is in- keeping with the existing property, of a sympathetic, domestic design and does not overbear the plot of main house. It utilises materials which are in-keeping with the existing property through the use of stone to the rear elevation and render to the front elevation, both to match the main house, which will enable the extensions to both tie-in and harmonise with the host dwelling. This choice of materials is considered to be acceptable, whilst the design ensures that the extensions would be subservient to the host dwelling. 8.3.3 Overall, the proposal is considered to be of an acceptable scale, form and design and the use of materials are in-keeping with the main house and surrounding residential area. Therefore, the proposal is considered to accord with Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-32 in this regard. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-32 states that development is required to “protect the amenity of existing residents” and provide an “acceptable amenity for future occupiers”. 8.4.2 To the north of the site is a two storey residential property 3 Town End Croft, to the south is 5 Town End Croft, to the west is the A6 and to the east is the applicant’s front garden. Therefore, the closest residential properties to the site are 3 Town End Croft to the north and 5 Town End Croft to the south. 8.4.3 In relation to 5 Town End Croft to the south, the proposed works will not have a material impact on its relationship with the application site. The main house of 4 Town End Croft will intervene between the 5 Town End Croft and the first floor extension and the existing single storey extension to the rear will also intervene between the proposal and the neighbouring property. No element of the proposal will be seen from 5 Town End Croft. The proposal is not considered to cause any harm to the residential amenity of 5 Town End Croft to the south. It is further noted that no objection to the proposal has been raised by the owners of 5 Town End Croft.

Page 194 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.4.4 Concerns have been raised by the Parish Council stating that the single storey extension will be built up to the boundary with the neighbouring property as well as concerns about the impact of the second storey upon the loss of light to the neighbour. They have requested that a light impact study is undertaken to assess this. 8.4.5 In relation to 3 Town End Croft to the north, the development will be built up to their adjoining boundary to the site. However, no windows will be positioned in the gable elevation which will face 3 Town End Croft which ensures there will be no issues of overlooking between the two. Furthermore, due to the position of the proposed extension and the lack of direct facing windows, there would be no overlooking or overbearing impacts which would affect the private garden area for 3 Town End Croft, or the enjoyment of its use by the owners. 8.4.6 In terms of the concerns which have been raised about the impact of the development upon 3 Town End Croft access to light, there are two first floor windows, one ground floor window and a set of ground floor patio doors which are positioned in the elevation directly facing the application site. One first floor window serves an en-suite bathroom which is already obscurely glazed and the other serves a bedroom. However, the first floor bedroom has another window in the rear elevation of the property which also provides light into the room. In terms of the ground floor window, this serves the living room of the neighbouring property and there will be no issues in terms of light to this room as there is a large archway opening to the front elevation which also serves this room. The ground floor patio doors open out onto a decking area of 3 Town End Croft and serve a dining room which also has another window to serve the room to the rear elevation. As the application site is located to the south of the neighbouring property, it will not cause any issues in terms of overshadowing their amenity space. Overall, the proposal does not cause significant harm to 3 Town End Croft’s access to light and is considered to be acceptable in this regard. 8.4.7 In considering whether or not the proposal causes an overbearing impact upon 3 Town End Croft, it is recognised that the first floor extension over the garage will be close to their boundary and will result in a two storey extension. However, the extension will not come any closer to the boundary in comparison to the existing garage and the existing separation distance between the two properties will be maintained, with no impacts arising of direct facing or loss of privacy arising from any window openings proposed. Also, the existing garage is dual pitched and stands to approximately 4.7 metres to the ridge. The resultant ridge line of the first floor extension will be approximately 7.2 metres. Therefore, there will be an increase in 2.5 metres in the ridge height to provide the first floor extension over the garage. In considering this, the proposal is not considered to cause a significant overbearing impact on 3 Town End Croft which would warrant the refusal of the application and it is considered to be acceptable in this regard. It is also noted that no objections to the proposal have been raised by the owners of 3 Town End Croft to this application. 8.4.8 Overall, the proposal is not considered to cause significant harm to the residential amenity of the site and surrounding area. The proposal is considered to accord with Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan in relation to residential amenity. 8.5 Infrastructure 8.5.1 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy DEV3 seeks to ensure that all new proposals would not result in the generation of any adverse highway safety impacts or result in highway capacity/congestion issues. This position is support by Paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework which confirms that, ‘Development should only be

Page 195 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. 8.5.2 In the case of the current application, the proposal will retain the existing driveway and vehicle access to the site and no alterations to this are proposed. As such, it is considered that there would be no material effect on the surrounding highway network or access arrangements to the property. 8.5.3 Concerns have been raised by the Parish Council that the change of the garage into an office will remove one parking space from the site. However, the existing garage on the site is used for domestic purposes and there is provision for sufficient off-road parking on the applicant’s driveway which will be retained as part of the development. 8.5.4 Cumbria County Council as Local Highways Authority have been consulted as part of the application and have no objection to the proposal and confirm that there would be no material effect on the highway network. As such, whilst the views of the Parish Council in this regard are noted, this does not represent justification for the refusal of this planning application 8.5.5 Therefore, in considering this, the application is considered to be acceptable from a highway perspective and complies with Policy DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-32. 8.6 Natural Environment 8.6.1 The proposal seeks extensions and alterations to an existing residential property and is not considered to cause any harm to any species or habitats. It is considered acceptable in relation to the natural environment. 8.7 Built Environment 8.7.1 Policy ENV10 requires great weight to the attached to the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment, heritage assets and their settings. 8.7.2 The application site is not located in a Conservation Area and there are no Listed Buildings in the immediate vicinity which will be affected by the proposal. 8.8 Other Matters 8.8.1 Concerns have been raised by the Parish Council in relation to the creation of a ground floor office space within the property. However, this will be used in association with the residential property by the applicants in a manner which is incidental to the dwellinghouse and does not result in a material change of use of the building, which would remain within the definition of a C3 (Dwellinghouse) as set out within the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended). 8.8.2 The Parish Council also comment that they expect a rate assessment to be carried out on the property given the substantial increase in floor space as a result of the proposal. However, Council Tax is not a material planning consideration and does not need to be taken into consideration in the determination of this application. 8.8.3 Concerns have been raised by the Parish Council stating that the single storey rear extension will result in little garden area at the rear for the applicant. However, as seen from the site plan, the application site has garden amenity space to the side and front of the dwelling which is acceptable. It is further noted that there are no minimum requirements for the provision of private garden space set out within the Eden Local Plan. Therefore, such matters are afforded no weight in the determination of this planning application.

Page 196 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10. Conclusion 10.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations. 10.2 The proposal is considered to be of an acceptable design and scale which is in- keeping with the character of the street scene and does not cause any harm to the visual amenity of the site and the surrounding area. It does not cause any overshadowing, overlooking or an overbearing impact and therefore, it is acceptable from a residential amenity point of view. Overall, the application is considered to accord with Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-32.

Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Development

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 26.01.21

Background Papers: Planning File 20/0865

Page 197 Agenda Item 10 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 18 February 2021

Planning Application No: 20/0975 Date Received: 14 December 2020

OS Grid Ref: 352090 529886 Expiry Date: 11 January 2021 (extension of time agreed to 19 February 2021)

Parish: Penrith Ward: Penrith East

Application Type: Non-material Amendment

Proposal: Non-material amendment to clad the house in brick, alterations to roof pitch, alterations to ground floor level, and alterations to terrace attached to planning approval 18/0967

Location: 14 Carleton Road, Penrith

Applicant: Mr J Lynch

Agent: Mr G Norman

Case Officer: Mr N Atkinson

Reason for Referral: The applicant is the Council Member for Penrith East and also a member of the Planning Committee.

Page 198 Agenda Item 10 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 199 Agenda Item 10 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation It is recommended that the non-material amendment application be approved subject to the conditions set out within planning permission 16/1027 and the following amended plans:  Application Form, received 01 February 2021;  Wienerberger ‘Kempley Antique’ Brick Specification (product code: 12700812), received 14 December 2020;  Plans, Elevations and Sections (ref: 115-175-09 – Rev.D), received 14 December 2020. 2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The proposal seeks a non-material amendment to planning permission 18/0967, which was approved by the Planning Committee at the meeting on the 14 February 2018. This permission was a variation of planning permission 16/1012 which was also approved by the Planning Committee at the meeting on the 16 February 2017. 2.1.2 The previous planning permission (ref: 16/1027) granted approval for the erection of a single dwelling with a garage, within the curtilage of no.14 Carleton Road, Penrith. The sole changes sought under this non-material amendment application include the following elements:  Cladding change from render to brick;  Alterations to the roof pitch (by approximately 31 degrees);  Increase in the ridge height by 8mm;  Alterations to the ground floor level (which has been increased by 450mm); and  Introduction of steps and raise platform/terrace area on the South West elevation. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application site is an area of land forming part of the existing garden curtilage of No.14 Carleton Road, Penrith. 2.2.2 The application site is positioned at the end of an existing row of semi-detached dwellings, all of which are of subtle architectural merit. The application site is also located adjacent to a large and attractive property known as Victoria Cottage, which is set in large, walled grounds. Although the application site forms part of the garden of No.14 Carleton Road, the property will be accessed via a new highway access off Folly Lane to the north, which is a 30mph public highway. The application site is located directly opposite the property known as Barco Lodge to the north. 2.2.3 The application site has no landscape designation, nor is it affected by any planning constraints which would be relevant to the determination of this non-material amendment application. 2.2.4 Since the grant of planning permission 18/0967, construction works have commenced at the site and as such, this permission has now been implemented on the site.

Page 200 Agenda Item 10 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 3. Consultees 3.1 In accordance with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and the Development Management Procedure Order (DMPO), there is no statutory requirements for any consultations to be undertaken in accordance with a non-material amendment application. Therefore, no consultations have been undertaken on this application. 4. Representations 4.1 In accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and the Development Management Procedure Order (DMPO), there is no statutory requirements for any public advertisement or consultation with non-material amendment applications. As such, no public consultations have been undertaken on this application. 5. Relevant Planning History

Application Reference Proposal

16/0286 Proposed residential dwelling. Withdrawn by the applicant.

16/0327 Removal of Ash Tree T1 showing signs of significant decline. Approved 20 May 2016.

16/1027 Proposed residential dwelling with garage. Approved 17 February 2017.

18/0967 Variation of Condition 3 (Visibility Splays) attached to approval 16/1027. Approved 14 February 2019.

6. Planning Assessment 6.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle of ‘non-materiality’ 6.2 Principle 6.2.1 It is common practice for changes to be sought to a previously approved scheme following the grant of planning permission. In such circumstances, an applicant can propose and submit a non-material amendment application to enable minor changes to be made to a previously approved scheme, under Section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In such circumstances, the Local Planning Authority must make a judgement on the materiality of the changes sought with regards to whether they represent a minor alterations to the previously approved scheme, or whether they are significant (or ‘material’) alterations which require the submission of an application to vary the previously approved plans and decision notice. 6.2.2 There is no statutory definition with regards to what constitutes or is considered to be ‘non-material’ within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. All decisions on such matters are dependent upon the context of an overall development and site specific considerations including regard being given to the effect of the changes proposed, together with any previous changes made under section 96A, on the planning permission as originally granted. Non-material amendment applications must be within

Page 201 Agenda Item 10 REPORTS FOR DEBATE the scope of the original planning permission, and cannot result in materially different proposal. A proposal that would significantly alter the external appearance of a development previously approved, this cannot be considered as ‘non-material’. In the case of the current application, this consideration relates to the overall changes to the appearance of the dwelling. 6.2.3 Where an alteration which may be considered to be ‘non-material’ in one instance, a similar alteration may be considered ‘material’ in another. The decision on what constitutes a ‘non-material’ change is a subjective consideration, made on a specific case by case basis by a Local Planning Authority. 6.2.4 Where an alteration is considered to be a non-material amendment and subsequently approved, no new planning permission is issued or granted. Instead the original planning permission will still stand and remain, and an approval letter issued to the applicant which confirms the approved changes granted. This approval letter will form part of the original planning decision to be read together and in conjunction with the original decision notice. There is no right of appeal if such applications are refused. The Council’s decision is final unless challenged by means of a Judicial Review. 6.2.5 In the case of the current application, the changes sought relate solely to the external materials used in the construction of the house from render to brick; alterations to the roof pitch (by approximately 31 degrees); an increase in the ridge height by 8mm; alterations to the ground floor level (which has been increased by 450mm); and the introduction of steps and raise platform/terrace area on the South West elevation. In all other regards the design, size, scale, appearance, orientation and location of the dwelling within the application site would not be altered. 6.2.6 In this regard, the alterations proposed have been assessed and whilst they are considered to be on the very limit of what can reasonably be considered under a Non- material Amendment application, it is considered that on balance, the changes proposed can be treated as such. 6.2.7 The design, scale, appearance , orientation and location of the dwelling would remain as previously approved, and in all other regards the amendments sought would not significantly depart from the original approval, nor substantially alter the overall appearance of the dwelling. In addition, the changes sought would not introduce any new significant considerations to those previously considered for the original scheme. Therefore, the revisions sought are considered to be sufficiently minor so that, on balance, when the overall development is viewed as a whole, they do not materially affect the appearance of the previously approved development, or introduce any new features or considerations that would affect any neighbouring properties or the character of the area. 6.2.8 If this application is approved, the development will still be required to be undertaken in accordance with the conditions imposed upon the original decision notice, and also the plans and drawings detailing the changes proposed under this application. 6.2.9 Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, it is considered that, on balance, the proposed changes can be achieved through this non-material amendment application, which satisfies the requirements of Section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 7. Implications 7.1 Legal Implications

Page 202 Agenda Item 10 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 7.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 7.2 Equality and Diversity 7.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 7.3 Environment 7.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 7.4 Crime and Disorder 7.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 7.5 Children 7.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 7.6 Human Rights 7.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 8. Conclusion 8.1 The proposed changes sought to the previously approved development are considered to be minor, and on balance can be considered as a non-material amendment. 8.2 The changes sought do not materially affect the previously approved development, or introduce any new features or considerations that would affect any neighbouring properties or the character of the area. 8.3 Therefore, it is recommended that the application be approved.

Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Development

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 02.02.2021

Background Papers: Planning File 20/0975

Page 203 Agenda Item 11 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 18 February 2021

Planning Application No: 20/0743 Date Received: 1 October 2020

OS Grid Ref: NY 351041, Expiry Date: 27 November 2020 529874 (time extension to 24 February 2021)

Parish: Penrith Ward: Penrith West

Application Type: Planning Permission

Proposal: Erection of a commercial building

Location: Myers Lane, Business Park, Penrith, CA11 9DP

Applicant: Willan Trading Ltd

Agent: Addis Town Planning Ltd

Case Officer: Andrew Clement

Reason for Referral: Proposal has been called for determination at planning committee on material planning grounds by an objector through the public consultation process.

Page 204 Agenda Item 11 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 205 Agenda Item 11 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: Time limit for commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved: i. Location Plan, referenced A0.1, received on 1st October 2020. ii. Amended proposed block plan, referenced A0.3a, dated 04-01-21, received on 4th January 2021. iii. Amended proposed elevation plan, referenced A0.5a, dated 04-01-21, received on 4th January 2021. iv. Proposed building elevations, referenced A0.5b, dated 26-01-21, received on 26th January 2021. v. Proposed floorplan, referenced A0.7, received on 26th January 2021. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Before the development is commenced 3. No development, site preparation/clearance or demolition shall commence until a remediation strategy to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site in respect of the development hereby permitted, has been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. This strategy shall include the following components: i. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: • All previous uses • Potential contaminants associated with those uses • A conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors • Potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site ii. A site investigation scheme, based on (i) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off-site. iii. The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (ii) and, based on these, an options appraisal and Remediation Strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. iv. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to

Page 206 Agenda Item 11 REPORTS FOR DEBATE demonstrate that the works set out in the Remediation Strategy in (iii) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details, and where required by the approved mitigation, the measures shall be retained and maintained within the development at all times thereafter. Reason: To ensure that risks from soil contamination to the future occupants of the development and neighbouring occupiers are minimised, together with those to controlled waters and ecological systems and to ensure that site workers are not exposed to the unacceptable risks from contamination during construction. 4. Prior to the development hereby permitted being occupied or brought into use the following details shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority: i. The works specified in the Remediation Method Statement have been completed in accordance with the approved scheme; and ii. A Validation Report and Certificate, confirming achievement of the Remediation Method Statement's objectives, including confirmation of the agreed remediation of any unforeseen contamination encountered during the works. If during remediation works any contamination is identified that has not been considered in the Remediation Strategy, then remediation proposals for this material shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that risks from soil contamination to the future occupants of the development and neighbouring occupiers are minimised, together with those to controlled waters and ecological systems and to ensure that site workers are not exposed to the unacceptable risks from contamination during construction. 5. No site preparation/clearance, demolition, construction, deliveries or fit-out associated with the development shall occur except between the hours of 0800- 1800 Monday to Saturday. In particular no site activities shall be undertaken on Sundays or on Public Holidays. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to safeguard residential amenity. Pre-occupancy or other stage conditions 6. No development (other than site preparation/clearance and demolition) shall commence until details of the design, based on sustainable drainage principles, and implementation of an appropriate surface water sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Those details shall include: i. An investigation of the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance (or any subsequent amendment thereof). This investigation shall include evidence of an assessment of ground conditions and the potential for infiltration of surface water; ii. A restricted rate of discharge of surface water agreed with the local planning

Page 207 Agenda Item 11 REPORTS FOR DEBATE authority (if it is agreed that infiltration is discounted by the investigations); and iii. A timetable for its implementation. The approved scheme shall also be in accordance with the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation or completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Thereafter the drainage system shall be retained, managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development can be adequately drained and that there is no flood risk (on or off-site) resulting from the development. 7. No development above ground level shall occur until a scheme for treating, diluting and dispersing fumes and odours from the existing extraction unit immediately north of the approved development has been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must have a written statement that demonstrates an equal or improved level of extraction than existing, or compliance with the measures detailed within EMAQ+ Guidance: The Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems 2018 (or if applicable such superseding guidance as shall prevail at the time of commencement of the development). The approved scheme shall be implemented in full, available for use and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme prior to the commencement of development above ground level, and retained as such at all times thereafter. If the works to the extraction system constitute development requiring planning permission, this should be sought through a separate planning application prior to discharging this planning condition. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to protect the residential amenities of nearby residential property from impact upon from fumes and odour. 8. Notwithstanding the details indicated on the approved plans, application form and supporting documents, details of the foul drainage system shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The first presumption is to provide a system of foul drainage discharging into a public sewer to be treated at a public sewage treatment works, and only where this is demonstrated to be unfeasible will alternatives of a package treatment plant or finally a septic tank be considered as part of a sequential approach. The development shall not be occupied or brought into use until the approved details have been fully implemented. The foul drainage system shall be retained and maintained at all times thereafter. The development shall be drained on separate foul and surface water systems. Reason: To ensure adequate drainage of the site. Ongoing conditions 9. The use hereby permitted shall not operate, be open to customers or receive commercial deliveries outside the following times: 07:00 to 20:00 on Monday to Saturday; and 08:00 to 18:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to safeguard residential amenity. 10. There shall be no external storage of any equipment and/or materials associated

Page 208 Agenda Item 11 REPORTS FOR DEBATE with the development or use hereby approved, within the red line boundary as detailed on the amended proposed block plan, referenced A0.3a, dated 04-01-21, received on 4 January 2021. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to safeguard residential amenity. 11. The rollershuter doors to the west facing elevation of the building hereby approved shall remain closed at all times, other than when being used by vehicles to access the building. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to safeguard residential amenity. 12. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended) and the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020, (or any other order revoking or re- enacting that Order), the use of the building(s) shall not be used for the display or retail sale of goods, other than hot food E(a), for the sale of food and drink for consumption (mostly) on the premises E(b), or for any other use outside of Use Class E or Use Class B8. Reason: To ensure that inappropriate uses do not occur within the locality contrary to Local Plan policies, to safeguard residential amenity and in the interests of highway safety. Informative: 1. This decision notice grants planning permission only. It does not override any existing legal agreement, covenant or ownership arrangement. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure all necessary agreements are in place prior to the commencement of development. 2. Separate approval for the works hereby granted permission/consent may be required by the Building Act 1984 and the Building Regulations 2000 (as amended), and the grant of planning permission does not imply that such approval will be given. The Council’s Building Control Team should be consulted before works commence. You contact the team directly at [email protected] 3. Condition 5 of permission 20/0032 restricts the vehicle movements entering or leaving the wider site to a maximum of 200 per day, and 100 on Sundays, which continues to apply to the wider site, and any development within must continue to comply with. 2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a commercial building to the south of the existing buildings on site. The proposed commercial building measures 25 metres long by 14 metres wide, with a maximum ridge height of 6.2 metres and a 4.4 metres tall eaves height. The building is to be used for commercial purposes within Use Class E and storage/warehousing within Use Class B8 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended). The building will be finished in external materials to match the existing brick and metal sheet units on site, with a roller

Page 209 Agenda Item 11 REPORTS FOR DEBATE shutter doors to the east and west facing elevations. Cumulatively the proposal seeks a footprint of development measuring 350sq.m of commercial use at the site. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site that forms the subject of this application is an existing employment site to the west of Myers Lane, just beyond the Penrith Industrial Estate BID area and opposite Penrith Railway Station. Myers Lane forms part of the public right of way network footpath no. 358012, and the southern boundary beyond the site area is within Flood Zone 2 and 3. Adjacent to the west of the site are residential dwellings. The closest dwellings to the existing commercial buildings is 7 Newlands Place, approximately 25 metres from the western gable of Unit 5, which is currently used as a gymnasium. To the south is vacant cleared employment land, previously used as fuel oil storage and distribution, whilst to the north is fuel (coal, wood, gas) merchant, storage and distribution use with a vehicle repair garage further north. This northern site has been designated as a housing allocation site. 2.2.2 The application site currently consists of two large commercial buildings. The northern building is comprised of unpainted render and brick with a corrugated metal roof and white uPVC window frames and doors. The southern building is finished in red brick lower walls, corrugated metal upper walls under a corrugated metal roof. The northern site boundary is marked by a tall brick wall, the east a metal fence adjacent to Myers Road, with a chain fence to the south. To the west the site is bounded by a tall evergreen hedgerow and fence between the site and residential dwellinghouses. The northern building is currently operated by a local gymnastics academy, whilst the southern building is split use containing a gymnasium, a food manufacturing unit and storage. 2.2.3 The application site is located within a Flood Zone 2. Otherwise, there are no planning constraints affecting the site which are relevant to the determination of this planning application. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority No objection subject to no increase on previous use, no increase in impermeable area and no obstruction of the adjacent PROW. Lead Local Flood Authority No objection, advice that any soakaway should be at least 5 metres from the public highway. 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response United Utilities No objection, recommend a planning condition for a surface water drainage scheme in accordance with the hierarchy of drainage, and separate surface and foul water drainage arrangements. Environmental Health Objection to siting of shipping containers due to neighbouring residential amenity impacts, and control of hours of opening.

Page 210 Agenda Item 11 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Environment Agency No objection subject to planning conditions regarding the wastewater drainage element of the proposal and a preliminary contamination risk assessment and remediation strategy. 4. Town Council Response Please Tick as Appropriate No View Town Council Object Support No Objection Expressed Penrith  4.1 Responses were received on the 20 October 2020 and 12 January 2021 raising no objection, but recommend planning conditions to control hours of operation between 7am and 8pm Monday to Saturday, and 8am to 6pm on Sunday, and vehicle movements within the site. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours No of Neighbours Consulted 15 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 3 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 3 5.2 Letters of objection raised the following material considerations to the application:  Disorganised parking provision and activities  Increased vehicle movements  Noise impacts from proposed uses and developments  Hours of activities and associated noise  Flood risk and surface water drainage  Visual impact of shipping containers  Impact upon surface water drainage 5.3 Letters of objection raised the following non-material considerations:  Residential properties pre-date the established commercial activities of the application site.  Noise impacts from existing uses and activities. 6. Relevant Planning History Application No Description Outcome 20/0032 Subdivision of existing business park to Approved 24 April create five business units including 2020 associated changes of use (part retrospective) 15/5103 Alleged non-compliance with boundary Immune from hedge planting requirements enforcement action 12 November 2015

Page 211 Agenda Item 11 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 04/0078 Erection of Palisade Fence 2.4 metre Approved 15 April Height Across the Divide between Lloyd 2004 Ltd & Askham Oils 90/0822 Pole sign Approved 15 November 1990 83/1036 Proposed new implement shed for R Approved 17 July Lloyd (Tractors) Ltd 1983 76/0335 Proposed Warehouse Approved 28 May 1976 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan (2014-32)  LS1 – Locational Strategy  PEN1 – A Town Plan for Penrith  DEV1 – General Approach to New Development  DEV2 – Water Management and Flood Risk  DEV3 – Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way  DEV4 – Infrastructure and Implementation  DEV5 – Design of New Development  EC1 – Employment Land Provision  EC3 – Employment Development in Existing Settlements  DEV2 – Water Management and Flood Risk  ENV8 – Land Contamination  ENV9 – Other Forms of Pollution 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Chapter 2 - Achieving Sustainable Development  Chapter 4 - Decision making  Chapter 6 - Building a strong, competitive economy  Chapter 7 - Ensuring the vitality of town centres  Chapter 11 - Making efficient use of land  Chapter 12 - Achieving well-designed places  Chapter 14 - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change  Chapter 15 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) National Design Guide (2019) 7.3 The policies and guidance detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application.

Page 212 Agenda Item 11 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle of the development  Design, scale and streetscene impacts  Residential amenity impact and noise  Highways and parking provision  Infrastructure, drainage and flood risk  Contamination and environmental impact 8.2 Principle of the development 8.2.1 In terms of the principle of any development, consideration is given to the Development Plan. This consists of the adopted Eden Local Plan (2014-2032) and the policies which it contains. 8.2.2 Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan, entitled ‘Locational Strategy’ sets out the hierarchy of settlements where development should be focused in the most sustainable locations, the most sustainable being Penrith, the Market Towns and Key Hubs. 8.2.3 The Local Plan document confirms that that in relation to Policy LS1 ‘the following policy sets out our settlement hierarchy and shows which areas we expected to be the focus for residential, employment and commercial provision’. The Policy clarifies that Penrith is the most sustainable settlement and will benefit from ‘sustained development’ not limited to but including housing and employment development. It further confirms that ‘We expect that Penrith will continue to be the main centre, with a range of housing provided to meet the needs of its residents and facilitate further economic growth. Gilwilly Industrial Estate/Eden Business Park will continue to develop and provide an enhanced provision of employment floorspace’. 8.2.4 Policy DEV1 entitled ‘General Approach to New Development’ states that ‘‘Planning applications that accord with policies in this Local Plan (and, where relevant, with policies in neighbourhood plans) will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where there are no policies relevant to the application or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision then the Council will grant permissions unless material considerations indicated otherwise – taking into account whether:  Any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole; or  Specific policies in that Framework indicate that development should restricted’. 8.2.5 Policy EC1 seeks allocated 27.3ha of employment land, and provides favourable consideration to any proposals for B1, B2 and B8 purposes on unallocated sites which are well related to Penrith, subject to infrastructure and landscape considerations. 8.2.6 Policy EC3 of the Eden Local Plan, entitled ‘Employment Development in Existing Settlements’ states; ‘Development is of a scale, type and design sympathetic to the location within which is it proposed; Development would not have an unacceptable impact on highways or other forms of infrastructure;

Page 213 Agenda Item 11 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Development would not cause harm to local amenity, landscape, ecology, historic environment or other environmental and cultural heritage considerations; The development is capable of achieving appropriate standards of access, servicing, parking and amenity space’. 8.2.7 Chapter 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) entitled ‘Building a strong, competitive economy’ states that “significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity”. When specifically referring to the rural economy, it also states that planning decisions should enable “the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas”, “the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses” and “sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside”. 8.2.8 The Council’s own Local Plan highlights the role that Penrith plays in the Locational Strategy and from an employment/economic point of view. This scheme is proposed for an existing Industrial Estate. Its purpose is to facilitate the siting and positioning of development such as this. Given the settlement hierarchy and the site being located upon an existing Industrial Estate, the principle of the development and the use proposed, is considered acceptable, subject to the consideration of all other relevant material considerations. 8.2.9 This application seeks planning permission for an additional commercial building within the Lloyds site immediately west of Myers Lane, which is in a sustainable location within Penrith, adjacent to the railway station. Whilst the site is just beyond the Penrith Industrial Estate BID area, there is a long established commercial and employment land use of the site, which has been the lawful use of the site for five decades and most recently regularised through consent 20/0032. 8.2.10 The principle of developing a commercial building on land with a lawful and established commercial employment use is considered to be acceptable and compatible with policies EC1, EC3, LS1 and PEN1, all of which encourage employment developments within sustainable locations such as within the main town of Penrith, as such developments provide economic and social benefits of employment provision within the district. Policy EC3 and other policies within the development plan require commercial developments to be of proportionate scale, sympathetic design, causing no undue harm to amenity, ecology, environment, highways and other considerations, which will be assessed in the following sections. 8.2.11 Subsequent to the adoption of the Eden Local Plan and national plans, use classes have been modified and amalgamated, merging a much broader range of uses under the new single commercial Use Class E, the majority of which would be appropriate uses for the proposal as assessed above, and similar to those already permitted and occurring at the site. However, retails or restaurant uses, or other uses outside of Use Class E or B8 storage uses, would fail to comply with local policies, particularly EC7 which directs retail and town centre uses to the designated town centre area, and could generate significant levels of customer visits, vehicle movements and associated activity unsuitable for the site and surrounding road networks and neighbouring residences. Therefore, a planning condition to control the use of the site, excluding those mentioned within Use Class E or those outside of this use class or Use Class B8 forms part of this recommendation, and has been agreed with the planning agent. 8.2.12 For the reasons detailed above, and subject to the inclusion of appropriate conditions to control the final development at the site, the principle of the proposal is considered

Page 214 Agenda Item 11 REPORTS FOR DEBATE to be acceptable and in accordance with Policies LS1, EC1 and EC3 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.3 Design, scale and streetscene impacts 8.3.1 Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan seeks to ensure that all new development is of an appropriately high quality design, which shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the locality. 8.3.2 The proposed commercial building matches the height and materials of the building sited immediately north, and the proposal ensures subservient scale due to being marginally narrower and much shorter than the existing building on site. The proposed development is to be finished in brick and metal sheet walls under a metal sheet roof, which is similar to the surrounding commercial buildings located along Myers Lane and on site. Whilst the application site is elevated above that of the adjacent site and land to the south, the development would be seen in the context of the existing commercial buildings on site and immediately surrounding. In this setting, the proposed development will appear inconspicuous and congruent, compatible with policy DEV5 causing no undue impact to the streetscene. 8.3.3 The proposal represents a 350sq.m increase in internal commercial floorspace within a circa 6,430sq.m site containing approximately 1,310sq.m of commercial floorspace as existing. Whilst the unit is likely to be operated by a new business, the proposal is considered to be a proportionate expansion of the existing commercial site, which can be accommodated within the site at an appropriate density, representing an effective use of land as encouraged by Section 11 of the NPPF. 8.3.4 For the reasons detailed above, it is considered that the design, scale and size of the building proposed is acceptable in an industrial setting, and is considered to accord with the requirements of Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.4 Residential amenity impact and noise 8.4.1 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy DEV5, in part, seeks to ensure that all new development ‘protects the amenity of existing residents and business occupiers’. 8.4.2 Furthermore, Policy ENV9 of the Eden Local Plan stipulates that development should adequately assess and mitigate noise, light, dust, odour and/or vibration to ensure no adverse effect on existing noise sensitive premises. 8.4.3 The site has an established commercial employment use, however the characteristics of the wider area are mixed commercial and industrial sites adjacent to residential areas. The Castletown residential area of Penrith is bordered by the Gilwilly Industrial Estate to the north, Penrith Industrial Estate to the south, with the M6 motorway to the west and West Coast Mainline to the east of the application site. The application site is between Penrith Railway station and the residential dwellinghouses along Newlands Place immediately west of the application site. This juxtaposition of residential cul-de- sac directly bordering established industrial and commercial uses is present at the western edge of the application site, and creates an existing environment whereby noise disturbance and conflicts between the two adjacent uses already occurs. Whilst this does not justify unduly exacerbating these impacts, the existing noise environment of the established commercial use of the site, garages and industrial uses beyond must be considered as the existing environment. 8.4.4 Residential amenity, noise and standard of development concerns were raised with the planning agent early in the application process, particularly relating to the original

Page 215 Agenda Item 11 REPORTS FOR DEBATE proposal including the siting of shipping containers around the western and northern inner perimeter of the site, some immediately bordering neighbours private rear garden areas. These elements of the proposal have since been removed from the proposal through amended plans, with the southern commercial building remaining the development proposed for consideration. 8.4.5 The sought commercial building is considered to be sympathetically located within the site, separated from the residential neighbours to the west as feasibly possible. Whilst locations closer to Myers Lane may have been possible, this would be far more prominent from Myers Lane, and would likely direct vehicle movements, parking and activity to the land adjacent to neighbours. The proposed development is located over 38 metres away from the nearest neighbouring dwellinghouse, further than the two existing buildings on site. Subject to planning conditions controlling hours of opening and preventing external storage similar to those currently operating from the site and closing of the rollershutter doors when not in use by accessing vehicles, it is considered that the additional building sought at this existing commercial employment site will not exacerbate the current residential amenity experienced by neighbouring dwellinghouses. 8.4.6 These recommended planning conditions are necessary to ensure that existing noise impacts are not exacerbated to an unacceptable level upon the amenity of the area and neighbouring residents through hours beyond the current active hours of the site, potential storage adjacent or close to neighbouring gardens or conflicting with neighbouring uses within the site, and the rollershutter providing noise mitigation when closed from activities within the sought unit. A planning condition restricting hours of construction to normal daytime working hours also forms part of this recommendation to ensure development does not continue or begin during hours unsociable to the residential neighbours of the site. However, subject to these conditions, it is considered that the proposed development would result in no undue impacts with regards to noise generated from the development as the agent of change nor on other aspects of neighbouring residential amenity. 8.4.7 Neighbours have raised concerns relating to noise impacts as existing and proposed, however only those proposed form part of this application. The Town Council similarly identify noise as a concern, although returning no objection and recommending hours of operation and vehicle movements are controlled through this proposal. Parking and highway impacts will be assessed in the following section, however a condition applied to implemented consent 20/0032 remains active for the entire site, and therefore there is no need to replicate this on the current application. Subject to the planning conditions outlined in the previous paragraph and agreed with the planning agent, the proposal is considered to be in-keeping with the existing activities at the site and wider commercial area, with suitable mitigation to not unduly exacerbate levels of noise or residential amenity impacts from the proposed development, and is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with policy DEV5 and policy ENV9. 8.4.8 The proposed development is less than a metre from the existing building to the north, leaving just a narrow passage between the proposed building and the existing built form on site. The existing building has a wall mounted extraction system to the southern elevation, which would be in extremely close proximity to the proposed building. Given that the proximity of the proposed development, the fact that the existing system will not have been designed to extract close to a solid elevation, and the potential impacts this may have on dispersion of fumes and odour from the existing use within the building on site, a scheme for the extraction from this existing unit should

Page 216 Agenda Item 11 REPORTS FOR DEBATE be controlled through planning condition. This is necessary to ensure the development does not negatively impact upon the existing effectiveness of the current extraction system or cause odour or other nuisance issues to the current food manufacturing use on the site or to neighbouring sensitive receptors. Subject to a planning condition to provide an extraction system of equal or improved effectiveness or compliance with extraction regulations prior to development above ground, this will ensure no undue impact upon the existing business on site or amenity of the site and surrounding area. 8.4.9 Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in any undue or adverse harm being generated to any nearby neighbouring dwelling, either cumulatively or in isolation with the remainder of the site. As such, the proposed development is considered to be in-accordance with the requirements of Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.5 Highways and parking provision 8.5.1 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy DEV3 seeks to direct development to locations accessible by public transport, to ensure that provide safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people, whilst preventing development that would result in a severe impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion. This policy is supported by Paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which confirms that, ‘Development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. 8.5.2 The number of vehicle movements entering and exiting the wider site is currently controlled through implemented planning application 20/0032, restricted to what was considered to be an acceptable and approved level. Whilst the precise end users and use of the sought development is currently unspecified, the planning agent informs that the use is likely to require relatively few visits, vehicle movements and parking provision, and will operate within the current planning restrictions of the site relating the vehicle movements, despite the addition building sought. 8.5.3 Whilst this would be difficult to ensure for uses such as retail or restaurant, where customers would likely arrive ad hoc, this is more controllable for the uses sought through this proposal of those remaining in Use Class E and Use Class B8. The number of vehicle movements to and from the site will remain controlled at existing levels through the current implemented consent at the site. Given this level of vehicle movements, it is considered that the parking provision is sufficient within the site, even in the current unmarked condition, and the number of trips will not be exacerbated beyond those previously acceptable and recently approved at the site. This view is supported by the Highway Authority which offers no objection to the proposal subject to the inclusion of conditions. 8.5.4 Therefore, the proposal is considered to cause no severe impact upon the public highway or parking provision, consistent with Policy DEV3. It should be noted that the site is in a highly sustainable location, within Penrith and short walking distance from public transport hubs, and therefore employees or customers of the development would not be entirely reliant on private motor vehicle transport, again compatible with Policy DEV3.

Page 217 Agenda Item 11 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.6 Infrastructure, drainage and flood risk 8.6.1 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy DEV2 requires proposals to meet the sequential approach to development in flood risk areas, preventing inappropriate development areas at risk of flooding, whilst adhering to the hierarchy of surface water management. 8.6.2 Furthermore, Policy DEV4 of the Eden Local Plan seeks to ensure that new development is supported by the infrastructure it needs to function. 8.6.3 Myers Beck is located to the south of the site, and sections of the nearby Penrith Industrial Estate are within Flood Zones 2 and 3, including the land immediately south of the site. However, the application site is elevated above this adjacent land, in flood zone 1 calculated to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of risk of flooding without any further mitigation required for this reason. 8.6.4 The development area surface treatment appears to be loose stone surface as existing, and the proposed 350sq.m building will result in an impermeable roof over this area, with an impact upon the existing drainage arrangements, particularly given the elevated position of the site in relation to neighbouring land. New development must manage surface water run-off in accordance with the sequential approach to the surface water hierarchy detailed within Policy DEV2. Whilst this information has yet to be confirmed, this can be controlled through pre-commencement planning condition, as recommended within the consultation response of no objection from United Utilities, to ensure an acceptable arrangement in accordance with this hierarchy. Subject to such a planning condition, a satisfactory surface water drainage scheme can be achieved and controlled for this site and development. This view is supported by the Lead Local Flood Authority which raises no objections or concerns to the proposal, subject to the inclusion of appropriate conditions. 8.6.5 The application submission details that the site benefits from an existing package treatment plant for wastewater drainage, with the planning agent stating that the nearest mains sewerage connection is over 160 metres from the site on higher ground than the proposed development. Whilst this information has yet to be fully substantiated in terms of demonstrating that the mains connection is unfeasible and/or impractical, nor has the size and suitability of further connection to the existing treatment plant been evidenced, a similar hierarchical approach to wastewater drainage is taken, and therefore a suitable scheme can be devised once the sequentially preferable options are first fully explored. The Environment Agency have returned no objection subject to a planning condition to confirm wastewater drainage arrangements prior to development above ground, and there is also a separate environmental permitting requirement for certain wastewater arrangements. 8.6.6 Therefore, subject to a planning condition to confirm the wastewater drainage arrangements, satisfactory drainage and infrastructure arrangements can be controlled and provided for the proposed development, compatible with polices DEV2 an DEV4. 8.7 Contamination and environmental impact 8.7.1 Within the Eden Local Plan, Policy ENV8 requires adequate assessment and mitigation of suspected contaminated land to ensure unacceptable risks to human health and/or the environment are avoided, or remediated where necessary to ensure safe development.

Page 218 Agenda Item 11 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.7.2 Furthermore, Policy ENV9 stipulates that development will not be permitted where it would generate adverse impact on the quality of ground and surface water, either in the construction or operation stages. 8.7.3 The application site has long established commercial uses, previously operating commercial industries with a fleet of vehicles and historic road haulage use, which are identified as activities that may result in land contamination. Furthermore, sensitive receptors are considered to be groundwater and watercourses, in addition to people, both of which are either impacted within the site or in close proximity. Given the potential contamination from previous uses and potential risk from disturbing ground potentially contaminated to water resources, construction workers and end users, a preliminary risk assessment of potential contaminants and remediation strategy is required. This can be explored prior to the commencement of development, controlled through planning condition. The Environment Agency concur that such details are necessary but can be satisfactorily controlled through planning condition. Subject to such a condition, the proposal can sufficiently explore and remediate any contamination if discovered, proportionate to the potential risk of contamination at this site, in accordance with policies ENV8 and ENV9. 8.7.4 In terms of screening under Environmental Impact Assessment, the scale of the development clearly falls below the thresholds for Schedule 2 development defined by the Regulations, as the commercial development provides just 350sq.m floorspace. The development is a modest scale proposal, and there would be no likely significant impacts in terms of noise, waste, contamination, flooding, arboriculture, ecology, archaeology, heritage or complex construction. The development is of insufficient scale and nature to likely result in significant environmental impact. EIA is not required. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998.

Page 219 Agenda Item 11 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10. Conclusion 10.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: 10.2 The proposed development is considered to be proportionate in scale and of matching design and materials to existing commercial buildings within the site and surroundings, appearing congruent and inconspicuous in this visual setting. This development will result in an effective use of existing and established commercial employment land, providing additional commercial internal space within a geographically sustainable location. The existing vehicle movements to and from the site are already controlled through an implemented planning consent at the site, and this proposal does not seek to alter or increase this level of vehicle movements, whilst retaining sufficient external space for vehicle parking provision proportionate to these controlled movements. 10.3 The siting of the building is sympathetic to both visual amenity and neighbouring residential properties, and subject to planning conditions to control noise measures, extraction impacts and operating hours, the proposal will have no undue impact upon residential amenity in the context of the existing noise and built environment. Details and arrangements for drainage and contamination can similarly be controlled to acceptable standards through planning conditions. 10.4 The proposal would deliver economic and social benefits of employment development and uses within the district, which weighs in favour of the proposal in an overall planning balance. Therefore, this application is considered to be policy compliant and is recommended for approval subject to planning conditions. Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Development

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 27.01.21

Background Papers: Planning File 20/0743 EIA screening 20/0743

Page 220