PLANNING and HIGHWAYS REGULATORY COMMITTEE Date

Committee: PLANNING AND HIGHWAYS REGULATORY COMMITTEE

Date: MONDAY, 16 SEPTEMBER 2013

Time: 10.30 A.M.

A G E N D A

Officers have prepared a report for each of the planning or related applications listed on this Agenda. Copies of all application literature and any representations received are available for viewing at the City Council's Public Access website http://www.lancaster.gov.uk/publicaccess by searching for the relevant applicant number.

1. Apologies for Absence

2. Minutes

Minutes of meeting held on 19 August 2013 (previously circulated).

3. Items of Urgent Business authorised by the Chairman

4. Declarations of Interest

To receive declarations by Members of interests in respect of items on this Agenda. Members are reminded that, in accordance with the Localism Act 2011, they are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests which have not already been declared in the Council’s Register of Interests. (It is a criminal offence not to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest either in the Register or at the meeting). Whilst not a legal requirement, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10 and in the interests of clarity and transparency, Members should declare any disclosable pecuniary interests which they have already declared in the Register, at this point in the meeting. In accordance with Part B Section 2 of the Code Of Conduct, Members are required to declare the existence and nature of any other interests as defined in paragraphs 8(1) or 9(2) of the Code of Conduct.

Planning Applications for Decision

Community Safety Implications

In preparing the reports for this agenda, regard has been paid to the implications of the proposed developments on Community Safety issues. Where it is considered the proposed development has particular implications for Community Safety, this issue is fully considered within the main body of the report on that specific application.

Category A Applications

Applications to be dealt with by the District Council without formal consultation with the County Council.

5 A5 13/00653/REM Lancaster Moor Hospital, John (Pages 1 - 9) Quernmore Road, Lancaster O'Gaunt Ward

Reserved matters application for the first phase of the conversion of the Annexe building to 34 dwellings, including associated landscaping and car parking for P J Livesey And The Homes And Communities Agency

6 A6 13/00722/LB Lancaster Moor Hospital, John (Pages 10 - Quernmore Road, Lancaster O'Gaunt 15) Ward

Listed building consent for the first phase of the conversion of the Annexe building to 34 dwellings for P J Livesey And The Homes And Communities Agency

7 A7 13/00650/FUL Lancaster Brewery, Lancaster John (Pages 16 - Leisure Park Ltd, Wyresdale Road O'Gaunt 23) Ward

Erection of a marquee for Lancaster Brewery Ltd.

8 A8 13/00567/CU 2A And 2C Old Station Yard, Kirkby Upper Lune (Pages 24 - Lonsdale, Carnforth Valley Ward 29)

Retrospective application for the change of use of Unit 2A from coach repair and maintenance to general vehicle repair and MOT testing station and sub-division of Unit 2C to form storage area and paint shop for vehicle repair for Alan Stephenson And Son

9 A9 13/00668/FUL Moor Platt , Lancaster Road, Caton Lower Lune (Pages 30 - Valley Ward 39)

Demolition of the existing 2 storey disused care home and the erection of 6 two-bed houses, 15 three-bed houses and 12 four-bed houses

including internal road layout and associated parking and landscaping for Ms Emma Wadsworth

10 A10 13/00659/FUL Land Off, Brindle Close, Lancaster Skerton (Pages 40 - West Ward 47)

Erection of 6 two-bed houses and 12 one-bed flats including internal road layout and associated parking and landscaping for Guinness Northern Counties

11 A11 13/00586/CU New Inn, Hornby Road, Wray Lower Lune (Pages 48 - Valley Ward 59)

Change of use and conversion of vacant public house (Class A4) to 3 residential units (Class C3) and installation of balcony and stairs to rear of existing attached cottage for Mr Richard Skelton

12 A12 13/00610/LB New Inn, Hornby Road, Wray Lower Lune (Pages 60 - Valley Ward 65)

Listed Building application for works to New Inn and attached cottage to facilitate the conversion of the public house to 3 residential units, including demolition of flat roof extension, replacement windows and doors, installation of roof lights, erection of stone wall and porch canopy and creation of balcony and stairs to rear of existing

13 A13 13/00635/FUL Keer Bridge Depot, Scotland Road, Warton (Pages 66 - Carnforth Ward 73)

Erection of a 50 meter telecommunication training tower and one 15 meter security light and camera monopole for Mr Glen Pearson

14 A14 13/00759/OUT Silverdale Golf Club, Red Bridge Silverdale (Pages 74 - Lane, Silverdale Ward 80)

Erection 2 new semi-detached dwellings with associated gardens and car parking for

Dr J Martin

15. Other items:-

Delegated Planning Decisions (Pages 81 - 90)

16. The Walney Extension Offshore Windfarm (Pages 91 - 128)

Report of the Chief Officer (Regeneration and Planning).

ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

(i) Membership

Councillors Keith Budden (Chairman), Roger Sherlock (Vice-Chairman), Eileen Blamire, Dave Brookes, Roger Dennison, Sheila Denwood, Helen Helme, Tony Johnson, Andrew Kay, Margaret Pattison, Robert Redfern, Sylvia Rogerson, Richard Rollins, Ron Sands and Paul Woodruff

(ii) Substitute Membership

Councillors June Ashworth, Chris Coates, Mike Greenall, Tim Hamilton-Cox, Richard Newman-Thompson, David Smith, Keith Sowden, Susan Sykes and Malcolm Thomas

(iii) Queries regarding this Agenda

Please contact Tom Silvani, Democratic Services: telephone (01524 582132) or email [email protected].

(iv) Changes to Membership, substitutions or apologies

Please contact Members’ Secretary, telephone 582170, or alternatively email [email protected].

MARK CULLINAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, TOWN HALL, LANCASTER, LA1 1PJ

Published on 4 September 2013. Page 1 Agenda Item Committee Date AgendaApplication Item Number 5

A5 16 September 2013 13/00653/REM

Application Site Proposal

Lancaster Moor Hospital Reserved matters application for the first phase of the Quernmore Road conversion of the Annexe building to 34 dwellings, Lancaster including associated landscaping and car parking Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

P J Livesey And The Homes And Communities Mr Vincent Ryan Agency

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

4 October 2013 N/A

Case Officer Mr Andrew Drummond

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approval

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The site is located on the very eastern fringe of Lancaster approximately 1.5 miles from the City Centre. It is situated on the north side of Quernmore Road, from which it is accessed. The site is generally bounded by stone walls and mature trees and hedgerows and covers an area of approximately 16 hectares.

The site falls significantly from west to east and is dominated by the massive Listed Annexe building. This is prominently located on the high ground at the western side of the site, with commanding views towards the east and high visibility from the M6, Quernmore Road and the rising land in that direction. Further former hospital buildings were grouped within the western side of the site, to the north of the Annexe. These were mostly of stone under slate construction, date from the early 1900s. The best and most prominent of these is Campbell House which frames the northern side of the disused cricket pitch. The eastern side of the site consists mostly of grassed areas.

The whole site contains a large number of mature trees, but the heaviest concentrations and the oldest and largest trees are located around the buildings. There is also an area of dense, immature woodland in the north east corner of the site. A blanket Tree Preservation Order No. 381 (2006) A1 and A2 covers the site and all of its trees.

1.2 To the east of the site lies an unsurfaced but walled field access track with open agricultural pastures beyond, extending north, east and south east to the nearby M6 motorway and then beyond into the rising land of an open, drumlin field, pastoral landscape. To the south and on the same side of Quernmore Road lies an area of land owned by the Hospital Trust, comprising a Social Club, a disused bowling green and Primary Care Trust Offices, while on the south side of the road lies an extensive area of recently developed housing within the grounds of the original Lancaster Moor Hospital. To the west lie areas of play fields, open ground and immature woodland with a cemetery, the Ridge Lea Hospital and Lancaster Farm Young Offenders Prison beyond.

1.3 Access to the site is through two road junctions onto Quernmore Road, one at each end of the site frontage and a pedestrian access in the centre of the frontage. Two main access roads run through Page 2 the site either side of the Annexe building and a network of smaller roads gives access to the other buildings. The boundary wall along the Quernmore Road frontage, its railings, gates, gateposts and steps forming the original entrances to the Annexe building are also separately Listed at Grade II status.

1.4 The site is allocated primarily as a Housing Opportunity Site by saved policy H3 in the Lancaster District Local Plan. The Annexe building is also identified as a Business Opportunity Site by saved policy EC17. The saved Supplementary Planning Guidance note (SPG2) sets out a Development Brief for the site. Tree Preservation Order 381 (2006) covers the entire site.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The Reserved Matters application is seeking approval for 34 dwellings, associated car parking and landscaping. This first phase of conversion works comprises eleven 1-bed, eighteen 2-bed and five 3-bed apartments primarily within the central section of the Annexe building, including the impressive central tower.

2.2 Access would be gained from the western gateway on Quernmore Road. The existing circular access road around The Annexe would be modified slightly to accommodate the proposed external works. 105 car parking spaces are proposed to the external areas on the western and eastern sides of The Annexe. Existing trees are retained and additional planting and other landscaping features are proposed, including the landscaping of the internal courtyard area. The internal road would have a tarmac surface with block paviors utilised for the parking bays.

2.3 Matching bin and cycle stores are proposed to the eastern side of the building within the proposed car parking area. These will form symmetrical “gatehouse” features at the entrance of the car park off the internal access road.

3.0 Site History

3.1 There are a number of recent planning applications relating to this site that are relevant to this application, but the main three are as follows:

Application Number Proposal Decision 11/00379/RENU Extension of time limit on application 07/00556/OUT for Approved outline planning application for residential use (up to 440 dwellings) involving the residential conversion of the annexe and Campbell House, demolition of existing buildings and associated access, car parking and landscaping 13/00232/REM Reserved matters application (layout, scale and Approved appearance) of 197 dwellings, associated internal road layout, car parking, boundary treatments and landscaping 13/00722/LB Listed building consent for the first phase of the conversion Pending of the Annexe building to 34 dwellings, including associated landscaping and car parking

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory and non-statutory consultees:

Consultee Response County Highways No comments received within the statutory consultation period.

English Heritage English Heritage welcomes the application for the repair and conservation of this longstanding building at risk. The reuse of the Annexe is of great public benefit which needs to be weighed against harm caused through conversion and wider development. The application adds details to previous consents, including consents to remove later additions, which helps to enhance the building and reveal the Page 3 significance of the external quality of the original design. The design intends to re-use original design elements and restore historic features, though care must be taken within the detailing to ensure that the significance and architectural integrity of the scheme are not further eroded. Care is required to use the correct materials. New design elements, such as balconies, should be agreed by the Local Planning Authority to ensure that the quality of the design is appropriate for this nationally important building.

Conservation No objection - with the exception of balconies to west elevation. No major concerns with room layouts or elevations (except balconies to west elevation). Some details already agreed (stone cleaning, mortar, rainwater goods, roof works and windows excluding those serving the tower). Some details yet to be agreed and must therefore be conditioned, including vents/flues, balconies, new lift shaft, windows to the tower, canopies, terraces. Porch details to match existing pattern. Further details required for the bin and cycle stores.

Tree Officer Trees within the site are subject to Tree Preservation Order no. 381 (2006). The application has identified a total of 4 existing trees which are proposed for retention in relation to Phase 1 of the conversion of the Annexe building. New tree plantings are proposed to include a total of 17 new trees comprising 1 spruce and 16 non-native birch trees. No objection to the proposal subject to the following conditions: • Tree Protection Plan • Arboricultural Method Statement • Tree works schedule • Landscaping, including 10 year maintenance (with advice regarding species diversity)

Police No details submitted relating to the security of the apartments and cycle store.

Fire and Rescue It should be ensured that the scheme fully meets all the requirements of part B5 of the Building Regulations and is provided with suitable provision of Fire Fighting Water . This will be assessed at the Building Regulations application stage.

Natural England No comment other than the Local Planning Authority should assess and consider the possible impacts resulting from this proposal on protected species, biodiversity enhancements, local wildlife sites and local landscape.

Environment No objection. Agency Environmental No comments – issues addressed under the outline consent. Health

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 No comments have been received during the statutory consultation period.

6.0 Principal National and Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The NPPF indicates that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development ( paragraph 14 ). The following paragraphs of the NPPF are relevant to the determination of this proposal:

Paragraph 17 sets out 12 core land-use planning principles which should underpin both plan-making and decision taking. The principles which are relevant to this application state that planning should: be genuinely plan-led; secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all, support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, conserve and enhance the natural environment, conserve heritage assets, make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling and improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all. Page 4 Paragraph 49 (housing) - housing application should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Paragraphs 56, 58 and 60 require good design. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Developments should function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just in the short term, but over the lifetime of the development. Good design should seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness without stifling innovation or originality.

Paragraph 109 requires the planning system to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment. In particular, valued landscapes should be protected and enhanced and the impacts on biodiversity minimised. Paragraph 118 sets out a number of principles which should aim to preserve and enhance biodiversity. The guidance set out in paragraph 118 indicates that where development causes significant harm, with no adequate mitigation or compensation proposed and accepted as commensurate to the harm, that the development should be refused.

Paragraphs 131, 132 and 134 (conservation) - Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

Paragraph 123 (noise) states that decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of a new development.

6.2 Development Plan Weighting

Paragraphs 214 and 215 of the NPPF advise on the weight that can be attributed to existing policies within the authority’s Development Plan. Paragraph 214 states that “For 12 months from the day of publication (of the NPPF, which was published on 27 March 2012), decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework” . Paragraph 215 continues by stating that, “In other cases and following this 12- month period, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing (Development) Plans according to their degree of consistency with this Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)” . In the Lancaster District, the Development Plan consists of the Lancaster District Core Strategy and the Saved Policies of the Lancaster District Local Plan. Relevant policies of each document are referred to over the following pages.

6.3 Lancaster District Core Strategy (adopted July 2008)

Policy SC1 (Sustainable Development) - development should be located in an area where it is convenient to walk, cycle or travel by public transport between homes, workplaces, shops and other facilities.

Policy SC2 (Urban Concentration) - 90% of new dwellings and 95% of new employment floorspace to be provided in the urban areas of Lancaster, Morecambe, Heysham and Carnforth.

Policy SC5 (Achieving Quality in Design) - new development must reflect and enhance the positive characteristics of its surroundings, creating landmark buildings of genuine and lasting architectural merit.

Policy ER2 (Regeneration Priority Area) – Regeneration Priority Areas of local importance include north east Lancaster. The regeneration of the Lancaster Moor Hospital area which reflects the District’s ambitions on sustainable development, balanced communities and design quality and reflects the importance of this area in shaping perceptions of the District.

Policy E1 (Environmental Capital) - development should protect and enhance nature conservation Page 5 sites and heritage assets, minimise the use of land and non-renewable energy, properly manage environmental risks such as flooding, make places safer, protect habitats and the diversity of wildlife species, and conserve and enhance landscapes.

Policy E2 (Transportation Measures) - this policy seeks to reduce the need to travel by car whilst improving walking and cycling networks and providing better public transport services.

6.4 Lancaster District Local Plan – saved policies (adopted April 2004)

Policy E34 (Listed buildings at risk) - planning permission for appropriate new uses for Listed buildings at risk may be permitted where this secures the future of the building and retains its historical and architectural integrity.

Policy H3 (Housing Opportunity Sites) - Lancaster Moor is allocated as a Housing Opportunity Site.

Policy H12 (Layout, Design and Use of Materials) - new housing developments will only be permitted which exhibit a high quality of design and local distinctiveness.

Policy H19 (Site Layout and Amenities) – in Lancaster, Morecambe, Heysham and Carnforth, new residential development within existing housing areas will be permitted where there is no loss of open/green spaces, it does not adversely effect the amenities of nearby residents, it provides high standard of amenity, and it makes satisfactory provision for disposal of sewerage, waste water, servicing, access and car and cycle parking.

6.5 Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)

SPG2 (Lancaster Moor Development Brief - June 1998) - is the adopted development brief for this site and the Lancaster Moor south site, which has already been developed, as well as the Hospital Trust land on the north side of Quernmore Road which lies outside the boundary of this application (though comes with the caveat that aspects of the document are out of date due to changes in circumstances since its original adoption). Nevertheless this document still provides the Council's adopted (general) guidance for the development of this site, the aim of which is to provide a new use for the main buildings, protect their setting, and retain an attractive edge to the built environment.

6.6 Emerging Local Plan Policies (draft Development Management DPD - Autumn/Winter 2012)

The Council is in the early stages of preparation of an emerging Local Plan and has now completed the first Preferred Options consultation on the Development Management DPD. Whilst in the early stages of the plan process, policies in the emerging Local Plan are a material considera tion. However, the degree of weight that can be afforded to these policies varies depending on stage of preparation of the emerging plan, the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies and the degree of consistency with the Framework (paragraph 216 of the NPPF). Limited weight can therefore be afforded to the following draft policies that received no significant objections and are relevant to this application:

CSC1 Design of Development - New development will be required to deliver a high quality of design which makes a positive contribution to its locality and creates a positive sense of place, creating or enforcing local distinctiveness, a high level of energy efficiency, and has no detrimental impact to the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

EN2.1 Enhancement of Biodiversity - Development proposals should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Opportunities should be taken where appropriate to achieve beneficial measures within the design and layout of the development by maintaining and enhancing important features.

EN2.2 Development and Landscape Impact - Development proposals through their siting, scale, massing, materials and design should seek to positively integrate with the surrounding landscape and architectural character of the surrounding built and historic environment.

6.7 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)

The Council is in the process of reviewing its annual housing target following the abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategy. It has received Counsel’s opinion which advises that it commission the Page 6 necessary research to set a revised target to take account of the new position at this point in the current recession. It must account for the revised housing needs survey of 2011, new economic and census predictions, and the state of the local economy.

Early findings of this research in the form of a Strategic Housing Marketing Assessment (SHMA) reveal that despite the recession the local economy in Lancaster district has not suffered as many job losses as earlier predicted and is showing signs of a healthy and potentially sustained recovery. It also confirms that there is a growing problem in the district related to the retention of graduates, resulting in a below average number of young working adults. As the local population ages this gap in the workforce will become more pronounced.

The early results of the SHMA suggest that steady jobs growth in the district over the next 10-20 years will not be matched by a growth in a young and skilled workforce to sustain it unless intervention measures are undertaken. Such measures include increasing the level of housing at affordable prices and improvements in the district's entertainment cultural and leisure offer to attract graduates and younger workers to stay or migrate here.

Whilst it is very understandable that older and retired sectors of the community who already have access to housing and work/pensions might resist change because their needs are catered for, it is the City Council’s duty as Local Planning Authority to look to the future and ensure that there is optimal sustainable growth in this largely self contained community, which cannot simply rely on nearby neighbouring communities to provide its workforce or jobs. To fail to do so could ultimately lead to economic isolation and gradual decline.

For the purpose of decision making at this time the Committee needs to take account of the initial finding of the SHMA that the annual housing completion rate is likely to be increased from the current 400 per annum target. The final figure will be debated and set by Full Council later in the year.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The key issues to consider as part of this application are: 1. Impact on the heritage asset 2. Transportation and access 3. Landscaping 4. Drainage

7.2 Impact on the heritage asset

7.2.1 The Annexe building was designed in a gothic revival style. It is 3 storeys high and has a central tower of six storeys. The primary facade faces east. The building is symmetrical with a central corridor with the wards set at right angles. These wards have three bay canted front walls with hipped roofs dominated by smaller central towers. The Annexe is constructed of course red sandstone under a series of hipped and gabled roofs that are covered in Westmorland slates.

7.2.2 A series of alterations and additions have been made over the last century that have degraded the architectural character of the building. These include the addition of fire escapes and lift shafts, a kitchen and toilet blocks, alongside a number of smaller alterations to windows and door openings. Listed building consent has previously been secured for the demolition of some of these additional structures, and much demolition has already taken place, recycling the red sandstone for works to the retained Listed structure. Furthermore the conversion of these elements into accommodation would have also caused overlooking problems with the retained building, which would have severely compromised the privacy of both.

7.2.3 The proposed phase 1 conversion would be within the envelope of the retained Listed building. It is proposed to complete the envelope works beyond Phase 1, such as works to the roofs, cleaning of stone wall face and installation of new windows as this would establish the setting and minimise the disruption for the first residents when developing the future phases.

7.2.4 The existing entrances and corridor system will be used to enter and circulate throughout the building. The former main tower entrance will become the new principle entrance for the whole of phase 1. This historic entrance has steps within the porch leading up to the main door which cannot Page 7 be adapted without detrimentally affecting the character and significance of t he Listed building. However, 3 alternative entrances on the ground floor plan would all have level access entrances and will enable access to all apartments within Phase 1. These entrances will also offer easier access for some future residents to the allocated car parking areas.

7.2.5 The stripping of the roof has commenced to deal with the building’s water penetration and associated dry rot. The roof will be made watertight and insulated to modern standards. The Westmorland slate will be carefully removed and reused during the reinstatement phase wherever possible. Slate salvaged from the parkland buildings prior to their demolition have been stored and will be reused on the Annexe. Any new roof covering will be used on inward facing slopes of the roof to minimise any visual impact. All lead work is also being assessed and replaced as required. The cleaning of the stone work has commenced and further cleaning will utilise the same approved methodology. Any defects will be repaired by a specialist stone mason. Similarly comprehensive new pointing is not required, but where patches do require attention the colour and material will match the existing pointing. Windows will be replaced throughout with doubled glazed windows, in a similar style to the originals, painted antique white, as previously agreed with the Senior Conservation Officer. External doors will be either refurbished or removed and replaced with sections to match the existing where necessary. All rainwater gutters, hoppers and down pipes will be replaced throughout with cast aluminium, again as previously agreed with the Senior Conservation Officer.

7.2.6 Whilst the exterior of the building is impressive, its interior is very institutional and lacks much character. However, wherever possible the proposal seeks to respect the building’s existing fabric, including the re-use of existing openings. The load bearing structure of the internal layout, columns and spine walls will be retained. New internal walls will be constructed from timber or metal stud with single or double plaster board covering. A new floor will be created above the old with materials to be agreed with the Senior Conservation Officer. The staircases within the building will be retained with some modifications to meet modern building regulation standards. Again this will need to be agreed with the Senior Conservation Officer. There are few traditional internal doors remaining in the building and most are modern replacement. Each door will be assessed on its merits and removed or refurbished as appropriate. Where timber lintels above doors and windows have been located, they have been replaced.

7.2.7 It is proposed, where possible, to give each apartment private amenity space in the form of a private terrace, garden or balcony. These areas will be accessed via new doors created by extending existing windows down to floor level. Any details relating to these private external areas, such as privacy screens, will need to be conditioned. It should be noted that the balconies and roof terraces on the western elevation are considered to be unacceptable in design terms, creating additions onto or interventions into the envelope of the Listed building which are deemed to be inappropriate.

7.2.8 Subject to agreeing specific details, the principle of the development is acceptable. With the exception of the balconies and roof terraces on the west elevation, it seeks to preserve, and in places enhance, the Listed building and is supported by both Planning and Conservation Officers.

7.3 Transportation and Access

7.3.1 The wider site is accessed via two entrances off Quernmore Road to the south of the site. The western entrance links into a road system on the upper level that circles the Annexe building. This will be retained and modified to form part of a new one way system around the Annexe building. The eastern entrance links to a lower access road, serving Story Homes’ “parkland” site and Campbell House. This lower road is to be widened (under a different consent – 12/01155FUL). This will become the main entrance to all 3 developments. An enhanced road through the trees will link this lower road to the one way system on the upper level and will form a second access in case of emergencies. However, during the construction phases of the Annexe building the principle entrance for residents will be the lower road and the western entrance will be used for construction traffic.

7.3.2 It is proposed to allocate two parking spaces for each apartment with two or more bedrooms and one space for any one bedroom apartments. These parking spaces will be located both to the east and west of the Annexe building on land already largely covered by hardstanding (previously used for car parking during its former hospital use). Parking is to be made available for each resident prior to occupation. Page 8

7.3.3 A new bike store will be constructed immediately opposite an external bin store across the access road, forming matching pavilion gatehouse structures at the entrance. The new structure will be constructed from stained timber posts and hit and miss boarding with a timber shingle roof covering.

7.3.4 The accompanying Travel Plan expands on the Framework Travel Plan submitted at the outline application stage and builds upon the principles that it established. The Travel Plan sets out the key objectives for the Plan and measures proposed in order to achieve those objectives. The Plan also includes proposals for monitoring and a delivery schedule of the measures and associated actions. The measures proposed in the Travel Plan include the appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator; various physical measures, including on-site footways and pedestrian/cycle access, the potential footway/cycleway link to Nightingale Hall Farm and Derwent Road; increased public transport provision; discounted public transport tickets; traffic calming and a notice board; and measures to encourage sustainable travel, such as travel information packs, a community website, car sharing scheme and measures to reduce the need to travel.

7.4 Landscaping

7.4.1 The landscaping to the external areas adjacent to the building is important as it creates the immediate setting for the Listed building. The existing landscaping to the east has large areas of landscaping with lawns next to the building and mature shrubs beyond the internal access road, whilst the landscaping to the west is largely non-existent with hardstanding right up to the base of the external walls. This has been informed by the building. The main, more impressive elevation faces east and therefore the landscaping reflects this.

7.4.2 It is proposed to create formal planted areas to each side of the main tower entrance with boxed hedges in geometric shapes defining planting beds with large urns and feature trees as centre pieces. A new landscaped courtyard would be formed between the rear of the tower wing and the recreational hall and a further “open” courtyard to the west of the main building largely on the footprint of the demolished toilet block. Communal areas, such as footpaths and car parking areas, will be landscaped and include the necessary provision of lighting appropriate to the location. Lighting details will need to be agreed, and therefore will subject to a condition.

7.5 Drainage

It is proposed to utilise the existing combined sewer for both the surface water run-off from the roofs and foul sewage from the new apartments. The combined outfall from the Annexe building will be roughly equal to its historic hospital use. The surface water run-off for the existing road and hard standing currently runs into soft verges on either side of the area. The existing and new hardstanding areas are roughly equal and therefore there will be little change from the current arrangements.

7.6 Other Matters

7.6.1 The developer proposes to insulate all elements including floors, walls and above ceilings to a high standard to reduce the heat loss through the fabric, achieving higher u-values than required by Building Regulations as required by the outline consent. In addition the developer would be replacing all the existing single glazed timber windows with double glazed fully draft sealed units with trickle vents. They propose to install a modern central heating system into each property including an efficient ‘A’ grade combi-gas boiler reducing the heating costs for our future residents. Each boiler will require its own vent and therefore details will be required by condition to ensure that these arrangements do not adversely affect the character or appearance of the Listed building, or be detrimental to its historic fabric.

7.6.2 Very little disturbance to the ground is proposed during the redevelopment of phase 1. Ground works will be limited to part of the access road and parking areas. The developer proposes to have a watching brief during the development works, and seek specialist advice if any unexpected ground conditions or substances are encountered. An extensive asbestos survey was undertaken in 2012 and its findings were submitted to the Local Planning Authority to satisfy a planning condition on the outline consent. A comprehensive asbestos removal exercise was employed in late 2012/early 2013 and now the building is asbestos free.

7.6.3 The Lancaster Moor Hospital site is in relatively close proximity to the M6 motorway. A Noise Page 9 Assessment was previously prepared to accompany and inform outline planning application. It identified that the Annexe building falls within Category NEC B area of the site. Dwellings that fall within a Category B area will require the use of appropriate glazing, ventilation and strategic design layout to ensure an adequate level of protection against noise. It would be inappropriate and infeasible to install high acoustic barriers in front of the Annexe due to its Listed status and its elevated position. It is therefore proposed to follow the Assessment’s recommendations and upgrade the current single glazed windows to double glazed and fit draft protectors and trickle vents.

7.6.4 Bat surveys of the Annexe building were undertaken by qualified, competent persons and formed the basis of a Natural England Licence granted in December 2012 prior to the commencement of works on the site. Mitigation requirements for the building have already been undertaken including the installation of 25 Morris and ridge tiles, and three in-built “bat lofts”. In addition, the proposed lighting of the building will be appropriately conditioned and designed to be sensitive to bats to ensure that they are not prevented from using roosting areas within the building or surrounding area.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 There are no planning obligations to consider as part of this application.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 The proposal is well-considered and appropriate for this impressive Listed Building. Subject to conditions to agree specific details to protect the building’s status, the application is supported.

Recommendation

That Approval of Reserved Matters BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard 3 year timescale 2. Development in accordance with approved plans - to be listed 3. Site boundary details - western boundary wall/railings 4. Approved details to be implemented – sash and case windows (excluding those serving the tower), stone cleaning, rainwater goods, hydraulic lime mortar, roof works (slates and leadwork), porches (to match existing pattern) 5. Details required – internal and external doors and door frames, privacy screens, vents/flues, external lighting, external surface materials, canopies, balconies, windows to the tower, works to retained staircases, new floors 6. Car parking provision prior to occupation - to include mobility spaces 7. Bin and cycle stores – details required 8. New lift shaft – details required 9. Notwithstanding plans, no balconies or roof terraces to west elevation 10. Terrace and associated parapet wall – details required 11. Noise mitigation measures – to be implemented in full 12. Hours of work – Mon to Fri 0800-1800 and Sat 0800-1400 only 13. Construction management scheme – dust control and wheel cleaning facilities 14. Travel Plan – to be implemented in full 15. Tree protection plan 16. Arboricultural method statement 17. Tree works schedule 18. Landscaping scheme and maintenance

Human Rights Act

This recommendation has been reached after consideration of the provisions of The Human Rights Act. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the issues arising do not appear to be of such magnitude to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.

Background Papers

None.

Page 10 AgendaAgenda Item Item 6 Committee Date Application Number

A6 16 September 2013 13/00722/LB

Application Site Proposal

Lancaster Moor Hospital Listed building consent for the first phase of the Quernmore Road conversion of the Annexe building to 34 dwellings Lancaster Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

P J Livesey And The Homes And Communities Suzanne Asher Agency

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

6 September 2013 Committee cycle

Case Officer Mr Andrew Drummond

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approval

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.3 Access to the site is through two road junctions onto Quernmore Road, one at each end of the site frontage and a pedestrian access in the centre of the frontage. Two main access roads run through Page 11 the site either side of the Annexe building and a network of smaller roads gives access to the other buildings. The boundary wall along the Quernmore Road frontage, its railings, gates, gateposts and steps forming the original entrances to the Annexe building are also separately Listed at Grade II status.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application is seeking Listed Building Consent for the conversion works to the central section of the Annexe building to create 34 dwellings. This first phase of conversion works comprises eleven 1-bed, eighteen 2-bed and five 3-bed apartments.

2.2 The significant works proposed as part of the conversion include installation of balconies, creation of terraces (especially at roof level) and the erection of a lift shaft within the central courtyard for the central tower apartment. Various internal works will be required to create the floor plans proposed for each of the 34 dwellings along with associated service ducts and ventilation systems.

3.0 Site History

3.1 There are a number of recent planning applications relating to this site that are relevant to this application, but the main four are as follows:

Application Number Proposal Decision 11/00379/RENU Extension of time limit on application 07/00556/OUT for Approved outline planning application for residential use (up to 440 dwellings) involving the residential conversion of the annexe and Campbell House, demolition of existing buildings and associated access, car parking and landscaping 12/00985/LB Listed Building Application for the selective partial Approved demolition and associated alterations to Lancaster Moor Hospital and demolition of various buildings within its curtilage 13/00232/REM Reserved matters application (layout, scale and Approved appearance) of 197 dwellings, associated internal road layout, car parking, boundary treatments and landscaping 13/00653/REM Reserved matters application for the first phase of the Pending conversion of the Annexe building to 34 dwellings, including associated landscaping and car parking

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory and non-statutory consultees:

Consultee Response English Heritage No comments received within the statutory consultation period, though English Heritage is generally supportive of the associated Reserved Matters application subject to design details being agreed with the Local Planning Authority's Conservation Officer.

Conservation No objection to the proposed works with the exception of balconies to west elevation. Officer No major concerns with room layouts or elevations (except balconies to west elevation). Some details already agreed (stone cleaning, mortar, rainwater goods, roof works and windows excluding those serving the tower). Some details yet to be agreed and must therefore be conditioned, including vents/flues, balconies, new lift Page 12 shaft, windows to the tower, canopies, terraces. Porch details to match existing pattern.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 No comments have been received during the statutory consultation period.

6.0 Principal National and Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The National Planning Policy Framework indicates that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development ( paragraph 14 ). The following paragraphs of the NPPF are relevant to the determination of this proposal:

6.2 Development Plan Weighting

6.3 Lancaster District Core Strategy (adopted July 2008)

Policy SC1 (Sustainable Development) - the site can be developed without loss of or harm to features of significant archaeological or built heritage importance.

Policy E1 (Environmental Capital) - development should protect and enhance nature conservation sites and heritage assets, minimise the use of land and non-renewable energy, properly manage environmental risks such as flooding, make places safer, protect habitats and the diversity of wildlife species, and conserve and enhance landscapes.

6.4 Lancaster District Local Plan – saved policies (adopted April 2004)

6.5 Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)

6.6 Emerging Local Plan Policies (draft Development Management DPD - Autumn/Winter 2012)

The Council is in the early stages of preparation of an emerging Local Plan and has now completed the first Preferred Options consultation on the Development Management DPD. Whilst in the early stages of the plan process, policies in the emerging Local Plan are a material consideration. However, the degree of weight that can be afforded to these policies varies depending on stage of preparation of the emerging plan, the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies and the degree of consistency with the Framework (paragraph 216 of the NPPF). Limited weight can therefore be afforded to the following draft policies that received no significant objections and are relevant to this application:

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The key issue to consider as part of this Listed Building Consent submission is the impact on the heritage asset.

7.2 Impact on the heritage asset

7.2.4 The existing entrances and corridor system will be used to enter and circulate throughout the building. The former main tower entrance will become the new principle entrance for the whole of phase 1. This historic entrance has steps within the porch leading up to the main door which cannot be adapted without detrimentally affecting the character and significance of the Listed building. However, 3 alternative entrances on the ground floor plan would all have level access entrances and will enable access to all apartments within Phase 1. These entrances will also offer easier access for some future residents to the allocated car parking areas.

7.2.5 The stripping of the roof has commenced to deal with the building’s water penetration and associated dry rot. The roof is being made watertight and insulated to modern standards. The Westmorland slate is being carefully removed and reused during the reinstatement phase wherever possible. Slate salvaged from the parkland buildings prior to their demolition have been stored and will be reused on the Annexe. Any new roof covering will be used on inward facing slopes of the roof to minimise any visual impact. All lead work is also being assessed and replaced as required. The cleaning of the stone work has commenced and further cleaning will utilise the same approved methodology. Any defects will be repaired by a specialist stone mason. Similarly comprehensive new pointing is not required, but where patches do require attention the colour and material will match the existing pointing. Windows will be replaced throughout with doubled glazed windows, in a similar style to the originals, painted antique white, as previously agreed with the Senior Conservation Officer. The windows will also meet the requirements of the identified mitigation measures within the noise assessment. External doors will be either refurbished or removed and replaced with sections to match the existing where necessary. All rainwater gutters, hoppers and downpipes will be replaced throughout with cast aluminium, again as previously agreed with the Senior Conservation Officer.

7.2.7 It is proposed, where possible, to give each apartment private amenity space in the form of a private terrace, garden or balcony. Most of these areas will be accessed via new doors created by extending existing windows down to floor level. Any details relating to these private external areas, such as privacy screens, will need to be conditioned. It should be noted that the balconies and roof terraces on the western elevation are considered to be unacceptable in design terms, creating additions onto or interventions into the envelope of the Listed building which are deemed to be inappropriate.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 There are no planning obligations to consider as part of this application.

Page 15 9.0 Conclusions

9.1 The development proposal is well considered and appropriate for this impressive Listed B uilding. Subject to conditions to agree specific details to protect the building’s heritage status, the application is recommended for approval.

Recommendation

That Listed Building Consent BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard 3 year timescale 2. Works in accordance with approved plans 3. Site boundary details 4. Approved details to be implemented – sash and case windows (excluding those serving the tower), stone cleaning, rainwater goods, hydraulic lime mortar, roof works (slates and leadwork), porches (to match existing pattern) 5. Details required – internal and external doors and door frames, privacy screens, vents/flues, external lighting, external surface materials, canopies, balconies, roof terraces, windows to the tower, works to retained staircases, new floors 6. New lift shaft – details required 7. Notwithstanding plans, no balconies or roof terraces to west elevation 8. Terrace and associated parapet wall – details required 9. Noise mitigation measures – to be implemented in full 10. Hours of work – Mon to Fri 0800-1800 and Sat 0800-1400 only 11. Construction management scheme – dust control and wheel cleaning facilities

Human Rights Act

Background Papers

None.

Page 16 AgendaAgenda Item Item 7 Committee Date Application Number

A7 16 September 2013 13/00650/FUL

Application Site Proposal

Lancaster Brewery Erection of a marquee Lancaster Leisure Park Ltd Wyresdale Road Lancaster Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Lancaster Brewery Ltd. Harrison Pitt Architects

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

27 August 2013 Submission of revised proposal

Case Officer Mr Andrew Holden

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approval

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The site that is the subject of this application relates to the Lancaster Brewery site located to the south of the Antiques Centre on the Lancaster Leisure Park complex. The overall site comprises of a large single portal-framed building, operating as a mixed-use of brewery, visitor centre and café/function room. Externally an open area incorporates a beer garden to the east, and a service yard and external storage to the south of the building is enclosed with high fencing. A limited car parking area lies to the north. The application site is located within the area to the east of the main building immediately south of the area set out as a landscaped beer garden.

1.2 The Leisure Park comprises a number of different uses, the largest and most-established relates to the Antiques Centre, which is one of the largest in the north west. In addition there is a discount retail shop, café, a dance studio, a vacant go-cart track and extensive parking. More recent decisions have seen the location of Marshalls Van Hire and the development of two children activity centre, one operational and the other under construction.

1.3 The park itself occupies an edge-of-town location accessed off Wyresdale Road, approximately 350m south of the junction with Coulston Road within the Bowerham area of the city. To the north of the Leisure Park is the cattle market and abattoir; Burrow Beck runs along the eastern boundary of the application site with open fields separating the site from Newland Road and the M6; to the south the site is separated from the residential area of Bowerham by allotments; and to the west lies open wooded parkland rising steeply to Coulston Road.

1.4 To the rear of the brewery site (south and south east) is cut into the adjacent Greenspace with the surrounding land retained by stone gabion walls. Prior to the erection of the building, the land in question formed a small hillside including a derelict golf driving range. Between the application site and the existing allotments and Burrow Beck there is relatively dense screen planting. Whilst there are no protected trees in the immediate vicinity of the application site, there are protected trees along the western boundary of the Leisure Park complex and at the site access. Residential properties at Colchester Avenue and Chelmsford Close lie to the southeast of the site. The nearest houses are approximately 90m SE of the site boundary and 140m from the site of the marquee.

1.5 Access to the proposed site will be off Wyresdale Road via the internal road system. There is Page 17 service/delivery/disabled parking provision close to the building accessed around the north and west side of the main Antiques' building. Despite being on the edge of the City there are number of bus stops within walking distance of the site, these include stops on Wyresdale Road close to the access of the abattoir and the entrance to Williamson's Park and the University of Cumbria, and bus stops on Coulston Road.

1.6 The majority of the Leisure Park is unallocated in the Local Plan but the part of the site that the application relates is allocated in the Lancaster District Local Plan as Key Urban Greenspace.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application is seeking retrospective consent for the erection of as marquee within the curtilage of the brewery. The marquee measures 9m x 12m and stands 4m to the ridge. The external colour is typical of marquees, being finished in white plastic.

2.2 As originally submitted the application sought the use of the marquee to host events such as ‘Glastonbrewery’ and ‘Roll out the Barrel’ as well as being used as additional space for the function room. The initial submission lacked clarity of the number, scale and nature of the events. This was clarified as: -

• Additional function room space • Weekly use • Hours of use to be as per the main brewery • The loudspeaker systems will be set up only for compare announcement or low level background music • The marquee would allow up to 150 additional users, many event being outside the hours of use of the remaining site

2.3 Following on-going complaints to both Environmental Heath and the local planning authority regarding noise disturbance from events both with the main function room and in the separate marquee, the proposal has been the subject of further discussion with the local planning authority and subsequent revision.

2.4 A revised Design and Access Statement has been provided, and the nature of the proposal set out as follows: -

a. The Marquee will be used as an ancillary space to the current internal function room of the Brewery, effectively becoming a 'break out room' to allow conversation etc. outside the main function space.

b. No noise producing equipment including acoustic instruments will be used within the Marquee. Therefore there will be no sounds over and above the background noise of the function occurring in the Marquee.

c. All events occurring within the venue are to end at midnight.

Note:

A Planning Application will be submitted in due course for a loudspeaker system. The application however will only be submitted when the applicant has had an appropriate acoustic policy compiled survey which is acceptable to both the Planning Officer and the Environmental Health Officer.

2.5 The current application has been considered on the basis of the revised Design and Access Statement and proposal details contained within it.

3.0 Site History

3.1 Lancaster Leisure Park has an extensive planning history. The table below contains the most relevant applications.

Page 18 Application Number Proposal Decision 11/00445/VCN Variation of condition 2 on planning permission Approved 10/00569/CU

10/00569/CU Change of use of former Redwood Garden Centre to Approved Brewery and visitor centre 06/00154/FUL Amendment to application 05/01360/FUL to re-site building Approved to avoid major sewer 05/01360/FUL Erection of a new garden centre and extension to existing Approved cafe 06/00154/FUL Amendment to application 05/01360/FUL to re-site building Approved to avoid major sewer 02/01299/FUL Erection of residential development for 134 residential Refused and dismissed units and associated garages, works etc at appeal 90/01041/HST Construction of external golf/driving range and change of Approved use of social club into shop and club house. 89/00482/HST Outline application for the erection of a hotel and garden Approved centre and change of use of factory to craft workshops, retail outlets. 89/01285/HST Reserved matters for retail development for garden centre, Approved greenhouses, shop and car parking.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory and non-statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response County Highways No highway objection.

Environmental Comment on the initial submission – No objections, if loud speakers are to be used Health within the marquee they should be under the direct control of Lancaster Brewery, be for no more than four occasions per year, time limited to 12:00 to 21:00 and be of such a noise level so as to be inaudible at the nearest noise sensitive property.

Comment on first revision - Concerned at weekly use, and would suggest the following conditions:

1. All announcements and background music to be set at a level which is inaudible at the nearest noise sensitive properties. 2. The door connecting the brewery to the marquee to be kept closed whenever amplified music is being played within the brewery building.

Comment on the final revised proposal – No objections to the proposal as amended. Suggest condition to ensure that given the increased use of the side door to access the marquee, a condition is attached regarding the new external doors to ensure they are not fixed-open during events, as this will lead to noise breakout.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 8 letters from local residential occupiers have been received in respect of the initial submission, all raise objection to the scheme on the following grounds: -

• The scheme, if approved will enable the playing of music and circumvent condition 11 of the original consent preventing the playing of music outside the building • The submission lacks clear information over the precise nature and frequency of the use • The site has already been breaching control conditions and causing excessive noise nuisance and late night use, including outdoor music Page 19 • Weekend events for example ‘Glastonbrewery’ cause great disturbance to neighbouring quiet residential areas – events can be heard both outside an inside neighbouring dwellings • Marquee will have no soundproofing qualities and will lead to further ongoing disturbance • The use of the premises differs wholly from that indicated in the original committee report/consent in 2010, the area is now an entertainment venue in its own right rather than a low key ancillary element of the brewery operation – to the detriment of residents (especially when compared to the previous garden centre use) • Poor submission omits that the site is close to residential properties. • Recent late night (and loud) events have been the subject of formal complaint to Environmental Health – the operation continues after the conditioned midnight closure with disturbance from car doors, people shouting and general disturbance • Development will see an increase in traffic to and around the site, often directed down the adjacent cul-de-sac in error by sat-nav systems. • General reduction in residential amenity

5.2 At the time of drafting the report a single comment had been made in respect of the applicant’s revised Design and Access Statement /proposal:

• Whilst the application appears to be clear in terms of the initial exclusion of a sound system in the marquee, previous experience indicates that the Brewery flout the rules they had originally agreed to • Concerns that even without an external sound system, there is the potential to lead to further noise than exists at the present • Large groups of people can make a significant amount of noise which will not be silenced in any way by the thin walls of a marquee • That the proposal is the “thin end of the wedge” - when the original application for change of use to a Brewery was considered it was justified partly on the basis that there would be less noise than the garden centre, adding another source of noise in the area closest to properties is unacceptable.

6.0 Principal National and Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Framework

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) indicates that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Paragraph 7 states that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental; and that these roles are mutually dependent and should be sought simultaneously through the planning system.

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development . The following paragraphs of the NPPF are relevant to the determination of this proposal:

Paragraph 17 (Core Principles) sets out 12 core land-use planning principles which should underpin both plan-making and decision taking. Those most relevant to this application state that planning should: be genuinely plan led; always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings; take account of the different roles and character of different areas; conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance; and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.

Paragraph 23 promotes town centres and seek to direct appropriate development to town centres, appropriate edge of centre site that are well connected could be used.

Paragraph 34 indicates that developments which generate significant traffic movements should be located where the need to travel will be minimised. However, the NPPF acknowledges that this need must be considered in context of other policies in the NPPF, particularly in the rural area.

Paragraph 56 states that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment and stresses that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and is indivisible from good planning. To emphasise the importance of this statement, paragraph 64 (under the design section) clearly states that permission should be refused for development of poor design Page 20 that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. Paragraph 123 sets out that decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life; mitigate and reduce impacts to a minimum, including through the use of conditions; and identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.

Paragraphs 196, and 197 of the Framework relates to determining planning applications.

6.2 Development Plan Weighting

Paragraphs 214 and 215 of the NPPF advise on the weight that can be attributed to existing policies within the authority’s Development Plan. Paragraph 214 states that “For 12 months from the day of publication (of the NPPF, which was published on 27 March 2012), decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework” . Paragraph 215 continues by stating that, “In other cases and following this 12- month period, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing (Development) Plans according to their degree of consistency with this Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)” . In the Lancaster District, the Development Plan consists of the Lancaster District Core Strategy, and the Saved Policies of the Lancaster District Local Plan. Relevant policies of each document are referred to over the following pages.

6.3 Lancaster District Core Strategy

Policy SC1 (Sustainable Development) - seeks to ensure that new development proposals are sustainable in terms of both location and design. This policy, albeit a generic overriding policy, states that sites should be previously developed and accessible to public transport, employment, leisure, education and community facilities.

Policy SC2 (Urban Concentration) - promotes the creation of sustainable communities by focussing development within existing urban areas and minimising the need to travel. This states that 90% of new dwellings will be provided in these locations and 95% of new employment floorspace.

Policy ER3 (Employment Land Allocations) - aims to ensure that employment is located in the right place to meet the needs generated by existing businesses, new businesses and inward investment. In determining such application the local planning authority must be satisfied that the employment needs of the business are unable to be met within the existing employment site with sufficient justification provided to warrant the release of this site for employment use.

Policy ER6 (Developing Tourism) - seeks to maximise the potential of tourism to help regenerate the local economy.

Policy E1 (Environmental Capital) - is also of relevance to this application. This seeks to improve the District’s environment. The protection and enhancement of urban greenspaces is one of the requirements of this Policy.

Policy E2 (Transportation Measures) - seeks to support the District’s regeneration, improve resident’s quality of life and minimise the environmental impacts of traffic.

6.4 Lancaster District Local Plan (saved policies)

Policy E29 (Key Urban Green Space) - There is a general presumption that areas designated as urban green space will be protected from development and where appropriate enhanced. Exceptionally essential education or community related development or the limited expansion of existing uses will be permitted.

Policy EC6 (Criteria for New Employment Development) - is also relevant. This seeks to ensure that proposals for new employment development provide satisfactory provision for access, serving and parking; are appropriate in terms of scale, design and landscaping; are accessible to alternative modes of transport; and maintain or improve the quality of the business environment and do not Page 21 worsen local environmental conditions. Adjoining land uses must not be adversely affected by new development.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 Principle of Development – The site is located on the edge of the city within the built up area of Lancaster. It forms part of a wider complex of leisure and business uses within reasonable walking distance of some residential areas of Lancaster and within easy reach of local bus services. The applicant has acknowledged that the use has intensified since the original grant of permission in 2010. the applicant also accepts that the nature of the use of the function room was not anticipated as part of the original proposal. The café/bar element has proved to be successful as a separate venue rather than as originally envisaged being used during the daytime to support the visit or centre. However, the venue is still considered to be operating within the use-controls for the current planning consent and this proposal is only seeking to provide ancillary covered room within the curtilage of the brewery site. Leaving aside the issues of amenity and highway matters, the principle remains broadly acceptable in planning use terms.

7.2 Residential Amenity – The operation of the venue has caused significant disturbance to local residents over the last few months. The disturbance has been in the form of late night operation outside the conditioned hours (beyond midnight), noise disturbance from the outside events, noise break out from within the main function room and the use of a marquee and its associated loudspeaker system (not the application site) to host an compered charity auction. Other disturbances have occurred following ‘one-off’ events such as ‘Glastonbrewery’ music festival which is understood to have involved disturbance from late night music and excessive car parking.

7.3 The application as originally submitted lacked clarity over the proposed nature and scale of the marquee use, which raised queries and concerns from local residents. The use was clarified as one which could potentially take place on a weekly basis and could involve the use of external speaker systems either as a compered event or as background music, with bands located within the main building. This approach raised strong objections from local residents directly as consultation responses but also via a local Ward Councillor. The Council’s Environmental Health Officers also had reservation over the intensity of the use and the use of external speaker systems.

7.4 Following discussion with the applicant it was acknowledged that the historic/recent uses of the site has led to disturbance to local residents and that the Brewery needs to manage the operations more appropriately and comprehensively. This includes the marquee operation and any desire to use the external areas of the site. To address noise breakout from the main building, a lobby has been constructed on the side door of the building. It is understood that the main problems occurred during warm periods when the outside door was kept open (contrary to planning controls) to help ventilate the building. The provision of a lobby has introduced a second door facing north away from nearby housing. The venue has operated a number of times since the erection of the lobby seemingly without complaint. The late night hours of operation have also been acknowledged despite the planning control restricting operations up to midnight. Local Authority Licensing had provided an operational licence up to 0100 hours despite the planning condition restrictions. The applicant has been reminded of the planning controls associated with the site and the need to adhere to these controls, regardless of approved licensing hours. The current planning application now reflects the midnight closure time.

7.5 In order to address the regularisation of the siting of the marquee and its use, the application has been revised and its use clarified. As part of the consideration under this application the marquee is only to operate as additional space/breakout area for the main function room. It will not operate with any amplified systems or acoustic music and it will cease use at midnight as will the main venue. This approach will formalise the siting of the marquee and allow a lower-intensity of use to be provided to support the main function room.

7.6 The applicant has indicated that following further discussion with the local planning authority and Environmental Health a further planning application is to be forthcoming which will seek to address the use of external speakers outside of the main building and within the marquee. However, this will be a separate planning application which will need to be considered on its own merits as should the current proposal.

7.7 It is considered that the proposal, as amended, will enable the regularisation of the siting of the Page 22 marquee and enable it to be used on an ancillary basis to the main function space without the introduction of external speakers or acoustic instruments. These restrictions enable the continued functioning of the marquee at a less-intensive level until such time as the merits or otherwise of a external speaker system has been explored via a separate planning application. Although such an application would normally be an officer-delegated matter, the local planning authority can advise that any subsequent application for loudspeakers would be presented to the Planning Committee, because of the issues that have been highlighted in this report.

7.8 Neighbours have raised concerns over the potential for large groups of people to make a significant amount of noise which will not be silenced in any way by the thin walls of a marquee. However it must be acknowledged that the site of the marquee is to be approximately 110m from the nearest residential property. This distance and the nature of the use currently under consideration is considered to be acceptable. Subject to appropriate conditions to control the use as defined in the Revised Design and Access Statement, the development is not considered to unduly impact upon the amenities of nearby residential occupiers.

7.9 A further consideration is the potential impact of the development upon a current, as yet undetermined planning application, 12/001109/FUL which is seeking consent for the erection of 72 dwellings within the leisure park site on an area of land to the north of the application site. The distance from the closest proposed dwelling to the marquee is over 130m, and as discussed above the proposed use of the marquee and the spatial separation is considered to be one which will ensure that the marquee development is not unduly detrimental to the amenities of potential future residential occupiers, should the housing development proposal be granted.

7.10 Highways/Car Parking – County Highways have raised no objections to the proposal regarding the development as a simple 108sqm extension to the current use of the site with little additional traffic/parking generation.

7.11 This response initially raised concerns with Planning Officers as the details contained within the initial application submission provided no clarity over the nature and operation of the use of the marquee. In particular whether the marquee was, in practice, to be used as a separate venue in addition to one within the main building. The implications of this form of use would be a significant rise in the number of cars associated with the use of the site as a whole. The ability of the larger site to house additional parking would then need to have been questioned more thoroughly given the potential for the demand for car parking to overlap with many of the uses currently operating within the wider site and the current, as yet undetermined planning application 12/001109/FUL which is seeking consent for the erection of 72 dwellings within the site on an area of land to the south of the larger site primarily made over to car parking.

7.12 Following the provision of additional information it is understood that the marquee is to be used only in an ancillary form to the main indoor venue, a quieter area for customers to use which is away from noise generation and crowds within the main function area. This approach, which can be suitably conditioned, will prevent the marquee being used as a separate venue and consequently limit the amount of additional parking generation.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 There are no planning obligations to consider as part of this application.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 The principle of the site use as a mixed brewery, visitor centre and function room has been previously established under planning consent 10/00569/CU. The proposal, as amended, is seeking the small-scale expansion of the function room element of the brewery development. The marquee is to be used wholly as an ancillary area with planning conditions to control the use of the area and the exclusion of acoustic instruments and external speaker systems. On this basis the proposed development is considered compliant with both national and local planning policy and will positively contribute to sustainable economic growth within the District and Members are advised that planning permission should be granted.

9.2 In reaching this recommendation of approval – for the marquee only with no speakers or acoustic instruments taking place within the marquee – the local planning authority has been mindful of the Page 23 concerns expressed by residents during this planning application process, and of separate concerns highlighted by the authority’s Environmental Health Officers.

9.3 It is entirely reasonable to consider any future planning application for speakers, music or audio- related equipment only at the time it is submitted. It is not the role of Planning Officers, Elected Members or indeed members of the public to pre-determine that separate planning application at the current time. It will be determined on its own planning merits, if and when the application is submitted at a future date.

9.4 Similarly, the applicant needs to understand that in the meantime, the planning conditions listed below are not optional but are imposed to allow the continuation of the siting of the marquee. Failure to comply with the conditions, thus causing disturbance to local amenity, would leave the local planning authority in a position where it will be forced to consider using its wider enforcement powers, including the serving of a Temporary Stop Notice.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the revised Design and Access Statement - 130816-DAS5 Rev B, received 16 August 2013 2. The Marquee will be used as an ancillary space to the internal function room of the Brewery only 3. No noise producing or audio equipment including acoustic instruments, speakers, etc will be used within the Marquee or in any external area. 4. All events occurring within the venue are to end at midnight. 5. Details of any external lighting to be agreed 6. Deliveries shall occur within the hours of 07.00 - 20.00 7. Side doors to the main building to be fixed with self closing mechanisms which are to remain operational at all times.

Human Rights Act

Background Papers

None.

Page 24 AgendaAgenda Item Item 8 Committee Date Application Number

A8 16 September 2013 13/00567/CU

Application Site Proposal

2A And 2C Old Station Yard Retrospective application for the change of use of Kirkby Lonsdale Unit 2A from coach repair and maintenance to Carnforth general vehicle repair and MOT testing station and Lancashire sub-division of Unit 2C to form storage area and paint shop for vehicle repair

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Alan Stephenson And Son JMP Architects Ltd

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

19 July 2013 Awaiting additional information from agent and Committee cycle

Case Officer Mr Karl Glover

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approval

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The site which forms the subject of this application is located close to the northern end of The Old Station Yard industrial estate, to the South of Kirkby Lonsdale and the west of the A65. The industrial estate is bounded by a high bund with mature screen planting on all sides except the South and is surrounded on all sides by open, undulating Countryside. There are two residential properties adjacent to the southern end of the estate close to the estate road entrance (Station House and Willow Copse) and a further residential property to the east of the estate mid way up its length (Green Acre), separated by narrow fields and access from Long Level (the old Roman Road running north/south to the estate).

1.2 The estate is accessed from a cul-de-sac section of the former A65 road which has a good junction with the present A65. Unit 2 currently consists of 6 subdivided units (albeit Units 2a and 2c operating within breach of the previous planning condition) and are occupied and operated as follows:

• Unit 2a Scott Wilson Body Shop Vehicle Repair & MOT - This unit is located towards the western part of the building and lies within the red edge of this application. The unit previously operated (and had planning permission under 10/00802/CU) as a repair and maintenance centre for Alan Stephenson Coaches who have now contracted the business out. As a result Scott Wilson Body Shop has extended into this unit and undertakes car repairs and MOTs.

• Unit 2b is occupied by Mortimer’s Storage and is used for storage only as an overflow from the adjacent metal fabricators. It is only accessed by a maximum of 2 staff on rare occasions as and when required.

• Unit 2c This unit forms the second part of this application as it has been subdivided (into 2ci and 2cii – as set out overleaf) in breach of planning condition on previously approved application 10/00802/CU.

Page 25 • Unit 2ci is occupied by Scott Wilson Paint Shop for the spraying and repair of vehicles. Internally the unit has a specialised purpose-built spray-booth which is fully contained within the unit and has a filtered extractor system. Maximum number of staff would be 2 with two required parking spaces for staff vehicles;

• Unit 2 cii is occupied by Alan Stephenson Storage and is used for the storage of a mixture of varying personal products and goods.

• Unit 2d is occupied by La Maison Storage, a furniture store, (no retail sales) that provides for town location furniture businesses. No work takes place in the unit however once a week deliveries and distribution vans attend the site. Members of the public can potentially pick up items of furniture from the unit. Maximum number of staff at any one time is 2.

• Unit 2e is occupied by Kirkby Lonsdale Brewery, a micro brewery, which operates 2 days a week (Monday and Tuesdays) with a maximum number of 2 staff. There is some storage associated with the use and a delivery vehicle and staff car park. Maximum vehicle movements are low, at approximately 6 per week.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The applicant seeks retrospective planning consent for the change of use of Unit 2A from coach repair and maintenance to general vehicle repair and MOT testing station (Sui Generis) and the subdivision of Unit 2C to form a storage area at Unit 2 cii (Use Class B8) and vehicular paint shop at Unit 2i (Use Class B2).

3.0 Site History

3.1 A number of relevant applications relating to this site have previously been received by the Local Planning Authority. These are listed in the table overleaf.

3.2 The original permission for the erection of 4 industrial units and associated access and access road with landscaping was 96/001325/FUL . This 1996 application did not prevent sub-division of the units. However the application site (Unit 2 as a whole) was formerly known as Stephenson’s Coaches, and a 2006 application ( 06/00090/FUL) granted consent for an extension to the vehicle maintenance workshop. Condition number 8 on this permission restricted the use of Unit 2 to light industrial and storage uses associated with the existing coach business.

3.3 Following the receipt of a complaint from a local resident, an enforcement investigation found that Unit 2 had been subdivided. A retrospective application ( 10/00802/CU ) was submitted and subsequently approved at Planning Committee. A new planning condition identified each part of Unit 2 for the following businesses:

Unit 2a Alan Stephenson Coaches Unit 2b Mortimers Storage Unit 2c Scotts Storage Unit 2d La Maison Storage Unit 2e Kirkby Lonsdale Brewery

The condition was worded to prevent any subdivision, disposal or other letting or sale arrangement to a different use without the express permission of the local planning authority.

3.4 Following a further complaint the local planning authority found that Unit 2A was not occupied in accordance with the above planning condition, and Unit 2C had been further subdivided. The applicant sought to attempt to regularise the changes and new uses via the current application.

Application Number Proposal Decision 79/01314/CU Use land as storage compound for petroleum gas Refused 85/00061/FUL Erection of a new building in connection with haulage Refused business 89/00635/ADV Erection of signs Accepted Page 26 91/00470/CU Change of use to temp storage site with portable building Accepted 96/00135/FUL Erection of 4 industrial units and associated access and Accepted access road and landscaping 01/01362/CU Change of use of builder’s workshop to storage and Accepted maintenance of coaches with associated offices and alterations to approved elevations at Unit 2. 03/01435/FUL Erection of extension to existing unit/maintenance facilities Accepted 06/00090/FUL Erection of a single storey extension to existing vehicle Accepted maintenance workshop 10/00802/CU Retrospective application for the part change of use of Accepted existing vehicle storage and maintenance building to storage distribution and business use

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory and non-statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response Lancashire County No objections – advised that access arrangements are to remain as per existing. Highways Environmental No objections – recommend conditions regarding hours of work (0800-18.00hrs); and Health Services conditions preventing the use of power tools and panel beating outside the buildings. Any air compressors shall also be located within the buildings. The Air Quality Officer has also requested further information in relation to fumes from the spray booth shall be provided prior to determination (See Section 7 of this report).

Parish Council No observations received at the time of compiling this report.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 One letter of objection has been received by a nearby resident who has raised concerns primarily in relation to the following points:

• The increase in the number of vehicles to the site; • Parking and waiting on the service road; and, • Impact upon residential amenity as a result of vehicles parking outside unit 2.

6.0 Principal National and Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Paragraph 14 – indicates a presumption in favour of sustainable development seeking approval of development that accord with the development plan without delay.

Paragraph 17 – sets out the 12 overarching core land-use principles, in particular one core principle seeks to ensure that planning should always seek to secure high quality design and good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.

Paragraph 28 – Requires, amongst other criteria, that plans should “support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through the conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings.

Paragraph 32 – States all developments that generate significant amounts of movements should be supported by a Transport Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people.

Paragraph 57 - importance of planning positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design including individual buildings. Page 27

Paragraph 109 - States the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by (amongst other criteria) “preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from or adversely affected by noise pollution or land instability”

Determining Applications

Paragraph 196 – confirms that planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions.

6.2 Development Plan Weighting

Paragraphs 214 and 215 of the NPPF provide advice on the weight which can be attributed to existing policies within the authority’s Development Plan. Paragraph 214 states that “For 12 months from the day of publication (of the NPPF, which was published on 27 March 2012), decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework” . Paragraph 215 continues by stating that, “In other cases and following this 12-month period, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing (Development) Plans according to their degree of consistency with this Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)” . In the Lancaster District, the Development Plan consists of the Lancaster District Core Strategy and the Saved Policies of the Lancaster District Local Plan.

6.3 Lancaster District Core Strategy (CS)

Policy SC1 (Sustainable Development) seeks to ensure that new development proposals are as sustainable as possible, minimise greenhouse gas emissions and are adaptable to the likely effects of climate change and sets out a range of criteria against which proposals should be assessed. Development should be located in areas where it is convenient to walk, cycle or travel by public transport between homes, workplaces, shops and other facilities, uses energy efficient design and construction practices, incorporates renewable energy technologies and is compatible with the character of the surrounding landscape .

Policy SC5 (Achieving Quality in Design) states that new development must reflect and enhance the positive characteristics of its surroundings and result in an improved appearance where conditions are unsatisfactory and compliments and enhances public realm.

Policy E1 : (Environmental Capital) aims to improve the District’s environment seeking to safeguard and enhance the District’s environmental capital by: • directing development to locations, where previously developed land can be recycled and reused, dereliction cleared and contamination remediated; • making places more pleasant and liveable with safer, cleaner, more legible and more attractive streets and spaces and: • resisting development which would have a detrimental effect on environmental quality and public amenity • conserving and enhancing landscapes

6.4 Lancaster District Local Plan (Saved Policies)

In accordance with paragraph 215 of the NPPF, the following saved policies are considered consistent with the Framework and are therefore relevant to the determination of the application:

Policy E4 (Countryside Area) – Within the countryside, development will only be permitted where it is in scale and keeping with the character and natural beauty of the landscape; is appropriate to its surroundings in terms of siting, scale, design, materials, external appearance and landscaping; would not result in a significant adverse effect on nature conservation or geological interests; and makes satisfactory arrangements for access, servicing, cycle and car parking.

Page 28 6.5 Emerging Local Plan Policies (draft Development Management DPD - Autumn/Winter 2012)

The Council is in the early stages of preparation of an emerging Local Plan and has now completed the first Preferred Options consultation on the Development Management DPD. Whilst in the early stages of the plan process, policies in the emerging Local Plan are a material consideration. However, the degree of weight that can be afforded to these policies varies depending on stage of preparation of the emerging plan, the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies and the degree of consistency with the Framework (paragraph 216 of the NPPF). Limited weight can therefore be afforded to the following draft policy that received no significant objections and is relevant to this application.

Policy EC4.1 – (Proposals involving Employment Land and Premises) this sets out that proposals for employment generating uses (B1, B2, B8 and appropriate Sui Generis uses) which seek to utilise previously developed land or existing premises outside of designated employment areas will be supported by the council provided there is sufficient access and no detrimental impact on residential amenity.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The key issues for Members to consider in determining this application are:

• Whether the principle of the use and subdivision of the two units is seen to be acceptable in this location in terms of Policy CS SC1 and complies with paragraph 28 of the NPPF and;

• Whether the proposal satisfies the criteria set out in Policy CS E1 in terms of the impacts upon the amenities of neighbouring residents and businesses.

7.2 With regard to compliance with CS Policy SC1 the whole of the industrial estate is seen to be an established rural employment site, providing employment opportunities for not just this District, but also the South Cumbria and Craven Districts. It is well located between these, on principal roads connecting Cumbria, Lancashire and West Yorkshire.

7.3 The principle and sub division of Unit 2 and the (light) industrial nature of its operations was established and approved by Members of the Planning Committee on the 6 th October 2010.

7.4 Since 2010 Unit 2A has been used primarily for vehicular repairs including coaches, but this has witnessed the introduction of a MOT facility. Whilst the introduction of MOTs takes the use out of light industrial to a Sui Generis use, it is not seen to create any significant changes or notable intensification when compared to its previous operations, especially in terms of the scale of vehicular movements. One of the comments received by a nearby resident suggests that there will be an increase in vehicles coming and going from the site and potential parking on the access road outside Unit 2 which in turn would impact upon their own private amenity. Whilst these comments are acknowledged there are allocated parking spaces available within the site. It is not anticipated that this unit, on a well-established rural industrial estate would create any adverse impacts upon the two residential properties at the head of the estate access road. This is reflected in the consultation response from Lancashire County Highways who have raised no objections to the proposal as the access arrangements are to remain the same.

7.5 Unit 2Ci is currently operating and has operated as a body repair paint shop since 2010, and internally has a specialised and vented unit designed to allow vehicles and parts to be sprayed. This unit prevents impacts arising from fumes and noise associated with its use. Environmental Health required further information in relation to the ventilation of the unit. The applicant has provided this advising that it has a double filter arrangement on the extractor system which rises vertically through the roof at the apex of the building. As this set up is already established, and taking into consideration that the unit is approximately 60m away from the nearest residential unit, with a further detached commercial unit (Unit 1) located in between, there are no valid planning grounds for resisting this particular use.

7.6 Unit 2Cii is used solely for storage purpose only and does not attract any vehicular movements or result in adverse impacts upon any other businesses or nearby residential amenity and as such complies with the provisions of LDCS Policy E1. Page 29

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 There are no planning obligations to consider as part of this application.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 Retrospective planning applications are regrettable from the perspective of the local planning authority, because they are usually submitted to remedy a breach of planning control or unauthorised development. The applicant’s failure to obtain planning permission in the first instance can be perceived as weakening the integrity of the national planning system. However advice to Members on this issue is clear. Where the use or development being applied for is acceptable in planning terms, it should seek to approve the application. In other words, a decision to refuse a retrospective application solely because it was made retrospectively would be found to be unlawful.

9.2 It is concluded that the changes that have been undertaken within Units 2A and 2C have not resulted in any significant adverse impacts upon the other existing businesses within the estate nor on the residential amenity of the nearby properties. The industrial estate continues to provide valuable employment benefits to the district. By supporting the diversification of the existing units which are not seen to result in adverse impacts is very much supported within the general thrust of paragraphs 28 and 32 of the NPPF. As such it is recommended that this application to regularise the uses can be supported subject to further safeguarding conditions.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Development to be carried out in accordance to approved plans 2. Amended plans/Further details provided on 6 th August 2013 3. Personal permission restricting occupancy of the units as follows:

Unit 2A Scott Wilson Body Shop Vehicle Repair and MOT Unit 2Ci Scott Wilson Paint Shop Unit 2Cii Alan Stephenson – Storage

With no further sub-division or amalgamation of units to occur without the express consent of the local planning authority. 4. Removal of permitted development rights of Part 8 of Schedule 2 of GDPO (industrial/commercial buildings) 5. No operations to occur before 0800 or after 1800 on any weekday, Saturdays nor at all or on Sundays or bank holidays. 6. No vehicular movements to or from the sites between 00:00 and 06:00 7. No work associated with the units referred to above to be undertaken externally

Human Rights Act

This recommendation has been reached after consideration of the provisions o f The Human Rights Act. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the issues arising do not appear to be of such magnitude to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.

Background Papers

None.

Page 30 AgendaAgenda Item Item 9 Committee Date Application Number

A9 16 September 2013 13/00668/FUL

Application Site Proposal

Moor Platt Erection of 6 two-bed houses, 15 three-bed houses Lancaster Road and 12 four-bed houses including internal road layout Caton and associated parking and landscaping Lancaster

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Ms Emma Wadsworth Miss Emma Wadsworth

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

25 October 2013 N/A

Case Officer Mr Andrew Drummond

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Refusal

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The c1 hectare site is situated on the north west corner of the main crossroads in Caton (Station Road, Brookhouse Road and the A683). It is a relatively flat site with roads to the south and east, residential properties to the west and the Lune River cyclepath to the north. The site comprises the former Lancashire County Council Moor Hall Care Home set in well established grounds with large open lawns across its front and centre and mature trees to creating a wooded effect to the edges. A substantial stone wall forms the majority of the site boundary.

1.2 Until the site was fenced off, access was gained into the site via the stone pillared entrance off the mini-roundabout at the Caton crossroads.

1.3 The site falls within the District’s Countryside Area and Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty as designated in the Lancaster District Local Plan. The site contains a number of individual and groups of trees which are protected by Tree Preservation Orders. Whilst these primarily line the site boundaries, there are a significant number of trees that encroach into the site, leaving only the middle section clear of tree canopies.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application seeks planning permission for 33 houses comprising six 2-bed, fifteen 3-bed and twelve 4-bed houses. The palate of materials proposed is brick under a tiled roof with uPVC windows and doors.

2.2 A new access is proposed close to the south west corner of the site from Lancaster Road (A683) with an internal access road curving like a backward “C” to serve properties on both sides. No details are provided within the submission relating to surface treatments of the road and footpaths.

2.3 The proposal seeks to remove 9 individual and 9 groups (some partially and some entirely) of protected trees from within the site to accommodate the layout and number of units proposed. The trees to the boundaries are primarily retained, though no details are provided within the submission regarding site boundary treatments. Page 31

3.0 Site History

3.1 There is one application of particular relevance to this proposal that relates to this site:

Application Number Proposal Decision 06/01115/OUT Erection of 36 extra care/continuing care retirement Permitted (granted in houses March 2010)

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory and non-statutory consultees:

Consultee Response County Highways The Highway Authority wishes to desist from providing a highway response to the application instead raising an objection on the grounds that the proposed point of access is inappropriate and likely to result in a compromise to public safety should planning consent be granted. The creation of an additional point of access onto the A683, a strategic west-east route along the Lune Valley, is likely to have a detrimental impact on highway safety due in part to the close proximity of existing points of access in the immediate vicinity, including Farriers Yard, the garage opposite and a mini roundabout. Furthermore to achieve the visibility splays required would require the removal of protected trees, which may or may not be acceptable in planning terms . Further commentary is provided on the alternatives points of access.

Tree Protection Objects to the development proposal due to incomplete submission of information. Officer There are a relative large number of trees within the site in question, many are medium to large landscape trees and subject to Tree Preservation Order no.400 (2007). A development of the scale proposed has significant potential to adversely impact trees within the site and trees established within off site locations on third party land, notably to the north and west. Many of the trees within the site are clearly visible from the public domain, and make an important and positive contribution to the visual appearance and character of the site and the wider locality. The loss of important landscapes groups and individual trees from within the site has significant potential for harm. The applicant has submitted an Arboriculture Implications Assessment . However, this assessment does not include a detailed Tree Survey in compliance to BS 5837 (2012).

Strategic Housing Objects. The housing mix, both open market and affordable housing, does not Officer address the identified housing needs in terms of size, type and tenure. One of the affordable housing tenures proposed is not affordable.

Environmental No objection subject to dust control and hours of construction (Mon to Fri 0800-1800 Health and Sat 0800-1400 only). Contaminated land officer has reviewed the Phase 1 desktop study and requests the 4 standard land contamination conditions, though raises questions regarding the presence of asbestos which could result in the imposition of a further condition depending on the developer’s response.

United Utilities No comments received during the statutory consultation period.

Ministry of Defence No safeguarding objections.

Police The application provides no information as to how the development intends to approach crime reduction and community safety. In particular no detail is given in respect of boundary treatments and window and external door specifications.

Caton-with- Neither objects nor supports the proposal, raising issues relating to community Littledale Parish benefits, parking and means access. Whilst welcoming the possible redevelopment of Council the Moor Platt site the Parish Council wishes to express their desire that the Page 32 development retains a rural identity in keeping with the character of the village, not a standard ‘off the peg housing estate’. Comment was expressed at the lack of provision of smaller units for elderly residents within the scheme. Concern was expressed at the positioning of the proposed access to the site, which is considered to be in a dangerous position in relation to the number of accesses along this stretch of road. The Parish Council does not accept the evidence within the ‘Traffic Management’ report which it feels does not adequately reflect the situation on the ground. The existing pavement is considered to be inadequate along the site frontage bearing in mind the traffic levels and the increased use of the pavement by pedestrians, pushchair and wheelchair users. The proposed access position would also further exacerbate the ‘pedestrian’ problems along the roadside. The Parish Council would wish to see the benefits for the whole community, including the provision of amenity green space with an associated footway within the frontage of the site and additional public car parking accessible to all.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 5 pieces of correspondence have been received raising concerns to the application on the following grounds (one of which was an objection; the other four were neither objecting to or supporting the proposal):

• Lack of bat surveys • Removal of protected trees • Loss of biodiversity • Housing mix proposed does not reflect local housing needs • Access directly onto Lancaster Road and associated highway safety concerns (though another writer stated that they would not wish the developers to consider access to be gained via Ashcroft Close) • Inadequate visibility along a busy road used by a high volume of cars and HGVs • Insufficient pavement along Lancaster Road to site frontage • Overdevelopment of the site • Concerns over health and safety during the demolition phase • Concerns about protection of residential amenity to adjacent residents

1 piece of correspondence has been received supporting the application, though wishes to see the boundary wall retained and repaired and as many trees kept as possible.

6.0 Principal National and Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Paragraphs 32, 34 and 35 requires decisions to be made that ensure developments that generate significant movements are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised. Development should be located and designed, where practical, to give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, have access to high quality public transport facilities, create safe and secure layouts and consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport. This is support by paragraph 36 which states that a key tool to facilitate this will be a Travel Plan. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. Page 33

Paragraph 49 (housing) - housing application should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 50 requires the delivery of a wide range of high quality homes based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and needs of different groups in the community such as (but not limited to) families with children, older people, people with disabilities, identifying size, type, tenure, affordability and range of housing that is required reflecting local demand.

Paragraphs 56, 58, 60 and 64 require good design. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Developments should function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just in the short term, but over the lifetime of the development. Good design should seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness without stifling innovation or originality. Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunity available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

6.2 Development Plan Weighting

6.3 Lancaster District Core Strategy (adopted July 2008)

Policy SC3 (Rural Communities) - identifies 8 villages where an allowance of 10% of new homes is accepted in order to meet local needs in villages, of which Caton is one.

Policy SC4 (Meeting the District's Housing Requirements) - the Council will aim to maximise the opportunities offered by the development of new dwellings to redress imbalances in the local housing market, achieve housing that genuinely addresses identified local housing need and secure units of affordable housing in perpetuity.

Policy E2 (Transportation Measures) - this policy seeks to reduce the need to travel by car whilst improving walking and cycling networks and providing better public transport services.

6.4 Lancaster District Local Plan – saved policies (adopted April 2004)

Policy E3 (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) - development within and adjacent to the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which would either directly or indirectly have a significant adverse effect upon the character or harm the landscape quality, nature conservation interests, or features of geological importance will not be permitted. Any development must be of an appropriate scale and use materials appropriate to the area. Page 34

Policy E4 (Countryside Area) - development will only be permitted where it is in scale and keeping with the character and natural beauty of the landscape, is appropriate to its surroundings in terms of siting, scale, design, materials, external appearance and landscaping, would not result in a significant adverse effect on nature conservation or geological interest, and makes satisfactory arrangements for access, servicing, cycle and car parking.

Policy E12 (Nature Conservation) - development proposals must take into full account any impacts upon wildlife, wildlife habitats and protected species. Where development is permitted developers will be required to minimise any adverse impact and/or create and provide for the appropriate management of compensatory habitats.

Policy E13 (Trees and Woodland) - development that results in a significant adverse effect on or involves the loss of significant trees will not be permitted.

Policy H12 (Layout, Design and Use of Materials) - new housing developments will only be permitted which exhibit a high quality of design and local distinctiveness.

Policy H19 (Site Layout and Amenities) – new residential development within existing housing areas will be permitted where there is no loss of open/green spaces, it does not adversely effect the amenities of nearby residents, it provides high standard of amenity, and it makes satisfactory provision for disposal of sewerage, waste water, servicing, access and car and cycle parking.

SPG12 (Residential Design Code) - sets out key design principles for all new residential development, such as separation standards, privacy considerations, amenity space and consideration of local distinctiveness.

Meeting Housing Needs SPD – sets out the Council’s evidence base and provides context to the District’s housing need and delivery over the plan period. It provides specific details in respect of the type and size of dwellings needed for each of the key settlements and provides guidance in relation to the delivery of affordable housing.

6.5 Emerging Local Plan Policies (draft Development Management DPD - Autumn/Winter 2012)

The Council is advancing the stages of the preparation of its Local Plan and has now completed the first Preferred Options consultation on the Development Management DPD. Whilst in the early stages of the plan process, policies in the emerging Local Plan are a material consideration. However, the degree of weight that can be afforded to these policies varies depending on stage of preparation of the emerging plan, the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies and the degree of consistency with the Framework (paragraph 216 of t he NPPF). Increasing weight can therefore be afforded to the following draft policies that received no significant objections and are relevant to this application:

EC6.1 Enhancing Accessibility and Linkages - Development proposals should make best use of existing public transport services and where appropriate provide opportunities to improve and sustain the viability of those services, ensure that there is convenient access for walking and cycling to local facilities, make appropriate provision for parking, be designed and located to ensure the provision of safe streets, and seek to maximize the efficiency of capacity on the existing transport and highway network.

6.6 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)

The Council is in the process of reviewing its annual housing target following the abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategy. It has received Counsels opinion which advises that it commission the necessary research to set a revised target to take account of the new position at this point in the current recession. It must account for the revised housing needs survey of 2011, new economic and census predictions, and the state of the local economy.

Early findings of this research in the form of a Strategic Housing Marketing Assessment (SHMA) reveal that despite the recession the local economy in Lancaster district has not suffered as many job losses as ea rlier predicted and is showing signs of a healthy and potentially sustained recovery. It also confirms that there is a growing problem in the district related to the retention of graduates, resulting in a below average number of young working adults. As the local population ages this gap in the workforce will become more pronounced.

The early results of the SHMA suggest that steady jobs growth in the district over the next 10-20 years will not be matched by a growth in a young and skilled workforce to sustain it unless intervention measures are undertaken. Such measures include increasing the level of housing at affordable prices and improvements in the District's entertainment cultural and leisure offer to attract graduates and younger workers to stay or migrate here.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The key issues to consider are:

1. Principle of residential development on this site 2. Affordable housing provision 3. Retention and loss of protected trees 4. Access and parking 5. Design and sustainable construction 6. Residential amenity 7. Biodiversity

7.2 Principle of Residential Development

The principle of residential development on this site is accepted. The site is centrally located within the village of Caton, one of the 8 villages listed within Core Strategy policy SC3. The village is served by a shop, post office, pharmacy, doctor surgery, library, pub, primary school and churches. There are also bus services that run from Lancaster up the Lune Valley that serve the village. The location is therefore very sustainable. Furthermore there is a presumption in favour of proposed housing in sustainable locations such as this.

7.3 Affordable Housing Provision

The affordable housing offer, as submitted, was poor. Planning, Housing and Tree Officers provided pre-application advice on various matters; one of the principal ones being the provision of affordable housing. Details of the District’s housing needs were provided to the developer and advice was given to engage in discussions with Registered Providers early in the process. Unfortunately the developers did not heed this advice, and pursued a scheme that was financially more beneficial to Page 36 them and the landowners. The offer submitted included 30% provision, in line with adopted local planning policy, but the tenure was split between affordable rent and discounted sales and the units were all 2 and 3 bed houses. The tenure split sought by Officers in accordance with policy was social rented and shared ownership, including some smaller flats. Even the open market housing mix was contrary to the advice provided. Given the projected sales figures for the houses, even with a 30% discount they remain out of reach for many people. They are simply not affordable and therefore fail to meet the requirements of Policy SC4 of the Core Strategy and the Council’s Meeting Housing Needs SPD.

7.4 Retention and Loss of Protected Trees

Trees currently characterise this site. The mix of species and the maturity of the specimens give the site a very natural appearance from all sides. This screening forms an important part of the site’s character within the village. Their protection is in place to help preserve these trees and the setting they provide both within and outside the site. However, it is recognised that the 2006 outline planning consent was granted (with access, siting and scale in full) for a 36 extra care/continuing care retirement houses. This scheme removed a number of the protected trees, and whilst the permission has now lapsed it sets some precedent for future development schemes. However, that said, since outline planning permission was granted the Council has adopted a new Tree Policy and any proposal therefore needs to be assessed against its provisions.

The Tree Officer objects to the proposal on the grounds that whilst an Arboriculture Implications Assessment has been submitted, the assessment does not include a detailed Tree Survey in compliance to BS 5837 (2012).

On balance, it could be considered reasonable to lose the numbers of protected trees proposed to a development scheme that is acceptable in planning terms in all other regards. However, it would be inappropriate to lose a significant number of protected trees to deliver what is deemed to be a sub- standard form of development. The application should be refused on the basis that insufficient information has been submitted to make a comprehensive assessment.

7.5 Access and Parking

Access is to be provided from Lancaster Road from a new access point, with the existing access blocked off. The access is opposite the egress for the garage, 2 residential driveways serving a number of properties. County Highways has considered these relationships and concluded that the access is inappropriate and would be detrimental to public safety. Furthermore the Highway Authority considers the visibility splays to be insufficient. The provision of adequate visibility at the access would require the removal of protected trees. This has not been assessed, so the impact is unknown. This is extremely disappointing as the Case Officer asked at all of the pre-application meetings if the developer had secured the Highway Authority’s acceptance to the access arrangements and was given assurances that it had. Clearly the developer failed to undertake this task.

County Highways has not made any comments regarding the footpath along Lancaster Road, but this is clearly a local issue with the Parish Council and a number of local residents raising safety concerns.

The proposed open market houses would be served with driveways and in many cases garages, whilst the affordable houses would be provided with 2 parking spaces outside or in the vicinity of their properties. At least 2 parking spaces are provided per property. However, some of the integral garages are so narrow that it would be difficult to use the space to park a modern car and still be able to alight from the car. Each property also benefits from a garden, which could accommodate a shed or similar shelter to securely store a bicycle.

7.6 Design and Sustainable Construction

The design of the scheme is acceptable in terms of layout. The number of units originally proposed at pre-application stage simply did not consider the site’s constraints and various reconfigurations made the development appear very car-dominated. The layout submitted and its associated housing density is the result of 3 separate pre-application meetings. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the house types. These are the developer’s standard house types. No attempt has been made Page 37 by the developer to adapt them to the local area. Their Design and Access Statement states that they have taken influence from the traditional surrounding architectural style, yet they propose brick 2 to 2.5 storey houses under tiled roofs when the surrounding area is predominantly characterised by stone or dashed 1 to 2 storey properties under slate roofs. There are very few properties with integral garages for instance, yet these are proposed. The lack of consideration for design is even reflected in simple design errors – some of the house types proposed are inconsistently drawn. The designs are not innovative nor do they reinforce local distinctiveness. Whilst it is recognised that Caton has a range of house types, it is not difficult to reflect scale, form and materials. The NPPF advises that great weight should be given to delivering good design. In its absence, this is a serious shortcoming of the proposal.

The applicant proposes to deliver housing that meets Code level 3, but not include any renewable technologies. It is Officers’ view that the scheme should deliver properties that exceed the standards in Part L of the Building Regulations by at least 25% at the time of construction. This helps deliver properties that are thermally efficient into the future, thereby reducing energy needs.

7.7 Residential Amenity

7.8 Biodiversity

A Phase 1 Habitat Survey has been undertaken for the site. The Survey identifies that the building and trees have potential for roosting bats. As bats are a protected species, surveys must be undertaken prior to the determination of the planning application. Despite requesting such surveys at a pre-application stage, no survey work has been undertaken. The application therefore must be refused on these grounds. This approach is backed up by a recent appeal decision at The Spinney, Lancaster where the Inspector concluded "as set out in the Woolley judgment, it is not sufficient simply to be aware of the presence of bats, a planning authority also has to be satisfied that effective mitigation measures can be put in place before a planning permission can be granted and it is necessary for the decision maker to be satisfied that such mitigation measures will achieve the desired result. This is the advice and guidance given in Circular 06/2005. The judgment makes clear that it is not acceptable to rely upon a planning condition requiring that mitigation will be implemented subsequent to the grant of permission, and particularly where it is not known what those mitigation measures would be." Whilst the circumstances are slightly different insofar as the applicant provided a bat survey for The Spinney application but no mitigation measures and the applicant for the Moor Platt application has not even undertaken a bat survey, the principle of using conditions to detect the presence of protected species and identify associated mitigation measures where appropriate is unacceptable. All relevant bat work should occur prior to a decision being made. In the absence of such work, the application must be refused.

7.9 Other Matters

The majority of the existing site is currently undeveloped with a grass covering. Given this permeable surface will be built upon to create properties, roads, footpaths and parking bays, it is important that surface water is carefully considered and managed to ensure that localised flooding does not occur. Despite the developer seeking to utilise the mains sewer, the disposal of surface water will need to be managed separately from waste water. Only foul drainage should connect into the existing mains sewer on Lancaster Road.

The Contaminated Land Officer has considered the submitted Phase 1 desktop study and accepted its findings in general. Therefore the Officer seeks the imposition of the 4 standard land contamination conditions. A further condition relating to asbestos may be required depending on the developer’s response to the Officer’s queries.

Page 38 8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 The application proposes 33 new houses. Based on adopted local planning policy 30% of the properties on the site must be affordable. The applicant proposes 30% provision and this must be secured by way of a s106 agreement. However, inadequate detail has been provided by the developer relating to its provision and maintenance.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 Despite 3 separate pre-application meetings with the developers, the eventual application submitted was poor. Advice provided by Officers prior to submission has predominantly not materialised in the application. Whilst the layout and density of the housing proposed improved from one meeting to the next (and is reflected in the submission), the design concept submitted for the individual houses is disappointing, as it is neither innovative nor reflective of the local character (both in terms of vernacular and materials). Furthermore the housing mix does not address the housing need for the area, both in terms of open market and affordable housing provision. Whilst the loss of protected trees may be a suitable compromise in order to deliver a development scheme that in other regards is acceptable, their loss is unacceptable where the scheme has not addressed key planning considerations. In any case insufficient information has been submitted to make a full assessment in this regard.

9.2 It is also noted that the proposed access arrangements are deemed to compromise public safety, and the submission also fails to satisfactorily address protected species matters.

9.3 These deficiencies have to be balanced against other policy considerations. Officers do not dispute that the site is appropriate for a housing redevelopment scheme. It is a sustainable location. Furthermore there is clearly a need for more housing in the District. The Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing, let along a 5 year supply plus an additional 20% to compensate for years’ worth of under-delivery.

9.4 However, the shortcomings of the current application do not override the presumption in favour of sustainable development and therefore the application is recommended for refusal.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposed housing mix, in terms of tenure, type and size, does not address the identified housing needs of the local area. The application has failed to demonstrate how the affordable housing mix would be retained and managed as affordable housing in the future, or how it is affordable those requiring housing in the current market. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy policy SC4, the Council’s Meeting Housing Needs SPD and Paragraph 50 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The development scheme proposes the loss of a significant number of protected trees, though insufficient information has been submitted to make a comprehensive assessment in this regard . The loss of these protected trees has not been adequately evidenced and justified and therefore the proposal is contrary to saved Local Plan policies E13 and Core Strategy policies SC1 and E1.

3. The proposed access has been considered by the Highway Authority and is deemed as being inappropriate and likely to result in a compromise to public safety. This is contrary to saved Local Plan policies E4 and H19 and Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4. The design of the properties, including the proposed materials, does not reflect the local character of the rural village of Caton. This is contrary to saved Local Plan policies E3, E4 and H12, Core Strategy policies SC3, SC5 and E1 and Paragraphs 56, 58, 60 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

5. The application has failed to assess the impact of the proposal upon protected species, namely bats. Given the Phase 1 Habitat Survey highlights that the existing building, which is to be demolished, and a number of unidentified trees, which may be identified for removal or other tree works, have the potential to support bats, the risk of causing harm to this protected species is likely to be high. As Page 39 the impact has not been fully investigated and appropriate mitigation and compensation measures identified (if appropriate) the proposal is contrary to saved Local Plan policies E12, Core Strategy policy E1 and Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Human Rights Act

Background Papers

None.

Page 40 AgendaAgenda Item Item 10 Committee Date Application Number

A10 16 September 2013 13/00659/FUL

Application Site Proposal

Land off Brindle Close Erection of 6 two-bed houses and 12 one-bed flats Lancaster including internal road layout and associated parking Lancashire and landscaping

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Guinness Northern Counties Harrison Pitt Architects

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

11 October 2013 N/A

Case Officer Mr Andrew Drummond

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approval

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The 0.5 hectare site is located within the residential area known as Scale Hall Farm. The estate comprises houses and flats, predominantly owned and managed by the applicant. The site is situated on the eastern end of the site with the Listed building of Farmhouse Tavern to the north east, Derwent Court to the south east, open space to the south, and residential properties on Brindle Close to the west and on Whitendale to the north west. The residential properties adjacent to the site are 2 or 3 storey and finished in brick and/or off white render under grey slate roofs.

1.2 The site is currently undeveloped and set out as amenity space for local residents and visitors to utilities for informal recreational purposes. The space is surrounded on all sides by footpaths that serve the residential areas, with a link to the south onto the Greenway cyclepath that links Morecambe and Lancaster. Whilst the site is predominantly flat, it originally sloped from north to south so the northern end is banked. The site is not heavily planted, but there are a number of established species to the north, east and south boundaries.

1.3 The site is designated as Urban Greenspace in the Lancaster District Local Plan.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application seeks planning permission for 18 affordable homes – six 2-bed houses and twelve 1- bed flats. The properties have been designed so there is little to differentiate between the flats and the houses, especially for the front and side, though the former will line the eastern boundary and the latter the northern. They will appear as six pairs of semi-detached properties with the houses accommodating living space at ground level and bedrooms above, and the flat accommodation being set out all on one level with one flat per floor. The properties would be finished in red brick and render with a grey clay tile. The doors, window frames, rainwater goods, fascias and soffits would all be finished in a grey colour.

2.2 Access would be taken from the end of Brindle Close, with an existing drying area and parking court reconfigured to accommodate the new road. The 6 existing car parking spaces would be retained with 27 new spaces to be provided to serve the new homes. One space will be designated to each unit, with 9 additional bays for visitors, 3 of which will be mobility spaces. Page 41

2.3 To accommodate the proposed development, the site would be filled to re-create the original contours and a number of trees would be removed.

3.0 Site History

3.1 There are no recent planning applications that relate to this site or proposal.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory and non-statutory consultees:

Consultee Response County Highways No highway objection subject to conditions relating to access details, parking arrangements and wheel cleaning facilities during construction.

Environmental Environmental Health Officer does not object to the proposal subject to the 3 planning Health conditions relating to pile driving, dust control and hours of construction.

The Contaminated Land Officer originally objected to the proposal on the grounds that the desk study submitted was inadequate, but further information has been provided in this regard and the Officer is satisfied subject to the inclusion of the 4 standard contamination conditions.

United Utilities No objection to the proposal provided that the site is drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer. Surface water should discharge to the soakaway / SuDS / watercourse / surface water sewer.

Tree Officer The Tree Officer objects to the scheme as the applicant has not submitted a detailed Tree Protection Plan and the layout does not adequately consider the relationship of the 3 aforementioned trees within rear gardens of 3 new dwellings. (At the time of compiling this report a Tree Protection Plan has subsequently been submitted - a verbal update will be provided at Committee).

There are no protected trees affecting the site in question. There are a number of individual/groups of trees established within the site primarily confined to the outer aspects of the site, which make an important contribution to the visual appearance and amenity of the area and the wider locality. Generally the trees are in good overall condition, with significant decades of remaining life potential, and as such must be retained.

The Arboriculture Report identifies 25 existing trees - one is proposed for removal in order to accommodate the development of a new access, and another is proposed for removal because of its poor overall condition. There are 3 trees of good form and condition, with significant remaining useful life potential. However, the current proposals position each tree within the private garden space of three new dwellings generating an unacceptable level of future pressure on each of these trees, and the design of the proposal should be altered. New tree planting is indicated within the scheme and its provision and maintenance can be controlled via planning condition.

Conservation This application site is to the rear of the Farmhouse Tavern (Scale Hall), a stone built Officer Grade II Listed building which has a large car park fronting Morecambe Road. The principal setting of the Listed building is to the front elevation viewed across the car park. The building over the years has had a number of additions to the front elevation. The rear view is interrupted with existing vegetation. The Listed 2 storey plus attic building is set back close to the rear boundary with the long single storey building forming the boundary to the application site. With the gable visible around 2.5m above the extensive expanse of the single storey roof it is not considered that it would dominate and therefore would not cause a significant impact on the setting of the heritage asset. Visible at an angle behind the Listed building would also be a Page 42 glimpse along the roof slope of the other adjacent new block, but again it would not cause a significant impact on the setting of the heritage asset.

Strategic Housing Fully supportive of the proposal – there is a significant need for this 18-dwelling Officer affordable housing scheme. The site is within the ownership/control of Guinness Northern Counties Housing Association. Due to the recent welfare reforms (bedroom tax), Registered Providers have been forced to consider the need for more one- bedroom. In Lancaster District, over 700 social housing tenants have seen a decrease in their housing benefit allowance which is compounding the demand for smaller units of accommodation. There is Homes and Community Agency (HCA) grant in place for the whole development subject to Guinness achieving a start on site by December 2013. Guinness have also chosen a design that will allow the one bedroom flats to convert to three bedroom houses should demand change over time. All units will be provided on affordable rent and will fully comply with the HCA's design and quality standards.

Public Realm Officer Objects to the application as it seeks to provide additional housing in an area with an identified lack of children’s play equipment without addressing this deficiency.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 Two pieces of correspondence has been received objecting to the application on the grounds of overlooking, loss of privacy and daylight, loss of public open space, increased traffic during construction phase and occupation, increased pressure of parking spaces, and the unsuitability of the site (despite the need for more affordable housing). One of the objectors made it clear that they did not wish to see any new play facilities.

One piece of correspondence has been received supporting the scheme, stating that the housing is much needed and the scheme will improve the area.

6.0 Principal National and Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Paragraph 49 (housing) - housing application should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Paragraphs 56, 58 and 60 require good design. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Developments should function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just in the short term, but over the lifetime of the development. Good design should seek to promote or Page 43 reinforce local distinctiveness without stifling innovation or originality.

6.2 Development Plan Weighting

6.3 Lancaster District Core Strategy (adopted July 2008)

Policy SC2 (Urban Concentration) - 90% of new dwellings and 95% of new employment floorspace to be provided in the urban areas of Lancaster, Morecambe, Heysham and Carnforth.

Policy SC8 (Recreation and Open Space) - new residential development will make appropriate provision for formal and informal sports provision in line with needs identified in the Open Space and Recreation Study.

Policy E2 (Transportation Measures) - this policy seeks to reduce the need to travel by car whilst improving walking and cycling networks and providing better public transport services.

6.4 Lancaster District Local Plan – saved policies (adopted April 2004)

Policy H12 (Layout, Design and Use of Materials) - new housing developments will only be permitted which exhibit a high quality of design and local distinctiveness.

Policy E29 (Urban Greenspace) - such space will be protected from development. Exceptionally essential education or community related development or limited expansion of existing uses will be permitted.

Page 44 6.5 Emerging Local Plan Policies (draft Development Management DPD - Autumn/Winter 2012)

The Council is advancing the stages of its emerging Local Plan and has now completed the first Preferred Options consultation on the Development Management DPD. Whilst in the early stages of the plan process, policies in the emerging Local Plan are a material consideration. However, the degree of weight that can be afforded to these policies varies depending on stage of preparation of the emerging plan, the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies and the degree of consistency with the Framework (paragraph 216 of the NPPF). Increasing weight can therefore be afforded to the following draft policies that received no significant objections and are relevant to this application:

6.6 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)

Early findings of this research in the form of a Strategic Housing Marketing Assessment (SHMA) reveal that despite the recession the local economy in Lancaster district has not suffered as many jo b losses as earlier predicted and is showing signs of a healthy and potentially sustained recovery. It also confirms that there is a growing problem in the district related to the retention of graduates, resulting in a below average number of young working adults. As the local population ages this gap in the workforce will become more pronounced.

Page 45 7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The key issues to consider are:

1. The principle of an affordable housing scheme on this site 2. Provision of recreational facilities 3. Design and sustainable construction 4. Protection of existing trees 5. Access and parking 6. Heritage impact 7. Residential amenity

7.2 The principle of an Affordable Housing Scheme

There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This site is situated in a sustainable location, within a few minutes walk of a convenience store, bus stops on the A589 and a designated cycle path, as well as being well situated for schools, supermarkets and a sports centre. Furthermore, the proposal is for 18 new social rented residential units. There is a great need for additional housing in Lancaster District, especially affordable in tenure. If approved, this is a deliverable scheme that the applicant is seeking to commence later this year thereby assisting with housing completions in the short term. The principle is therefore very much supported.

7.3 Provision of Recreational Facilities

The site, however, is an area of open amenity space (designated as Urban Greenspace in the Lancaster District Local Plan). It provides an informal recreational function. Furthermore, whilst there is an adequate amount of open space of its type, no open space should be developed unless it can be established that all open space types are adequately provided for in an area. On Scale Hall Farm, which is well contained due to the presence of the River Lune, A683 and A589, there are no children’s equipped play areas. Previously there was a small provision close to this site, but it was poorly utilised. There could be many reasons for this (for example, lack of natural surveillance, poor maintenance, lack of pieces of equipment, facility was aimed at the wrong age group), but ultimately in policy terms, the lack of provision should be addressed as part of this application.

During pre-application discussions, this issue was raised and the applicant agreed to undertake a residents' survey to ascertain their opinions. The turnout to a consultation event was very poor and questionnaire returns were equally disappointing, to a point that the results are inconclusive and statistically unreliable. The responses that the applicant did receive showed that either people did not demand such a facility or if one were to be provided they did not want it anywhere near their property. Regardless of the questionnaire, the Public Realm Officer objects to the application on the basis that a children’s equipped play area is not provided.

This objection is noted as is the policy basis for it. However, the development does not absorb all the open space in the vicinity. Both a meadow area of semi-natural space and a flat grassed area (available for informal recreational use) will be retained. It is also recognised that there are existing play areas in Ryelands Park and on Lune Drive (though they can only be accessed by crossing busy main roads and are beyond a 10 minute walking time from the application site). On balance, Officers have taken the view that whilst the issue of open space does not meet precise policy requirements (though Policy E29 does allow for expansion of existing uses as long as it does not spoil the open character of the area), the proposal is not so divorced from the principles of its provision that it could sustain a reason for refusal, especially given that the proposal is for the delivery of affordable housing in a sustainable location. Therefore whilst not ideal, the proposal is still deemed to be acceptable.

7.4 Design and Sustainable Construction

The properties as described in Section 2 are well designed. The flat buildings replicate the houses with very little elevational difference. The palate of materials proposed predominantly reflects those utilised on the residential properties within the immediate area. The properties are designed to meet the standards of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3, and will seek to insulate the properties to a high standard to reduce energy needs.

Page 46 Further to the receipt of amended plans, both the ground and first floor flats meet the internal space adopted standards set by Appendix 2 of the Lancaster District Local Plan.

7.5 Protection of Existing Trees

A number of trees are proposed to be lost as part of this proposal. Initially the applicant proposed to lose just one tree to accommodate the new access. However, 3 maturing trees were situated in garden spaces of the houses, effectively blocking out light to the properties and their associated private amenity spaces. Furthermore, given their proximity to the properties and their age, the trees could have damaged the properties as they continued to grow and the construction of the properties may damage the health of the trees. Either way, damage to property, person or tree would have probably occurred. The Tree Officer requested that the 3 trees were retained given their health and amenity value and the layout reconfigured accordingly. Unfortunately this was not possible, and the trees are proposed to be lost with replacement planting provided within the body of the site and to its boundaries. A Tree Protection Plan has now been provided to show that the other trees can be retained, and protected throughout the construction phase. The Plan is with the Tree Officer for comment and a verbal update will be provided to Members at Committee in this regard. The loss of established trees is regrettable, but ultimately their loss facilitates the delivery of much needed affordable housing.

7.6 Access and Parking

Access is to be provided from Brindle Close. Whilst the proposed road will require the reconfiguration of an existing parking and drying area, both can be adequately re-provided without inconveniencing the existing users of those areas after the completion of the works. The road would serve the new properties and their associated parking (a total of 18 new parking spaces) whilst allowing emergency/refuse vehicles adequate turning space. County Highways request that there is a feature on the ground to define the private parking bays to the adopted access road. Therefore surface materials, access details and car parking arrangements are all recommended conditions.

7.7 Impact on Heritage Assets

The Farmhouse Tavern is a Listed building and therefore its setting must be considered as part of this application. Its traditional stone and slate construction is attractive, but not replicated in any of the development in its vicinity. The property is accessed from the A589 alongside an Aldi foodstore and a restaurant and their associated car parking areas. To the rear the property faces onto the applica tion site and the surrounding residential properties within the eastern part of Scale Hall Farm. Its context is therefore mixed and suburban. Though the proposed development encroaches on its immediate setting to the rear, the proposal is of an adequate scale not to dominant (very little of the roof of the new build will be visible over the Listed building when viewed from the A589 as confirmed by the Conservation Officer's assessment) and is set far enough back to create a degree of separation that is required to preserve the Listed building’s setting. It would be appropriate to protect its setting by removing permitted development rights for alterations to the roofs.

7.8 Residential Amenity

The site has been laid out with the amenity of the existing residents in mind. Separation distances between windows serving habitable rooms of the proposed and existing residential properties exceed the Council’s adopted standard of 21m and where windows serving habitable rooms face gable ends of properties the adopted standard of 12m is met or exceeded. The gardens serving the houses exceed the standards set out in the Council’s Residential Design Code SPG both in terms of length and area. The gardens serving the flats are to be shared between ground and first floor occupiers. There are no adopted standards for private amenity spaces for new flats, but at 56 sq.m they will adequately provide the occupants with an outdoor space for their shared ‘private’ use.

7.9 Other Matters

The site is currently undeveloped with a grass covering. Given this permeable surface will be built upon to create properties, roads, footpaths and parking bays, it is important that surface water is carefully considered and managed to ensure that localised flooding does not occur. It will need to be managed separately from waste water, which will connect into the existing mains foul drainage on Brindle Close. Page 47

The Contaminated Land Officer originally objected to the application based on the inadequacy of the submitted Desk Study. However, further information was subsequently provided by the applicant and the Officer has removed their objection subject to the inclusion of the 4 standard land contamination conditions.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 The application proposes 100% affordable housing across the site and as such it is considered that a suitably worded planning condition will suffice to secure its delivery. Therefore there are no planning obligations to consider as part of this application.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 To determine this application Members primarily need to weigh up the delivery of much needed affordable housing against the loss of some established trees and the loss of urban green space. Whilst some additional tree planting can be achieved within the site, the applicant does not propose to compensate for the loss of the latter for the reasons set out above. It is Officers’ view that in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF the need to provide new affordable housing in a sustainable location takes precedent over the other two issues, and as such the application is recommended for approval.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard 3 year timescale 2. Development in accordance with approved plans – list plans 3. Affordable housing scheme 4. Materials – elevations, surfaces and boundary treatments 5. Access arrangements 6. Car parking - details required 7. Cycle and refuse storage 8. Landscaping scheme and maintenance 9. Tree protection measures 10. Separate drainage system 11. Surface water management scheme 12. At least Code level 3 13. At least 25% improvement over and above the requirements of Part L of the Building Regulations at the time of construction 14. Hours of construction – 0800-1800 Mon to Fri and 0800-1400 Sat 15. Pile driving 16. Dust control 17. Wheel cleaning facilities during construction 18. External lighting 19. Standard land contamination condition 20. Importation of soil, materials and hardcore 21. Prevention of new contamination 22. Bunding of tanks 23. PD rights removed - Part 1

Human Rights Act

Background Papers

None.

Page 48 AgendaAgenda Item Item 11 Committee Date Application Number

A11 16 th September 2013 13/00586/CU

Application Site Proposal

New Inn Change of use and conversion of vacant public house (Class A4) to 3 residential units (Class C3) and Hornby Road installation of balcony and stairs to rear of existing attached cottage Wray

Lancaster

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Mr Richard Skelton The Wright Design Partnership

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

29 July 2013 Committee Cycle

Case Officer Mrs Petra Williams

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Refusal

(i) Procedural Matters

This application has been referred to the Planning Committee by Councillor Joan Jackson following concerns raised by the local Parish Council.

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The site is located on the south side of Hornby Road at the western entrance to the village of Wray . It comprises a stone under slate public house (New Inn) which fronts the inside of the bend and is set behind a shallow open forecourt. The building, which was refurbished in 2007, is two storey and includes living accommodation at first floor part of which has historically been used as a dining room in association with the pub. There are a number of relatively modern extensions and structures to the rear of the building. At the western end of the building there is an attached cottage which is in the same ownership. It is understood that the cottage was formally the stable building associated with the New Inn although it’s occupation is not actually tied to the use of the public house. To the front of the building there is an open area of hardstanding which abuts the highway and to the northern side of the cottage there is a small seating area associated with the public house.

1.2 To the west lie three residential properties set back and elevated above the road. To the east lies a single substantial detached house with Wray Methodist Church and Friends Meeting House beyond. To the rear (south) lies an elevated garden area with open fields down. Opposite the site, on the north side of Hornby Road lays the associated pub car park (approximately18 spaces) which is surrounded by residential of various ages and forms including a converted barn which fronts Hornby Road and Kiln Lane.

1.3 The character and form of the site and its surroundings are those of a typical rural village with residential uses dominating. The village also boasts a popular café/tea-room, a village store and post office and a different public house (George and Dragon). Hornby Road is part of the B4680 which in the direct route from points west of Hornby through Bentham to joining the A65 at Clapham Page 49 and then south east to Skipton and beyond. It is therefore quite heavily trafficked.

1.4 The public house building is Grade II listed and is set within the Wray Conservation Area. It also lies within the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application proposes to convert the public house to form 3 separate open-market dwellings and associated garden areas as well as works of improvement to the existing attached cottage. Designated parking areas for the residential units are proposed within part of the existing car park on the northern side of Hornby Road. The 3 residential units would comprise the following:

• Unit 1 – Two bed unit comprising and open plan living/kitchen at ground floor; a bedroom, en- suite and utility room at lower ground floor and a bedroom and en-suite at first floor.

• Unit 2 – Three bed unit comprising a lounge, kitchen, dining room, utility/toilet facility at ground floor and 3 bedrooms with one en-suite and bathroom at first floor.

• Unit 3 – Three bed unit comprising a lounge, kitchen/diner, utility/toilet facility at ground floor and 3 bedrooms with one en-suite and bathroom at first floor.

The submitted plans also propose the creation of a balcony to the rear of the existing 2 bed cottage.

3.0 Site History

3.1 There is an extensive planning history associated with the New Inn including 2 other pending applications (13/00610/LB and 13/00585/OUT). Particularly relevant is a similar proposal to the current scheme which was refused and upheld at appeal (98/00708/CU).

3.2 Whilst the appeal decision is some considerable time ago and the policy position and economic climate has evolved, it is still appropriate to record the findings of the Inspector for the purposes of completeness of this committee report. The Inspector, in determining three appeals (Appeal A for the conversion of the New Inn to 2 dwellings and alteration of the access; Appeal B for outline consent for one dwelling with a garage and creation of car parking on land opposite; and Appeal C for conversion of a barn to form a dwelling with a garage extension), dismissed all of the appeals.

3.3 In particular the Inspector concluded that there was no fundamental physical obstacle to the resumption of the use of the premises as a public house; no account of the possibility of providing further en-suite accommodation in the western wing of the Inn; the requirements of Local Plan Policy (in reference to marketing and advertising exercise) had not been met and consequently it was not adequately demonstrated that the Inn was unsuitable for further employment or tourism use, or was no longer viable as a public house.

Application Number Proposal Decision 13/00610/LB Listed Building application for works to New Inn and Pending attached cottage to facilitate the conversion of the public house to 3 residential units, including demolition of flat roof extension, replacement windows and doors, installation of roof lights, erection of stone wall and porch canopy and creation of balcony to cottage.

13/00585/OUT Outline application for the erection of 2 semi-detached Pending dwellings with associated amenities

07/01124/LB Listed Building application for extension to kitchen, Permitted provision of external stair and landing and internal alterations at first floor level

07/01058/CU Change of use at first floor to provide dining rooms with Permitted guest/staff bedrooms and erection of a single storey Page 50 extension to kitchen

06/01294/LB Listed Building Consent for internal alterations Permitted

00/00330/LB Listed Building Application for alterations to change former Permitted window in east gable to a fire door

00/00381/FUL Alterations to change former window in east gable to a fire Permitted door

98/00708/CU Change of use and conversion of former public house to Refusal upheld at form two dwellings and alterations to existing access Appeal

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response Planning Policy Objection on the grounds that the marketing exercise has been inadequate

Planning Policy The Affordable Housing Statement is satisfactory and provides the required - Housing information including a correctly calculated financial contribution to affordable housing

County Archaeology No objection subject to a condition regarding building recording and analysis

Conservation No objection to the principle of the change of use subject to receipt of amended plans showing removal of proposed porch canopy to eastern elevation and conditions relating to windows, doors and gateposts

County Highways No objection subject to conditions

Tree Protection No objection subject to conditions Officer Natural England No objection

Environmental No objection subject to condition relating to hours of construction Health Parish Council The Parish Council have emailed on 23 July indicating that they will be submitting a letter of objection. Reasons for the objection were not listed in this email. The local planning authority was advised that the formal objection would be submitted by the Parish Council by 14 August. At the time of compiling this report, a fortnight later than the date provided, no formal letter of objection had been received.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 At the time of compiling this report, 17 letters have been received from local residents. Of these, 12 have raised objections on the following grounds:

• There are increasing visitors to the village – Bridge House Tea rooms shows what can be achieved; • The asking price for the property is unrealistic and double what the business is worth; • An operation could be sustained here with appropriate management; • If lost other commercial operations or community uses should be considered; • The property has already been stripped of fixtures and fittings (thus being less marketable as a going concern); • Loss of a potential employment site and community facility; • The village is in need of employment opportunities for young people; Page 51 • The pub and restaurant is missed within the village; • There is a demand for a pub/restaurant establishment within the Lune Valley; • Housing would cause additional parking and highway concerns; • Proposal should be to increase car parking here (viability of business and visitor parking);

One of the letters of objection is from the former owners of the New Inn, who comment that:

“…the business supported myself, my wife and my Mother and Father in law for the 6 years we were there and we only sold the business due to ill health. I believe that the current asking price is too high therefore pricing itself out of the market”.

The remaining letters do not oppose the proposal in principle, but a number of comments are made, including:

• Querying the proposed fenestration and balcony; • The impact of closing-off the forecourt from public access (and its subsequent impacts upon the bus stop); • There is an excess of residential property for sale in the village already; • If the proposal is permitted the scheme should offer affordable housing for local people; • Similar scheme previously refused; • The Grade II listed building cannot be regarded as a building of architectural merit • Conversion of the New Inn to terraced housing seems a sensible proposal; • Potential for overlooking from the upper floors; • Traffic calming measures outside the building should be considered if residential use is permitted; • The proposal is an opportunity to improve the landscaping at the rear of the property;

6.0 Principal National and Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Framework

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development . The following paragraphs of the NPPF are relevant to the determination of this proposal:

Paragraph 17 (Core Principles) sets out 12 core land-use planning principles which should underpin both plan-making and decision taking. The main ones relevant to this application state that planning should: be genuinely plan led; always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings; take account of the different roles and character of different areas, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving communities within it; encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed; and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities to meet local needs.

Paragraph 28 seeks to support a prosperous rural economy through the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages including public houses.

Paragraph 55 sets out that, to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Local planning authorities should avoid isolated new homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances.

Paragraph 70 sets out that planning policies and decisions should plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments; guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day to day need; ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to modernise and develop in a way that is sustainable; and ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services.

Paragraph 115 sets out that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.

6.2 Development Plan Weighting

Paragraphs 214 and 215 of the NPPF provide advice on the weight that can be attributed to existing policies within the authority’s Development Plan. Paragraph 214 states that “For 12 months from the day of publication (of the NPPF, which was published on 27 March 2012), decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework” . Paragraph 215 continues by stating that, “In other cases and following this 12-month period, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing (Development) Plans according to their degree of consistency with this Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)” . In the Lancaster District, the Development Plan consists of the Lancaster District Core Strategy and the Saved Policies of the Lancaster District Local Plan. Relevant policies of each document are referred to over the following pages.

6.3 Lancaster District Core Strategy

Policy SC1 (Sustainable Development) seeks to ensure that new development proposals are sustainable in terms of both location and design. This policy, albeit a generic overriding policy, states that sites should be previously developed and accessible to public transport, employment, leisure, education and community facilities.

Policy SC3 (Rural Communities) seeks to build healthy sustainable communities by empowering rural communities to develop local vision, identity local needs and manage change in the rural economy and landscape. Development should protect, conserve and enhance rural landscapes and the distinctive characteristics of rural settlements. It also advises that development proposals should be resisted where essential rural facilities may be lost. The Policy lists 8 key villages that benefit from five basic services (a public house is not one of these identified services) and that should be the focus of new housing development outside the main urban areas. Wray is one of those villages.

Policy SC5 (Achieving Quality in Design) requires new development to be of a quality which reflects and enhances the positive characters of its surroundings, including the quality of the landscape, results in an improved appearance where conditions are unsatisfactory and complements and enhances public realm. The Council recognises the importance of environmental quality, both townscapes and natural landscapes, and seeks to work with developers to maintain and improve the quality of new development, particularly in Conservation Areas, the City Centre, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the rural areas.

Policy E1 (Environmental Capital) aims to improve the District’s environment seeking to safeguard and enhance the District’s environmental capital by: • directing development to locations, where previously developed land can be recycled and reused, dereliction cleared and contamination remediated; • protecting and enhancing nature conservation sites and landscapes of national importance, listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeological sites; • resist development which would have a detrimental effect on environmental quality and properly manage environmental risks such as flooding; • making places more pleasant and liveable with safer, cleaner, more legible and more attractive streets and spaces; • protect and where possible enhance habitats and the diversity of wildlife species, and Page 53 conserve and enhance landscape.

6.4 Saved Policies of the Lancaster District Local Plan

Policy H7 Housing in Rural Settlements (partly superseded by Core Strategy) - sets out that the development small sites for housing will be permitted providing that the development: is appropriate in terms of design, density, and open space standards; would not have a significant adverse effect on the character of the settlement, surrounding landscape, or the amenities of neighbouring residents; would not result in a loss of important space; makes satisfactory arrangements for access, servicing, cycle and car parking; and makes adequate provision for the disposal of sewage and waste water.

Policy H12 Layout Design and the Use of Materials - states that proposals for new housing development will only permitted which exhibit a high standard of design, layout and landscaping which use materials and features which are appropriate to and retain the distinctive local identity of their surroundings.

Policy H19 Development on Small Sites in Lancaster, Morecambe, Heysham and Carnforth - sets out that new residential development will only be permitted which would not result in the loss of important open space, would not have a significant adverse affect on the amenities of nearby residents, provides a high standard of amenity and makes satisfactory arrangements for access and car parking.

Policy S21 The Loss of Rural Food and Drink Outlets - acknowledges the important role that such establishments play in rural villages acting as a focus for the local community, local employer and often a visitor attraction. The policy seeks evidence that a business is not viable and that reasonable measures have been taken to market the property as a going concern over a period of at least 12 months and that no reasonable offers have been refused.

Policy E3 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty - outlines their primary objective as being to conserve the natural beauty of the landscape. The local planning authority intends to do this by resisting inappropriate development and insisting on high design standards for proposals which are approved. Development which would either directly or indirectly have a significant adverse effect upon their character or harm the landscape quality will not be permitted. Development must also be of an appropriate scale.

Policy E4 Countryside Area Within the countryside, development will only be permitted where it is in scale and keeping with the character and natural beauty of the landscape; is appropriate to its surroundings in terms of siting, scale, design, materials, external appearance and landscaping; would not result in a significant adverse effect on nature conservation or geological interests; and makes satisfactory arrangements for access, servicing, cycle and car parking.

Policy E33 Alterations and Extensions - seeks to ensure that any alterations involving internal or external alterations to a listed building would not have an adverse effect upon the character or setting of the listed building.

Policy E34 New Uses for Listed Buildings - states that appropriate new uses for Listed Buildings may be permitted if the building is deemed to be at risk and the proposals will both secure its future and retain its historical and architectural integrity.

Policy E36 Change of Use within Conservation Areas – states that planning permission to change the use of a building which makes a positive contribution to a conservation area will not be granted if the change of use will fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of that area.

Policy E39 Alterations and extensions within Conservation Areas – The alterations of buildings within conservation areas will be permitted where the proposal will not result in the loss or alteration of features which contribute to the special character of the building and area.

6.5 Emerging Local Plan Policies (Draft Development Management DPD)

The Council continues to advance its Development Management DPD, which has progressed through consultation and is an increasing material consideration. The degree of weight that can be Page 54 afforded to these policies varies depending on stage of preparation of the emerging plan, the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies and the degree of consistency with the Framework (paragraph 216 of the NPPF). Increasing weight can therefore be afforded to the following draft policies that received no significant objections and are relevant to this application:

CSC2.1 Protection of Local Services – supports the retention of local services within communities where they retain a value to the community they serve and are economically viable. Proposals that involve the loss of a use which currently – or has previously – provided a local service to the community will have to demonstrate and assess:

(i) Through a robust and transparent marketing exercise it has been demonstrated that the retention of the existing use is no longer economically viable or feasible (including advertising for at least one year, evidencing that the facilities have been advertised on at least 4 separate occasions at realistic prices and a log of all enquiries received; and,

(ii) That in relation to key service provision, that alternative appropriate provision exists within the locality and can be accessed by a range of transport, including public transport; and,

(iii) That it has been demonstrated that the current/previous use no longer retains a social value for the local community.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The main issues to be considered in the determination of this application are:

• Principle of development in land use terms • Loss of rural food and drink outlet • Scale, layout and design of the development • Impact on residential amenity of neighbouring properties • Access and highway impacts • Impact on trees • Affordable housing contribution

7.2 Principle of Development

Wray is identified under Policy SC3 of the Core Strategy as being one of the key villages where new residential development should be directed. Furthermore the general site location within the village of Wray is considered to be an acceptable and sustainable location for residential development. Saved Policy H7 of the Local Plan sets out that development of suitable small sites will be permitted, provided that the proposal is appropriate in terms of design, density, open space standards to its surroundings; would not have a significant adverse effect on the character of the settlement, surrounding landscape or amenities of nearby residents. This site is convenient to walk, cycle and travel by public transport between the site and workplaces, shops, schools, health centres, recreation, leisure and community facilities. The principle of residential development on suitable sites within this area is generally accepted and also encouraged.

7.3 Whilst the location of residential development within the established confines of the settlement is broadly acceptable in land use terms (subject to specific detail regarding design and heritage matters), the principle of development cannot be fully assessed until the proposal is weighed against Paragraphs 28 and 70 of the NPPF and relevant Development Plan Policy concerning the loss of rural services/facilities.

7.4 Loss of rural food and drink outlets

Section 6 of this report lists the various Development Plan and emerging Development Plan policies that are applicable in terms of loss of a rural facility. Saved Policy S21 of the Lancaster District Local Page 55 Plan acknowledges the important role that village public houses make in the community and seeks to ensure that any loss of such facilities is not enabled without evidence that a business is not viable. The policy seeks evidence that reasonable measures have been taken to market the property as a going concern over a period of at least 12 months and that no reasonable offers have been refused.

7.5 Policy CSC2.1 of the Development Management DPD takes a similar approach, but is a more up-to- date policy that places additional emphasis on the nature of any marketing exercise, and places an equal importance upon the community value that is attributed to the local service/facility in question. The DPD has progressed through initial consultation and is due for publication in the forthcoming weeks. As NPPF Annex 1 indicates, the less significant the unresolved objections to policies in emerging plans, the greater weight may be attributed to that policy.

7.6 At a more strategic level, Core Strategy Policy SC3 emphasises the importance of essential rural facilities and places an emphasis on trying to encourage local involvement in service provision, and advises against development proposals that would result in their loss.

7.7 The applicant states that the business was no longer viable and was running at a loss, with the profit and loss accounts for the year-end 31st December 2009 showing a loss of approximately £28,000, a loss of approximately £24,000 in 2010 and a slight profit in 2011 of £2,570. The application states that the New Inn closed in October 2012 with this closure being blamed on the economic downturn and an assumption that Wray and its environs could not sustain two public houses. It is however noted that the applicant’s investment in the property (in terms of purchase and refurbishment) is described in the Design and Access Statement as being “successful at first”, which appears to indicate that there is potential for this facility, subject to economic conditions. The applicants diversified towards the restaurant side of the operation, but this was described as struggling in 2009.

7.8 During a pre-application meeting in February 2013 the local planning authority stressed the importance of the submission of marketing evidence for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. Development Management DPD Policy CSC2.1 requires advertising for at least that period, evidencing that the facilitites have been advertised on at least 4 separate occasions.

7.9 The public house was initially marketed through a leisure property specialist (Fleurets) with an asking price of £550,000 from the beginning of March 2012 to October 2012. The property was marketed on Fleurets website and in their in-house magazine “On Market”. During this period 57 people specifically requested property details and mailshots were sent to 6149 parties. Due to lack of interest the property was taken off the market in October 2012. The applicant’s agent confirms that the facility was shut and had been cleared out during their survey of November 2012, although the advertisement on the Fleurets website indicated a closure date of February 2013.

7.10 The property was then marketed in March 2013 at a slightly reduced price of £495,000. During the latest marketing period (upto 18 July 2013), 45 people had requested the details or downloaded the information, whilst mailshots have been sent to 6209 people. The applicant states that property has also been advertised in the Caterer & Hotel Keeper on 10th May 2013. A sale board has also been erected. The agents have indicated that they have spoken to 3 “specific people” but that there was no interest in this property as a pub or restaurant.

7.11 Recently the sales particulars have changed. The local planning authority was concerned that the property was being displayed for sale as being in Cumbria (and consequently may be overlooked by those who wished to purchase commercial property within Lancashire). A check on the Fleurets website in August 2013 reveals that this error has been recently corrected. This check also revealed that the asking price had decreased to £445,000 (circa 20 August 2013). The sales particulars list it as a “closed restaurant” of “circa 48 covers on the ground floor and 38 on the first floor” with a “series of separate trading areas…3 letting rooms…car park”.

7.12 It is considered that the information supplied thus far would suggest that a robust and transparent marketing exercise has not taken place to test the ongoing viability of the business. For example, at the time of compiling this committee report, no log of enquiries (detailing who they were from, when they were made, what their interest was – i.e. commercial, residential, etc – and their reasons for not pursuing interest in the property) had been submitted as part of the supporting evidence. If there is a log of enquiries – i.e. on the estate agents database, then this has not been submitted with the planning application.

Page 56 7.13 A notable period of the applicant’s marketing exercise took place when the property was advertised in excess of half a million pounds. In the national and regional climate, this figure was considered to be unobtainable and unrealistic. One resident has compared this figure to that of the Fenwick Arms, which was advertised at a considerably lesser figure. It is also of considerable interest that a former owner of the Inn has confirmed that the business was able to sustain itself and support his wider family for 6 years until the business was sold due to their ill health. They are also of the opinion that the property has been marketed at too high a price. There is no record of how many queries or indications of commercial interest were received whilst the asking price for the property was fixed at £550,000.

7.14 No evidence has been submitted indicating other methods of marketing, most notably advertising in the local press.

7.15 Additionally it is not known – from the applicant’s supporting documentation – whether the potential to supplement the pub/restaurant facility with ancillary commercial activities has been explored. The only other public house in the village by contrast has little, if any, of this potential due to its size and its orientation in relation to the remainder of the village and other buildings. In these circumstances therefore, it appears reasonable for the local planning authority to require the applicant to actively market the premises as a public house/restaurant "with potential" in order to prove conclusively that there is no realistic prospect for the continuation of this facility.

7.16 It is accepted that the New Inn is not the only pub within the village. However it is the only one with any private car parking facilities and it is ideally located on the main road to catch vital passing trade. Policy CSC2.1 makes the distinction that the existence of alternative appropriate provision (of a local service) is not justification alone for permitting the loss of a local service. If the marketing exercise is not robust and transparent, and if the facility retains a social value for the community, then the proposal should be resisted.

7.17 The issue of ‘community value’ is one that has not yet been adequately demonstrated – either by the local community or indeed by the applicant. Whilst 12 letters citing opposition have been received, this is set against the fact that 18 individual properties were consulted by notification letter (in addition to the display of a site notice and advertisement in the local press). However it is for the applicant to demonstrate, in accordance with Policy CSC2.1, that the current/ previous use no longer retains a social value for the community.

7.18 The views of the Parish Council are awaited with interest, and it is a source of regret that they have still not been received in time for inclusion in this report. However they have indicated that they will be objecting, and have commented that “this is not one of many applications for us; it is the only one” , and that this is “the only contested planning issue…in Wray…for quite a number of years”. This appears to indicate an emotive response on behalf of the local community will be presented, although the precise details can now only be reported verbally to the Committee.

7.19 However, even with the current absence of particular detail or justification for the objection from the Parish Cou ncil, the proposal fails to satisfy the marketing tests for the reasons stated in this report. Consequently, the application has failed to adequately demonstrate that the premises are no longer economically viable or feasible, nor has the applicant yet demonstrated that the pub/restaurant has no value for the local community. For this reason, irrespective of any matters of detail, the application fails to accord with Development Plan and emerging Development Plan Policy.

7.20 This approach is consistent with previous cases considered by the local planning authority. Members may recall Officers being involved in detailed discussions regarding the Castle Hotel at Hornby, which had ceased trading and had been boarded up. Officers considered that there was a continuing demand for a commercial facility at the Castle Hotel. In addition, the Parish Council considered that the loss of that “valuable asset” – even where there were other pub-related operations within Hornby – would have had a negative impact on the socio-economic wellbeing of the Parish. Subsequently a planning application was submitted and approved for a mixed-use proposal that retained the pub/restaurant use, alongside the conversion of part of the building to residential units and to some letting-rooms (the Committee Report had noted a lack of overnight visitor accommodation in the wider Lune Valley). This appears to have been successful, with the Castle continuing to trade alongside its mix of ancillary uses; in fact a separate planning application was submitted which proposed an increase in the area given over to the pub/hotel element. That application was approved in August 2011. Page 57

7.21 Scale, layout and design of the development

The scheme involves the removal of some unsightly modern flat roofed extensions to the rear of the property in addition to some minor fenestration alterations which would be a visual improvement. The changes to the external elevations to the public house and attached cottage include the replacement of windows and doors throughout as well as the creation of new window and door openings to the rear elevation and the addition of a porch canopy above an existing door within the eastern elevation. The physical nature of the internal and external works is broadly acceptable, subject to minor amendment. The Conservation Officer has suggested the removal of the porch canopy from the scheme, in an attempt to create an impression of a single residential dwelling. Further details of the existing and proposed gateposts would also be required. The agent has agreed to all these requests although at the time of compiling this report amended plans have not yet been received.

7.22 It is proposed to resurface the front forecourt with natural cobbles. This approach is sympathetic of the historic surroundings and the Listed nature of the property. The proposed timber balcony and external stairs to the rear of the existing cottage is also considered appropriate in physical and aesthetic terms, and would improve the rear access arrangements for the cottage occupants without adversely affecting neighbouring amenity. It is considered that the three units of accommodation would provide an acceptable standard of living accommodation with adequate associated garden space to the rear.

7.23 The subdivision of the public house to three units will follow natural structural lines, and the applicant advises that these would replicate historical divisions. The scheme also involves the removal of the existing staircase between the ground and first floor and the installation of new staircases to each of the three units. In terms of alteration to the historic fabric, it remains a considerable internal intervention, but one that has the potential to be accommodated without overriding detriment to the heritage asset.

7.24 Whilst the scheme is sensitive in terms of scale, design and layout, the subdivision of the property into three units remains opposed in principle, for the reasons referred to earlier in the report.

7.25 Impact on residential amenity of neighbouring properties

It is noted that public comments have highlighted overlooking as a matter of concern. However due to the separation distances involved in addition to intervening tree screening overlooking is not considered to be an issue in relation to this proposal. There are no other matters that directly or indirectly affect residential amenity.

7.26 Access and Highway Impacts

Associated vehicular parking for the 3 residential units would be created within part of the existing car park on the northern side of Hornby Road. This would comprise 6 parking bays, with the existing tarmac surface being retained and the parking area enclosed by stone walls. One vehicular parking space for the existing cottage would be created in the area currently used as an external seating area adjacent to its northern elevation.

7.27 It is acknowledged that a number of public comments highlight highway safety as a concern. However the car parking area would utilise an existing highway access and it is not anticipated that the proposal would result in intensification of use of this access. Furthermore County Highways have raised no concerns in terms of highway safety. They suggested that a demarcation between the area of hard-standing (to the front of the building) and Hornby Road should be introduced in order to provide definition of the private boundaries, and have suggested the installation of kerb treatment to remedy this. It is considered that demarcation would be provided by the resurfacing of the hardstanding with a cobbled finish which has been advocated by the Conservation Officer. These details could be addressed by condition to the satisfaction of the local planning authority, in liaison with County Highways.

7.28 Impact on trees

The site is within Wray Conservation Area, and as such trees are protected in law. There is a group Page 58 of large, mature trees established to the south-west of the public house. These trees are clearly visible from a public viewpoint and form a backdrop of greenery to the rear of the site and between the site and the neighbouring property to the west. It is therefore considered that this group of trees make an important contribution to the amenity of the site, neighbouring property and the wider locality and should be retained. However it is considered that the changes in site levels to the rear of the site would provide some natural protection for tree roots and that the development could be carried out with appropriate tree-protection conditions.

7.29 Affordable Housing

The proposal for change of use and conversion of the public house would result in a net increase of three dwellings which would trigger a financial contribution towards affordable housing. The applicant has indicated a willingness to provide a contribution in the event of planning permission being granted and has provided a projection for the value of the dwellings on the open market. The financial contribution is discussed below.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 In the event of the granting of approval a Unilateral Undertaking would be required for the financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing in the District. A financial contribution has been calculated and would result in a contribution of £12,020. The local planning authority can confirm that this figure is acceptable.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 It is concluded that architecturally and in terms of their impact upon the Conservation Area, neighbouring amenity, landscaping and highway safety the proposals are acceptable. The scheme also would deliver housing in a sustainable village location and would include satisfactory vehicular turning and parking facilities and adequate private amenity space to serve the proposed dwellings.

9.2 However the proposal would result in the loss of a rural local service. Such a loss would be premature unless the marketing undertaken by the applicant satisfies the tests within Development Plan and emerging Development Plan policies. At this particular juncture, it is contended that the pricing of the property during (at least) part of the marketing period was excessive; there is no data submitted detailing the log of enquiries received; the website advertisement was, for some considerable time, advertised as being in the wrong County; and there were no details submitted of any local marketing (e.g. in the local press).

9.3 The marketing details do not indicate whether a more flexible approach, such as incorporating a mixed use scheme which could potentially retain the pub/restaurant alongside other ancillary uses (as per the approach taken with the Castle Hotel at Hornby), has been investigated.

9.4 Additionally, the applicant has failed, as part of their application particulars, to satisfactorily indicate that the use of the premises as a pub/restaurant no longer retains a value for the local community.

9.5 For those reasons the proposal must currently be recommended for refusal.

Recommendation

Split Decision

That Planning Permission BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposal would result in the loss of a public house which has provided a social and economic facility within the village of Wray. As such it is incumbent on the applicant to demonstrate, through a robust and transparent marketing exercise, that the retention of the local service is no longer economically viable or feasible. The marketing exercise contains a number of deficiencies that fail to satisfy Development Management DPD Policy CSC2.1, Saved District Local Plan Policy S21, and the overarching Core Strategy Policy SC3. These deficiencies include the duration and period of marketing, the incorrect description of the location of the premises within the marketing details, the excessive sale price of the property during a considerable period of the marketing exercise, the absence of any detailed data regarding a log of enquiries, and no details of any other local Page 59 advertisement or marketing initiative. In addition the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the pub/restaurant operation can be accommodated alongside a mix of other uses aimed at improving the viability of the business. Without further exploration of these matters, the proposal remains contrary to the policies referred to.

2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate, in accordance with Development Management DPD Policy CSC2.1, that the use of the premises as a public house/restaurant no longer retains a social value for the local community. Without this clear demonstration, the local planning authority believes that the proposal is contrary to Policy CSC2.1 and the provisions of National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 28, which seeks to retain and develop local services and community facilitites such as public houses; and Paragraph 70, which requires planning decisions to plan positively to enhance the sustainability of local communities and guard against the unnecessary loss of valued services.

Human Rights Act

Background Papers

None.

Page 60 AgendaAgenda Item Item 12 Committee Date Application Number

A12 16 th September 2013 13/00610/LB

Application Site Proposal

New Inn Listed Building application for works to New Inn and attached cottage to facilitate the conversion of the Hornby Road public house to 3 residential units, including demolition of flat roof extensions, replacement Wray windows and doors, installation of roof lights, erection of stone wall and porch canopy and creation of Lancaster balcony and stairs to rear of existing cottage.

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Mr Richard Skelton The Wright Design Partnership

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

29 July 2013 Committee Cycle

Case Officer Mrs Petra Williams

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Refusal

(i) Procedural Matters

This application is the Listed Building submission which supports the planning application 13/00586/CU for works to convert the above premises. It has been placed on this Committee at the request of Councillor Jackson for the reasons referred to on 13/00586/CU.

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The site is located on the south side of Hornby Road at the western entrance to the village of Wray. It comprises a stone under slate public house (New Inn) which fronts the inside of the bend and is set behind a shallow open forecourt. The building, which was refurbished in 2007, is two storey and includes living accommodation at first floor part of which has historically been used as a dining room in association with the pub. There are a number of relatively modern extensions and structures to the rear of the building. At the western end of the building there is an attached cottage which is also in the ownership of the application. It is understood that the cottage was formally the stable building associated with the New Inn although it’s occupation is not actually tied to the use of the public house.

1.2 To the west lie three residential properties set back and elevated above the road. To the east lies a single substantial detached house with Wray Methodist Church and Friends Meeting House beyond. To the rear (south) lies an elevated garden area with open fields down. Opposite the site, on the north side of Hornby Road lies the associated pub car park (16 spaces) which is surrounded by residential of various ages and forms including a converted barn which fronts Hornby Road and Kiln Lane.

1.3 The character and form of the site and its surroundings are those of a typical rural village with residential uses dominating. The village also boasts a popular café/tea-room, a village store and post office and a second public house (George and Dragon). Hornby Road is part of the B4680 which in the direct route from points west of Hornby through Bentham to joining the A65 at Clapham Page 61 and then south east to Skipton and beyond. It is therefore quite heavily trafficked with a full range of private and commercial vehicles on both local and medium distance journeys.

1.4 The building is grade II listed and is within the Wray Conservation Area and lies within the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 A planning application (13/00586/CU) is currently before Members seeking planning permission to use this building use this building as residential accommodation (3 units). This application proposes alterations to the listed building to be carried out to facilitate the conversion of the public house as well as works of improvement and the creation of a balcony and external stairs to the rear of the existing 2 bed cottage.

3.0 Site History

3.1 There is an extensive planning history associated with the New Inn including 2 other pending applications (13/00586/CU and 13/00585/OUT).

Application Number Proposal Decision 13/00586/CU Change of use and conversion of vacant public house Pending (Class A4) to 3 residential units (Class C3) and installation of balcony to existing attached cottage 13/00585/OUT Outline application for the erection of 2 semi-detached Pending dwellings with associated amenities 07/01124/LB Listed Building application for extension to kitchen, Permitted provision of external stair and landing and internal alterations at first floor level 07/01058/CU Change of use at first floor to provide dining rooms with Permitted guest/staff bedrooms and erection of a single storey extension to kitchen 06/01294/LB Listed Building Consent for internal alterations Permitted 00/00330/LB Listed Building Application for alterations to change former Permitted window in east gable to a fire door 00/00381/FUL Alterations to change former window in east gable to a fire Permitted door 98/00708/CU Change of use and conversion of former public house to Refusal upheld at form two dwellings and alterations to existing access Appeal

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response Conservation Concerns regarding the possible deterioration of the building if left unoccupied and he Officer is supportive of the proposed alterations. No objections subject to receipt of amended plans showing removal of porch canopy to eastern elevation and the addition of conditions.

County Archaeology No objection subject to a condition for a programme of building recording and analysis.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 One letter has been received objecting to the proposal (quoting this Listed Building reference number, as opposed to the change of use planning application). Most of the points that are raised are matters that are more appropriately considered under the planning application, such as:

Page 62 • Detrimental to Character of the Area • Inappropriate Land Use or Development • Increase in Traffic • Means of Access • Parking Issues • Reduces Safety • Excessive asking price

These points refer to the change of use proposal being considered under application 13/00586/CU and are not directly relevant to the consideration of the Listed Building application.

6.0 Principal National and Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Framework

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development . The following paragraphs of the NPPF are relevant to the determination of this proposal:

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development . The paragraphs which are relevant to the scheme as a whole are referred to in the report for 12/00272/CU (also on this Committee agenda).

The paragraphs relevant to this Listed Building application are:

Paragraph 17 sets out 12 core land-use planning principles which should underpin both plan-making and decision taking. Of particular relevance to this scheme is the need to secure high quality design.

Paragraph 131 states that in determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

• The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; • The positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and • The desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

Paragraph 133 states that where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local authorities should refuse consent.

6.2 Development Plan Weighting

Paragraphs 214 and 215 of the NPPF provide advice on the weight that can be attributed to existing policies within the authority’s Development Plan. Paragraph 214 states that “For 12 months from the day of publication (of the NPPF, which was published on 27 March 2012), decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework” . Paragraph 215 continues by stating that, “In other cases and following this 12-month period, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing (Development) Plans according to their degree of consistency with this Framework (the closer the Page 63 policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)” . In the Lancaster District, the Development Plan consists of the Lancaster District Core Strategy and the Saved Policies of the Lancaster District Local Plan. Relevant policies of each document are referred to over the following pages.

6.3 Lancaster District Core Strategy

Policy E1 (Environmental Capital) aims to improve the District’s environment seeking to safeguard and enhance the District’s environmental capital (which includes listed buildings) by:

• directing development to locations, where previously developed land can be recycled and reused, dereliction cleared and contamination remediated; • protecting and enhancing nature conservation sites and landscapes of national importance, listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeological sites; • resist development which would have a detrimental effect on environmental quality and properly manage environmental risks such as flooding; • making places more pleasant and liveable with safer, cleaner, more legible and more attractive streets and spaces; • protect and where possible enhance habitats and the diversity of wildlife species, and conserve and enhance landscape.

6.4 Saved Policies of the Lancaster District Local Plan

Policy E33 Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings - seeks to ensure that any alterations involving internal or external alterations to a listed building would not have an adverse effect upon the character or setting of the listed building.

Policy E36 Change of Use – sets the criteria for proposals seeking to change the use of buildings within a Conservation Area (i.e. that development that fails to enhance or preserve the character of the Conservation Area will not be granted, unless the alterations are essential to the future wellbeing of the building; and any damaging operations are kept to an absolute minimum).

6.5 Emerging Local Plan Policies (draft Development Management DPD)

The Council continues to advance its Development Management DPD, which has progressed through consultation and is an increasing material consideration. The degree of weight that can be afforded to these policies varies depending on stage of preparation of the emerging plan, the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies and the degree of consistency with the Framework (paragraph 216 of the NPPF). Increasing weight can therefore be afforded to the following draft policies that received no significant objections and are relevant to this application:

Policy EN3.1 – Development Affecting Listed Buildings – States that the significance of a Designated Heritage Asset can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of a Listed Building or through development within its setting. Proposals which involve the alterations or extensions to Listed Buildings, including any partial demolitions, should be based on an accurate understanding of the significance of the asset.

Policy EN3.2 – Development Affecting Conservation Areas – this policy confirms that proposals seeking to alter, re-use and extend properties within Conservation Areas will only be approved subject to certain criteria, including a respect for the character of the setting in terms of design, scale, massing, height and materials used; no loss of features which contribute to a building or area’s special character; and proposed uses are sympathetic to the character of the existing building and would not result in wider detriment to the Conservation Area.

Policy CS1 – Design of Development – this policy is cross-referenced by Policy EN3.2 and sets a series of general principles that all development – new build and conversions – should attain.

Page 64 7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The accompanying full planning application (13/00586/CU), which also appears on this Committee Agenda, outlines the planning considerations in this case. This Listed Building application considers the impact of the proposed alterations upon the character and appearance of the Listed Building and the Conservation Area.

7.2 It is considered that the removal of the existing single storey extensions would be an enhancement to the listed building as will the landscaping of the rear garden areas. Changes to the external elevations to the public house and attached cottage include the replacement of windows and doors throughout as well as the creation of new window and door openings to the rear elevation and the addition of a porch canopy above an existing door within the eastern elevation. Although the works in relation to windows and doors is acceptable in principle the Conservation Officer has requested minor amendments and further details. It is also suggested by the Conservation Officer that the porch canopy element should be removed from the scheme in order to give the impression that the property is a single residential unit. The Conservation Officer has also requested further details regarding the existing and new gateposts. The agent has agreed to all these requests although at the time of completing this report amended plans have not yet been received. It is proposed to resurface the front forecourt with natural cobbles which is welcomed by the Conservation Officer. The proposed timber balcony and external stairs to the rear of the existing cottage is also considered acceptable and would improve the rear access arrangements for the cottage occupants

7.3 The subdivision of the public house to three units will follow natural structural lines, and the applicant advises that these would replicate historical divisions. The scheme also involves the removal of the existing staircase between the ground and first floor and the installation of new staircases to each of the three units. In terms of alteration to the historic fabric, it remains a considerable internal intervention, but one that has the potential to be accommodated without overriding detriment to the heritage asset. The impact upon the Conservation Area is also considered to be acceptable.

7.4 However whilst a case can be made for the works to the Listed Building, the inclusion of the subdivision of the property causes concern. Of course, the associated planning application is recommended for refusal based upon the loss of the public house/restaurant. Whilst the works of subdivision are acceptable in their own right, they are not considered to be essential to the future preservation or enhancement of the building. Indeed, as Policy EN3.1 of the Development Management DPD suggests, favourable consideration may be granted to change of use schemes which represent “the most appropriate way of conserving the building…” . The current scheme appears to be premature for the reasons referred to on 13/00586/CU, and there can be no certainty at the present time that subdivision represents the most appropriate way of conserving the building.

7.5 DPD Policy EN3.2 requires that all proposals that are located within Conservation Areas should give due consideration to the DPD Policy CS1, relating to ‘Design of Development’. One of the General Principles of Policy CS1 is the requirement for buildings that are adaptable to changing social, environmental, technological and economic conditions. The policy is clear in that it refers to conversion of existing buildings as well as new-build. By sub-dividing the heritage asset, particularly at a time where the economic case for loss of the community asset and residential conversion is far from proven, it would potentially prejudice the future operation of this building as a community asset.

7.6 Without the grant of planning permission for the change of use, this Listed Building application is incidental to the proposal for the change of use. Therefore the local planning authority concludes that at the present time, there is no overriding heritage benefit associated with the subdivision, and therefore the Listed Building application should be refused too.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 None relevant to this Listed Building submission.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 Whilst the individual detail of the elements of this Listed Building application are broadly acceptable, subject to some further detail, the absence of planning permission for the subdivision of the Listed Building and the potential prejudice that this would cause to the possible future commercial reuse of this heritage asset, in a Conservation Area, means that there is no overriding heritage argument Page 65 supporting the subdivision of the property. Given that the Listed Building application is incidental to the planning application, the local planning authority does not consider that it can presently support the works of subdivision that are being proposed.

Recommendation

That Listed Building Consent BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposed works form part of a wider scheme for the subdivision of the heritage asset to create three residential units. In the absence of a consented scheme for planning permission to subdivide the property, it is considered that the subdivision is not yet proven to be the most appropriate way of conserving the building and its historic significance, setting and contribution within the Wray Conservation Area. Consequently the proposal is contrary to Policy EN3.1 and Policy CSC1 of the Development Management DPD.

Human Rights Act

Background Papers

None

Page 66 AgendaAgenda Item Item 13 Committee Date Application Number

A13 13/00635/FUL

Application Site Proposal

Keer Bridge Depot Erection of a 50 metre telecommunication training tower and one 15 meter security light and camera Scotland Road monopole

Carnforth

Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Mr Glen Pearson Melanie Lawrenson

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

14 August 2013 Committee Cycle

Case Officer Ms Eleanor Huddleston

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Refusal

(i) Procedural Matters

This form of development would normally be dealt with under the Scheme of Delegation. However, Councillor Gardner has requested that the application is determined by the Planning Committee on the basis of the training and economic benefits that the proposal will provide.

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The application site is located on the eastern side of the A6, approximately 1 kilometre to the north east of Carnforth, between the roundabouts serving Truckhaven and the M6 motorway. There are two large buildings at either end of the site and a large open hard surfaced area in the centre which provides access and parking for the site. The building at the north east of the site comprises offices at the front with a workshop and store at the rear. The one towards the south west has two storeys and was granted consent in 2002 for training facilities associated with the existing building, although it has not been completed. Adjacent to this building are two lattice towers, used for training purposes and are mostly screened from the highway by existing trees.

1.2 On the opposite side of the A6 to the site is a depot and to the rear of this is the west coast main line railway which runs in a south west – north east direction. The boundary of the Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) lies beyond the railway line, approximately 100 metres from the site. The AONB mainly extends to the west and north west of the site, extending into Morecambe Bay and South Lakeland District. The village of Warton is located approx. 1 kilometre to the north west and is within the AONB. The south eastern edge of the AONB comprises relatively flat before rising slightly around the village of Warton, approximately 1 kilometre to the north west of the site, and more dramatically beyond this with Warton Crag.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a 50 metre high lattice telecommunication tower for Page 67 training purposes, and a 15 metre pole with a security light and camera. The training tower would measure 4.8 by 4.8 metres at the base, narrowing to 1 metre at a height of approximately 25 metres. It would be positioned on a concrete base measuring 6 by 6 metres. The tower would be sited to the south west of the site, adjacent to the training building under construction. The monopole structure, on which the lighting and camera would be sited, is proposed to have a diameter of 0.77 metres at the base, tapering to 0.47 metres at the top. It would be sited on a base measuring 4.5 by 4.5 metres towards the western boundary of the site, between the two buildings but closer to the training centre.

2.2 The training tower is proposed to increase the sustainability of the business and enhance the training facilities which are provided for telecommunications tower engineers. The 15 metre monopole structure is intended to improve the site’s security.

3.0 Site History

3.1 The planning history is set out in the table below. The most relevant application relates to the erection of a 50 metre high training tower in 2003 (03/00597/FUL). Planning permission was refused for this proposal for the following reasons:

1. The excessive height of the tower would be an alien feature within an otherwise flat, immediate surrounding landscape and would therefore constitute an undesirable and detrimental visual intrusion within this locality. Consequently the development would be contrary to Lancaster District Local Plan Policy E4 because the scale and siting of the proposal is inappropriate to the surroundings of the Countryside Area and would not be in keeping with the character of the landscape.

2. The proposal would be contrary to the Lancaster District Local Plan Policy E3 by virtue of the injurious impact caused by such a tall and bulky structure upon the landscape quality of the immediately adjacent Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. No adequate justification exists for the scale and size of this structure which would outweigh the significant landscape quality and sensitive character of the AONB.

Application Number Proposal Decision 13/00447/FUL Erection of a training facility building with ancillary staff Not validated - accommodation (Amendment to approved scheme Application returned 02/00154/FUL)

13/00131/CU Change of use from second floor office (B1) to staff Withdrawn accommodation (C3) with associated works to include insertion of window, residential door and fire escape to second floor.

03/00715/FUL Construction of a 7.5 metre training tower on top of single Permitted storey building

03/00597/FUL Construction of 50 metre training tower Refused

02/00154/FUL Erection of training facility building and repositioning of Permitted training towers.

01/00796/FUL Demolition of former salt store and erection of a light Permitted industrial workshop, store and office accommodation and two training towers

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Page 68 Consultee Response Warton Parish No comments received within statutory consultation timescale. Council Carnforth Parish No comments received within statutory consultation timescale. Council Over Kellet Parish No comments received within statutory consultation timescale. Council Borwick Parish No comments received within statutory consultation timescale. Council Environmental No objection. Health County Highways No objection. Advice regarding construction is provided - should elements be of an exceptional size and unlikely to comply with "Road Vehicles Order 2003 C&U Regulations", it is imperative that the applicant give consideration to the manner and means of delivering those elements to site. They also recommend condition requiring wheel cleaning facilities during construction.

Arnside and Object. The development would have a significant adverse impact on the landscape Silverdale AONB character and visual amenity of the area and would be particularly prominent from the Partnership farmland and limestone hills of the south eastern part of the Arnside & Silverdale AONB. The undulating landscape, hedges and trees would not mitigate the prominence of the mast from adjacent farmland and higher, more sensitive limestone hill viewpoints within the AONB. There are few other structures of comparable height near this location.

Given the location close to important public access sites and popular elevated viewpoints the development would be prominent in the landscape and adversely affect the enjoyment of the AONB by local residents and visitors. Users of public footpaths, nature reserves and recreational routes in the AONB would experience significant visual effects up to 3km from the proposed mast. The sensitivity of the low-lying land to vertical structures is high and would detract from the enjoyment of the landscape by residents and visitors, impacting on the tourism offer of the area.

This proposal is only one of several that are coming forward along the M6 corridor mainly for wind turbines and cumulative impacts from a variety of tall vertical structures will further add to the adverse landscape impacts the proposal itself will cause. It is also the opinion of the AONB Executive Committee that cumulative impacts of this proposal has not been sufficiently weighted by the applicant preparing this proposal, taking into account adjacent wind turbine development.

Ministry of Defence No objection. The MoD requests that the proposed development is fitted with aviation warning lighting. The height of the development will necessitate that aeronautical charts and mapping records are amended and a condition should be included requiring various information in relation to the structure to be submitted to UK DVOF & Powerlines at the Defence Geographic Centre before development commences.

Civil Aviation At 50m high the tower does not constitute an aviation en-route obstruction. Unless Authority there is an aerodrome safeguarding issues, aviation warning lighting on tall structures only becomes legally mandated for structures of a height of 150m or more. However structures of lesser height might need to be lit/marked if, by virtue of their location and nature, they are considered a significant navigational hazard.

National Air Traffic No objections. Services Police Air Support No comments received within statutory consultation timescale. Unit BAE Warton No comments received within statutory consultation timescale.

Air Ambulance No comments received within statutory consultation timescale. Page 69

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 At the time of compiling this report no representations have been received.

6.0 Principal National and Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development . The following paragraphs of the NPPF are relevant to the determination of this proposal:

Paragraph 17 (Core Principles) sets out 12 core land-use planning principles which should underpin both plan-making and decision taking. The principles which are relevant to this application state that planning should: be genuinely plan-led; be supportive of sustainable economic development; seek high quality design and good standards of amenity for existing and future occupants of land and buildings; take account of different roles and character of different areas, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it; and contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment.

Paragraph 19 sets out that the Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support economic growth. Planning should not act as an impediment to sustainable growth and therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.

Paragraph 28 states that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. Local and neighbourhood plans should support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings.

Paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: • protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils; • recognizing the wider benefits of ecosystem services; • minimizing impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains where possible; • preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from unacceptable levels of soil, air water or noise pollution or land instability; and • remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land.

Paragraph 115 sets out that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas.

6.3 Development Plan Weighting

Paragraphs 214 and 215 of the NPPF advise on the weight that can be attributed to existing policies within the authority’s Development Plan. Paragraph 214 states that “For 12 months from the day of publication (of the NPPF, which was published on 27 March 2012), decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework” . Paragraph 215 continues by stating that, “In other cases and following this 12- month period, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing (Development) Plans according to their degree of consistency with this Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)” . In the Lancaster District, Page 70 the Development Plan consists of the Lancaster District Core Strategy, and the Saved Policies of the Lancaster District Local Plan. Relevant policies of each document are referred to over the following pages.

6.4 Lancaster District Core Strategy

Policy SC1 (Sustainable Development) – seeks to ensure that new development proposals are as sustainable as possible, minimise greenhouse gas emissions and are adaptable to the likely effects of Climate Change. It sets out a range of criteria against which proposals should be assessed. Development must not result in unacceptable flood risk or drainage problems; must not result in loss or harm to features of significant biodiversity, landscape, archaeology or built heritage importance; and be appropriate to the character of the landscape.

Policy SC3 (Rural Communities) – In rural areas and in smaller, more remote villages in particular, the Council will work with the Local Strategic Partnership, Parish Councils and other local stakeholders to protect, conserve and enhance rural landscapes and the distinctive characteristics of rural settlements.

Policy SC5 (Achieving Quality in Design) – proposals should maintain and improve the quality of development in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and other rural areas. New development should reflect the positive characteristics of its surroundings including the quality of the landscape.

Policy E1 (Environmental Capital) – The Council will safeguard and enhance the District’s Environmental Capital by: protecting and enhancing nature conservation sites, landscapes of national importance, listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeological sites; resisting development which would have a detrimental effect on environmental quality and public amenity; and conserving and enhancing landscapes.

6.5 Lancaster District Local Plan - adopted April 2004 (saved policies)

Policy E3 (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) – development within and adjacent to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty which would either directly or indirectly have a significant adverse effect upon the character or harm the landscape quality, nature conservation interests, or features of geological importance will not be permitted. Any development must be of an appropriate scale and use materials appropriate to the area.

6.6 Emerging Local Plan Policies (Draft Development Management DPD - Autumn/Winter 2012)

The Council is in the early stages of preparation of an emerging Local Plan and has now completed the first Preferred Options consultation on the Development Management DPD. Whilst in the early stages of the plan process, policies in the emerging Local Plan are a material consideration. However, the degree of weight that can be afforded to these policies varies depending on stage of preparation of the emerging plan, the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies and the degree of consistency with the Framework (paragraph 216 of the NPPF). Increasing weight can therefore be afforded to the following draft policies that received no significant objections and are relevant to this application.

Policy EN2.2 – Development and Landscape Impact. Sets out that proposals that are within or which would affect the setting of areas which have been designated for their landscape importance will be expected to pay due regard to their impact on the surrounding landscapes, particularly in locations where there may be direct or indirect impacts on the AONBs. The Council recognise that other important landscapes exist in the District, therefore all development proposals will be considered against the impact on their surrounding landscapes and townscapes.

Page 71 7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The main issues raised by this proposal are the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed structures, their effect on the Arnside and Silverdale AONB and the economic benefits as a result of the scheme.

7.2 The application site lies within the District's Countryside Area and is located within a landscape character area defined as Low Coastal Drumlins. This character type consists of areas of low, whaleback hills around 40m high, with broad rounded tops and is gentler and of lower altitude than that of the Drumlin Field. Individual drumlins are more isolated and the alignment of drumlins gives the landform a distinctive grain. The strong pattern of pastures emphasises the undulating topography, with neat, low cut thorn hedges traversing the drumlins. Trees and shrubs are limited in this agricultural landscape, although small copses occur on the tops and sides of the drumlins. There are three specific areas defined as drumlin field in Lancashire, this one is covered by sub-type Warton-Borwick.

7.3 The south eastern boundary of the AONB is located approximately 100 metres to the north west of the site. The nearest part of this designated landscape is low lying and relatively level. The land then rises up through Warton to Warton Crag. To the west of the site there are gentle undulations within the landscape. There are few large manmade structures in this area. There is lighting on either side of the A6, small scale pylons in the vicinity of the site and lighting columns on the depot site opposite. The line of large scale pylons, which roughly follows the line of the M6 motorway, is located approximately 600 metres to the west of the site. There is also a relatively recently erected wind turbine, 78 metres high, approximately 2.4 kilometres to the south.

7.4 Zone Of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) diagrams have been submitted with the application in addition to photomontages from seven viewpoints, mainly within the AONB. However, these have not been accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. From the submitted photomontages, it is evident that the mast will be particularly visible from the adjacent low lying areas within the AONB. From these viewpoints, the structure will mainly been seen against the sky and will appear as a large, isolated vertical structure within the landscape. From higher vantage points, the tower would be mainly seen against land and as such is likely to appear as a less prominent feature from these views.

7.5 The site is relatively close to the M6 motorway, the railway line and various other industrial buildings. However, given its size and height, the proposed structure would have a wider impact beyond the immediate vicinity of the site. As set out above, the landscape in this locality is low lying and open, particularly to the north west on the edge of the AONB. It is therefore considered that the proposed training tower would appear as a prominent, alien structure within the landscape and would have a detrimental impact on the special characteristics of the AONB. In addition, the submission has not fully assessed the cumulative impact of this structure with others within the landscape, in particularly the turbine at Back Lane Quarry. It is possible that both structures would be visible in views from low lying areas on the edge of the AONB.

7.6 The proposal also involves the erection of a 15-metre high pole to provide lighting and a security camera. Following queries with the agent why this could not be sited on the existing buildings, they have set out that there are currently lights on the building however they are ineffective. During the winter months, and particularly when the teams are manoeuvring vehicles in the dark, the lights have a dazzling effect on the driver and they cannot see in their mirrors for reversing. There is lighting in the vicinity of the site on either side of the A6 and within the depot site opposite. As such, it is not considered that this element of the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area or the adjacent landscape.

7.7 In terms of the need for a training tower, the submission sets out that there is a high demand for this training as communications tower climbing is such a specific skill and there is a deficit of trained workers. It has been set out that the business loses out because of this lack of trained operatives and the main challenge is finding skilled staff who have the necessary practical skills and field experience. The training facility also offers training services to other clients such as the Police Services, Military Services and numerous clients from overseas. They have also stated that this is a vital service and integral to an economic asset that the training facility provides to the area, not only locally but nationally, and there is no other facility like this in the country.

Page 72 7.8 Further justification was requested from the agent in relation to the requirements for a structure of this height. In response to this, a statement has been submitted setting out that LARS work on towers up to 1265ft high in the UK. The average Television mast is 1000ft high. Those of this height within the north west are Winter Hill (Chorley), Skelton (Penrith) and Hutton near Wigton and most police towers are 50 metres. They have set out that the training which is offered needs to be at a realistic height to replicate a learning environment which is similar to what will be encountered on site. Also, as the training centre is providing health and safety certification to confirm that people are both safe to work at height and also are capable of rescuing an injured casualty from the top of a tower then they consider it necessary that the trainees are exposed to extreme heights during their practical assessments.

7.9 The justification provided by the applicants has been taken into consideration. However it is still considered that the height of the training mast is excessive given the close proximity of protective landscape of the highest national importance. It has not been clearly demonstrated that a lower mast would not provide the needs required as it does not appear to be a legal requirement that training is provided at this height. This is emphasised by the statement that there is no similar facility in the country. In addition, alternative sites in less sensitive locations do not appear to have been considered by the applicant. Much emphasis has been placed on the need to enhance the training facilities at the site, however it is noted that the training building which was granted consent in 2002 has not been completed. As outlined in the site history, permission was refused in 2003 for the erection of a training mast of this height.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 There are no planning obligations to consider as part of this application.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 The proposed training mast will be a prominent vertical structure within the landscape, particularly when viewed from the low lying areas in the eastern part of the Arnside and Silverdale AONB. As such it is considered that this structure would be over-dominant and visually intrusive to the locality, and would constitute an undesirable feature close to the designated landscape. The proposal is therefore contrary to local policies set out in the Local Plan and Core Strategy, and the National Planning Policy Framework which places significant emphasis on the conserving landscape and scenic beauty in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is not considered that sufficient justification has been provided to outweigh the harm that would be caused by the proposal. This relates to the need for the height of tower proposed and the lack of consideration of alternative sites. As such, the application is recommended for refusal.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE REFUSED for the following reason:

1. By reason of its height, design and siting, the proposed training mast would be a prominent vertical structure within the landscape, particularly when viewed from the low lying areas in the eastern part of the Arnside and Silverdale AONB. The structure would be overly dominant and visually intrusive to the locality, and would constitute an undesirable alien feature in close proximity to the designated landscape. As such, it would cause harm to the character and appearance of the landscape and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty without sufficient justification in relation to its need and consideration of alternative sites. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular Paragraph 11 and the Core Principles at Paragraph 17 and Paragraph 115 in respect of conserving the scenic beauty of AONBs. The proposal is also contrary to Policies SC1, SC3, SC5 and E1 of the Lancaster District Core Strategy and policies E3 and E4 of the Lancaster District Local Plan.

Page 73 Human Rights Act

This recom mendation has been reached after consideration of the provisions of The Human Rights Act. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the issues arising do not appear to be of such magnitude to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.

Background Papers

None

Page 74 AgendaAgenda Item Item 14 Committee Date Application Number

A14 16 September 2013 13/00759/OUT

Application Site Proposal

Silverdale Golf Club Erection 2 new semi-detached dwellings with associated gardens and car parking Red Bridge Lane

Silverdale

Carnforth

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Dr J Martin Miss Jo Clark

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

10 October 2013 None

Case Officer Ms Eleanor Huddleston

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Refusal

(i) Procedural Matters

This form of development would normally be dealt with under the Scheme of Delegation. However, a request has been made by Cllr Graham for the application to be determined by the Planning Committee given the need for more housing in Silverdale and that the development of this site is supported by Cllr Graham and the Parish Council.

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 This application relates to land at Silverdale Golf Club off Redbridge Lane. The site is located approximately 1.4 kilometres to the east of the centre of Silverdale and is within the Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) on the opposite side of the highway to Silverdale train station. It is situated to the north of the car park associated with the golf club and is hard surfaced. To the west of the site are a collection of single storey storage buildings which are set back from the highway, at a slightly higher level. There is a row of four terraced dwellings to the north, the gardens of which abut the site, and four dwellings to the north east, adjacent to the railway.

1.2 The boundary with the highway consists of a low stone boundary wall, and there are two large trees adjacent to this just within the site. Immediately to the south of the site’s boundary with the highway is a vehicle access from the car park. There is currently no boundary treatment between the site’s boundary and the remainder of the car park. To the west of the site the land rises and there are many large trees.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 Outline planning permission is sought for the erection of two semi-detached dwellings with associated gardens and car parking. The indicative layout shows them sited towards the north of the site, with gardens at the rear and a parking area to the south, adjacent to the car park. The agent Page 75 has confirmed that access would be provided from the existing access adjacent to the site, and the red line has been amended to include this. The proposal includes the demolition of the sheds on the site. A new package treatment plant is proposed to serve the two dwellings.

3.0 Site History

3.1 There is an extensive planning history in relation to the golf course this site. The most recent relevant applications in relation to the application site are listed below.

Application Number Proposal Decision 10/00121/FUL Renewal of temporary consent for a storage container for Permitted a further two years. 08/00068/FUL Provision of a temporary storage container for a period of Permitted two years.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response Silverdale Parish To be reported verbally to Committee. Council County Highways No objections. Any form of residential design should comply with current parking standard guidelines with the provision of 2 off-street parking spaces for 2/3-bed properties and 3 spaces for 4+ bed properties. As per the submission of "sketch site plan5096/SK/01/Rev B" , they would wish to see the inclusion of 2 visitor parking spaces in the submission of any layout plans. The creation of an appropriate view line envelope, metalled point of vehicular access of sufficient width to allow 2 vehicles to pass and re-pass unhindered as they access/egress the site from Red Bridge Lane are aspects of the development that can be adequately covered by appropriate conditions at the reserved matters stage.

Environmental To be reported verbally to Committee. Health Arnside and No comments to make. Silverdale AONB Partnership United Utilities If possible this site should be drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer.

Tree Protection To be reported verbally to Committee. Officer

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 1 letter of objection has been received which raises the following concerns:

• Impact of the new buildings on the character of the area and the AONB • There are ongoing and serious drainage problems on the road immediately outside the railway station.

6.0 Principal National and Development Plan Policies

6.1 The National Planning Policy Framework

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development . The following paragraphs of the NPPF are relevant to the determination of this proposal:

Paragraph 17 (Core Principles) sets out 12 core land-use planning principles which underpin decision taking. The main ones relevant to this application state that planning should: be genuinely plan led; always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings; take account of the different roles and character of different areas, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving communities within it; encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed; and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities to meet local needs.

6.2 Development Plan Weighting

6.3 Lancaster District Core Strategy

Policy SC3 (Rural Communities) seeks to build healthy sustainable communities by empowering rural communities to develop local vision, identity local needs and manage change in the rural economy and landscape. Development should protect, conserve and enhance rural landscapes and the distinctive characteristics of rural settlements. The policy identifies 8 key villages within the rural area that have five basic services and should be the focus of new housing development outside the main urban areas. Development outside these areas requires special justification.

6.4 Saved Policies of the Lancaster District Local Plan

Policy H7 – Housing in Rural Settlements (partly superseded by Core Strategy) sets out that the development of small sites for housing will be permitted providing that the development: is appropriate in terms of design, density, and open space standards; would not have a significant adverse effect on the character of the settlement, surrounding landscape, or the amenities of neighbouring residents; would not result in a loss of important space; makes satisfactory arrangements for access, servicing, cycle and car parking; and makes adequate provision for the disposal of sewage and waste water.

Policy H8 – (Housing in the Countryside) sets out that new dwellings in the countryside will only be permitted which are essential to the needs of agriculture, forestry or other uses appropriate in the rural area.

Policy H12 (Layout Design and the Use of Materials) states that proposals for new housing development will only permitted which exhibit a high standard of design, layout and landscaping which use materials and features which are appropriate to and retain the distinctive local identity of their surroundings.

Policy E3 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) (AONBs) outlines their primary objective as being to conserve the natural beauty of the landscape. The local planning authority intends to do this by resisting inappropriate development and insisting on high design standards for proposals which are approved. Development which would either directly or indirectly have a significant adverse effect upon their character or harm the landscape quality will not be permitted. Development must also be of an appropriate scale.

Policy E2 (Transportation Measures) sets out that the Council will minimise the need to travel by car by focussing development on town centres and locations which offer a choice of modes of transport and resisting major development in car dependent locations.

6.5 Emerging Local Plan Policies (draft Development Management DPD - Autumn/Winter 2012)

The Council continues to prepare its Local Plan and has now completed the first Preferred Options consultation on the Development Management DPD. Whilst in the early stages of the plan process, policies in the emerging Local Plan are a material consideration. However, the degree of weight that can be afforded to these policies varies depending on stage of preparation of the emerging plan, the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies and the degree of consistency with the Framework (paragraph 216 of the NPPF). Increasing weight can therefore be afforded to the following draft policies that received no significant objections and are relevant to this application:

CSC1 Design of Development - New development will be required to deliver a high quality of design Page 78 which makes a positive contribution to its locality and creates a positive sense of place, creating or enforcing local distinctiveness, a high level of energy efficiency, and has no detrimental impact to the residential amenity of neighboring properties.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The main issues to be considered in the determination of this application are: • Principle of development • Impact on residential amenity of neighbouring properties • Access and highway impacts • Impact on trees • Affordable housing contribution

7.2 Principle of Development

7.2.1 Policy SC3 of the Core Strategy states that 10% of new homes will be allowed to meet local housing needs in villages, focussed in those that have five basic services. Silverdale is identified as one such village in the policy.

7.2.2 However, this site is divorced from the main built up area of Silverdale. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF sets out that, to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Local planning authorities should avoid isolated new homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances.

7.2.3 The application site is located opposite Silverdale Railway Station and there is a shuttle bus service to Silverdale throughout the day, Monday to Saturday. However there are only a small group of dwellings in this location and there are no services such as shops and schools. The centre of Silverdale is approximately 2km from the site by road and there is a significant amount of undeveloped land between the main built up area and the application site. The applicant describes the village as being “dispersed, extended…with no clear boundaries” . The local planning authority considers that the site is clearly divorced from the centre of the village.

7.2.4 Whilst the Local Authority is actively seeking to support new residential development on suitable sites within the district this specific site is considered to be in an unsustainable detached position, contrary to the aims and objectives of Policy SC3 of the Core Strategy and the NPPF.

7.2.5 Each case is considered on its own merits. But the local planning authority is encouraged in maintaining its approach given the outcome of a planning appeal in Autumn 2012 concerning a proposed property at The Row in Silverdale. In that particular case the application proposed a single new dwelling. The Planning Inspector described the village of Silverdale as consisting of:

“…a wide scattering of mostly low-density development set within an attractive, hilly and well- wooded landscape. There is some concentration of housing around the village proper; but even this takes the form of a roughly-expanded ribbon along a north-south axis. Of particular significance…is the fact that the residential area near to the railway station, which includes the lengthy ribbon of The Row, is separated from the main part of the village by an area of open countryside at least 1km wide”.

The Inspector noted that the site contained no services of its own, save for the railway station and nearby bus routes.

7.2.6 The Inspector’s conclusions have direct relevance to the current application. If the large area of land stretching from the railway station to the coastline was considered as part of the village, and used as such for the basis of determining planning applications, then, to quote the Inspector;

“..it would be clear to me that the effectiveness of the Council’s policy objectives for the area would be quickly negated”. Page 79 7.2.7 The Inspector concluded that the site at The Row was:

“well outside Silverdale Village for planning policy purposes and…that the proposal would undermine attempts to move to a more sustainable pattern of development” .

The Inspector also concluded that application had the potential to harm the AONB.

7.2.8 Given that the current application site is geographically further away from the centre of Silverdale Village than the 2012 appeal site, it is reasonable to adopt a consistent approach to proposed new residential housing in such outlying areas. Therefore, like the recent appeal decision, the proposal is considered to contravene Development Plan Policy and is not acceptable in principle.

7.3 Residential Amenity

7.3.1 The indicative drawing submitted with the application shows a distance of at least 22 metres between the dwellings to the north and the side of the nearest proposed building. There are no dwellings directly opposite and as such, it has been demonstrated that the dwellings could be accommodated on the site without adversely impacting on existing residential amenity.

7.4 Access and Highway Impacts

7.4.1 County Highways have raised no objections to the proposal subject to an adequate provision of parking and suitable site lines submitted at the reserved matters stage. However, the plan did not originally show the point of access which has been confirmed by the agent as using an existing access from the car park. This access is marked as no entry from the highway, with access to the golf club car park provided towards its southern boundary. As such there is the potential for conflict with users of the car park and occupiers of the dwelling and the access is not wide enough for two vehicles to pass. Further comments on this issue have therefore been sought from the Highways Officer and will be reported.

7.5 Impact on Trees

7.5.1 There are two trees located adjacent to the highway within the site and a small woodland area to the west. No tree survey has been submitted and the Tree Protection Officer has been consulted to ascertain whether the dwellings can be accommodated without aversely impacting on trees, particularly those within the site. These comments will be reported.

7.6 Affordable Housing Contribution

7.6.1 The Meeting Housing Needs Supplementary Planning Document sets out that off-site affordable housing in the form of a financial contribution is required from developments that result in a net increase of up to 4 units. The applicant has agreed to pay a commuted sum, which would be calculated at the reserved matters stage, based on the open market values at the time.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 A Unilateral Undertaking will be required for the financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing in the District.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 The site is not located within the main built up area of Silverdale, and is located a significant distance from services. As such, it is not considered to be a sustainable form of development, being located in the open countryside, and would undermine attempts to move towards a more sustainable pattern of development. The submitted statement sets out that the application is needed to raise additional funds to support the local golf club which is in a state of financial difficulty with an uncertain future. It would also remove unsightly buildings from the site. Whilst these are matters that have been weighed in the overall consideration, it is not sufficient to outweigh Development Plan Policy which aims to concentrate new housing in sustainable locations. The harm cause by allowing new housing would outweigh these benefits, and the local planning authority agrees with the Planning Inspector at The Row, in that the development would quickly negate the effectiveness of the Council’s policy objectives for the area. As such, the application is recommended for refusal. Page 80

Recommendation

That Outline Planning Permission BE REFUSED for the following reason:

1. The site is not considered to be in a sustainable location, divorced from the main built up area of Silverdale and services, with no exceptional circumstances provided to justify the erection of two dwellings in this location. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular Section 6, Policies SC1, SC3, and E2 of the Lancaster District Core Strategy and Saved Policies H7 and H8 of the Lancaster District Local Plan.

Human Rights Act

Background Papers

None

Page 81 Agenda Annex LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS

LANCASTER CITY COUNCIL

DETAILS DECISION APPLICATION NO

10/01247/FUL Low Mill, Mill Lane, Caton Modification to water course Application Refused involving extensive culverting for William Scott (Director) (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

13/00005/DIS Higher Broadwood, Cragg Road, Wray Discharge of all Application Permitted conditions on approved application for W Conder & Son (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

13/00058/FUL Diviny Livery Stables, Middleton Road, Middleton Application Permitted Erection of detached bungalow for use by equestrian worker to replace existing static caravan for Miss H. Diviny-Day (Overton Ward)

13/00073/CU Great Crimbles Farm, Crimbles Lane, Cockerham Application Permitted Conversion of redundant farm buildings to form three dwellings for Mrs A Crookes (Ellel Ward)

13/00108/FUL Land To The Rear Of, 179 Main Street, Lancaster Application Permitted Retention of three existing residential caravans for Mr H Fury (Skerton East Ward)

13/00235/CU 15 Church Brow, Halton, Lancaster Change of use of Application Permitted land from agricultural to domestic, extensions and alterations to existing dwelling including change in roof form and installations of dormers, erection of a detached garage, relocation of summerhouse and formation of new vehicular access for Mr & Mrs R. Lund (Halton With Aughton Ward)

13/00241/FUL Lancaster And Morecambe College, Morecambe Road, Application Permitted Lancaster Refurbishment of existing college building and re-cladding walls, roof and replacing windows for Mr Philip Holden (Torrisholme Ward)

13/00264/CU Chapel, Houghton Court, Halton Change of use Chapel Application Permitted into residential dwelling (use class C3) for RC Diocese Of Lancaster (Halton With Aughton Ward)

13/00274/FUL Land At McDonald Road, Heysham, Lancashire Erection Application Permitted of a pair of semi-detached dwellings and a detached dwelling with associated access for Mr J. Radcliffe (Overton Ward)

13/00363/CU Flat 3, 98A Euston Road, Morecambe Change of use of Application Permitted rear first floor offices (B1) into residential (C3) to be incorporated into existing residential flat to form maisonette for Prestige Property Management Ltd (Poulton Ward)

13/00388/CU 53 West End Road, Morecambe, Lancashire Change of Application Permitted use of former guest house to 4 two-bed flats and 1 one- bed flat for Mrs Louise Edwards (Harbour Ward) Page 82 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS 13/00471/FUL 2 Windsor Grove, Morecambe, Lancashire Erection of a Application Permitted lean to garage for Mr Geoffrey Bazley (Harbour Ward)

13/00468/PAD Skerton Primary School, Mainway, Lancaster Prior Prior Approval Not Approval for demolition of primary school for Mrs Lynn Required Mappin (Skerton East Ward)

13/00496/FUL 2 Crofters Fold, Galgate, Lancaster Conversion of Application Refused garage into residential/domestic use for Mr & Mrs Mason (Ellel Ward)

13/00512/CU 12 Poulton Square, Morecambe, Lancashire Change of Application Permitted use from office (B1) to ground floor flat (C3) for Mr P. Reynolds (Poulton Ward)

13/00527/CU 21 Bowfell Avenue, Morecambe, Lancashire Change of Application Permitted 2 flats to a single dwellinghouse (Use Class C3), including a single and two storey extension to the rear and a new pitched roof over existing side extension for Mr N Crockett (Poulton Ward)

13/00531/CU 6 Thornton Road, Morecambe, Lancashire Change of Application Permitted use from house in multiple occupation (C4) to 4 self contained flats (C3) for Mr A Fox (Bare Ward)

13/00534/FUL Land North Of 120, Newlands Road, Lancaster Erection Application Permitted of a detached dormer bungalow for Mr P. Robb (John O'Gaunt Ward)

13/00532/CU Addington Lodge, Addington Road, Nether Kellet Application Permitted Retrospective application for the change of use from agricultural to equestrian land for Mr Gott (Kellet Ward)

13/00545/VCN 60 Lancaster Road, Overton, Morecambe Demolition of Application Permitted existing bungalow and erection of 4 bedroom detached house, change of use of agricultural land to domestic curtilage erection of garage and stables (Pursuant to the variation of condition 3 on planning application 10/00724/CU to change stone details) for Mr J. Reay (Overton Ward)

13/00077/DIS Aldi, Morecambe Road, Lancaster Discharge of Request Completed conditions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 on approved application 12/01090/FUL for Aldi Stores Ltd (Skerton West Ward)

13/00550/ADV Aldi, Morecambe Road, Lancaster Advertisement Application Permitted consent for the display of two externally illuminated fascia signs for Mr M Clarke (Skerton West Ward)

13/00551/FUL Brantholme, Hasty Brow Road, Slyne Change of use of Application Refused land for the installation of 205 Solar Photovoltaic Panel arrays and erection of a 1350mm high post & wire fence with hedgerow. for Mr Phil Rogerson (Slyne With Hest Ward)

13/00566/CU Fleets Farm, Fleet Lane, Gressingham Change of use of Application Permitted agricultural building into equine livery stables, retention of existing menage and associated floodlighting and car parking for Mr Leonard Metcalfe (Upper Lune Valley Ward) Page 83 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS 13/00575/FUL 7 Dallas Road, Lancaster , Lancashire Erection of a two Application Permitted storey side extension and terrace, associated landscaping, demolition of garage and replacement of windows for Mr Inayat Munshi (Dukes Ward)

13/00583/FUL 6 Westfield Hamlet, Nether Kellet, Carnforth Installation Application Permitted of roof lights to the front and rear elevation for Mr P Lancaster (Kellet Ward)

13/00591/FUL Abbeystead Wood Yard, Abbeystead Road, Abbeystead Application Permitted Erection of an extension to existing agricultural building for the storage of machinery, implements and timber for Mr M Dickson (Ellel Ward)

13/00592/FUL 10 Manor Lane, Slyne, Lancashire Erection of detached Application Permitted double carport and store room for Mr & Mrs R Hoggarth (Slyne With Hest Ward)

13/00739/LB Dixon House, Shore Lane, Bolton Le Sands Listed Application Permitted building consent for a two storey extension to the side for Mrs Julia Towers (Slyne With Hest Ward)

13/00594/REM Land South East Of, Hobsons Lane, Capernwray Application Permitted Reserved Matters application for the siting of up to seven static caravans/holiday lodges for Mr Mike Jackson (Kellet Ward)

13/00596/FUL St Bernadettes Rc School, Bowerham Road, Lancaster Application Permitted Erection of a single storey extension to form additional classroom and relocation of existing play equipment and access road for ST. BERNADETTE'S RC PRIMARY S... (Scotforth East Ward)

13/00601/FUL 30 Claremont Road, Morecambe, Lancashire Installation Application Refused of replacement windows to front elevation and door to replace existing rear window for Mr C. Edwards (Harbour Ward)

13/00606/FUL 35 Greenwood Crescent, Bolton Le Sands, Carnforth Application Refused Erection of a two storey rear extension and bay window extension to front for Mr S Mace (Slyne With Hest Ward)

13/00605/FUL Hawthorne House, Bye-pass Road, Bolton Le Sands Application Permitted Installation of an access ramp to the front elevation of the restaurant and installation of 2 new windows and a new door to the rear elevation to facilitate separate access arrangements to the associated first floor residential accommodation for Mr & Mrs C. Waddington (Bolton Le Sands Ward)

13/00611/FUL 45 Caton Green Road, Brookhouse, Lancaster Application Permitted Construction of an extension to existing pitched roof over garage and bedroom, construction of a pitched roof over existing en-suite and extension and alterations to raised terrace to the rear for Mr John Allen (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

13/00612/FUL Scale House Barn, Scale House Lane, Hornby Erection Application Permitted of an agricultural building for Mr Daniel Towers (Upper Lune Valley Ward) Page 84 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS 13/00613/FUL Land Adjacent To 27 Vernon Park, Galgate, Lancaster Application Refused Erection of a two storey detached dwelling for Ms J Dodsworth (Ellel Ward)

13/00616/FUL Parkside Farm, Russell Road, Tatham Partial demolition Application Permitted of existing rear extension and the erection of a one and a half storey extension to the rear for Mr Paul Taylor (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

13/00707/RENU 12 - 22 Northumberland Street, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Permitted Renewal of planning permission 10/00349/CON for the demolition of existing outriggers at rear of property for Bannister Bates Property Lawyers (Poulton Ward)

13/00625/FUL 44 Hest Bank Lane, Hest Bank, Lancaster Extensions to Application Permitted existing dormer bungalow to create a two storey house, including a new raised roof a rear balcony and a raised patio for Mrs H Bird (Slyne With Hest Ward)

13/00631/VCN Green Hill House Farm, Dunald Mill Lane, Nether Kellet Application Permitted Erection of a new dwelling with associated landscaping and access track and retention of existing farmhouse to be used as a holiday let (pursuant to the variation of condition 2 on planning permission 12/00121/FUL to revise the orientation of the dwelling) for Mr & Mrs Ian & Elisa Ward (Halton With Aughton Ward)

13/00633/CU 16 New Street, Lancaster, Lancashire Change of use of Application Permitted retail (use class A1) to retail and 10 bed student accommodation for Mr John Sanderson (Dukes Ward)

13/00634/LB 16 New Street, Lancaster, Lancashire Listed building Application Permitted application for works to facilitate the change of use of the upper floors from a shop to student accommodation for Mr John Sanderson (Dukes Ward)

13/00639/FUL 16 Hawthorn Avenue, Brookhouse, Lancaster Application Permitted Construction of extensions to existing dormers to the front and rear for Ms S. Freear (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

13/00641/LB 6 Westfield Hamlet, Nether Kellet, Carnforth Listed Application Permitted building application for the installation of roof lights to the front and rear elevation for Mr P Lancaster (Kellet Ward)

13/00644/CU Moss Edge Farm, Gulf Lane, Cockerham Re-submission Application Refused of application no. 12/1095/CU for the change of use of agricultural building into storage building and installation of a microlight landing area for Mr Barry Light (Ellel Ward)

13/00646/FUL 11 Tennyson Close, Bolton Le Sands, Carnforth Application Permitted Erection of replacement link extention between dwelling and garage for Mr David Spoors (Bolton Le Sands Ward)

13/00649/ADV 8 Princes Crescent, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Permitted Advertisement consent for the display of an internally illuminated projecting sign for L. Rowland And Co (Retail) Ltd (Bare Ward) Page 85 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS 13/00652/ADV Lancaster Moor Hospital, Quernmore Road, Lancaster Application Permitted Advertisement consent for the display of 4 non illuminated free standing signs for Mr Paul Fenton ( Ward)

13/00656/FUL Christ Church C Of E School, School Lane, Glasson Application Permitted Dock Erection of a single storey timber classroom for Mrs Jayne Weatherhill (Ellel Ward)

13/00676/LB Wennington Hall School, Lodge Lane, Wennington Application Permitted Listed building consent for replacement windows for Wennington Hall School (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

13/00662/VCN Lancaster Moor Hospital, Quernmore Road, Lancaster Application Permitted Reserved matters application (layout, scale and appearance) of 197 dwellings, associated internal road layout, car parking, boundary treatments and landscaping (pursuant to the variation of conditions 9 and 24 on reserved matters consent 13/00232/REM to allow occupation of each dwelling once its associated car parking arrangements are provided in full and to allow the decontamination of the site to occur on a phased basis) for Story Homes (John O'Gaunt Ward)

13/00665/AD Moss House Farm, Gulf Lane, Cockerham Agricultural Prior Approval Not Determination for the erection of a steel framed farm Required building to be used for the storage of hay, straw and feed for Mr And Mrs Paul And Dorothy Roskell (Ellel Ward)

13/00096/DIS The Bungalow, Caton Green Road, Brookhouse Request Completed Discharge of conditions 5 and 6 on approved application 13/00392/FUL for Mr Andrew Young (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

13/00666/FUL St Patricks Rc Primary School, Littledale Avenue, Application Permitted Heysham Erection of a rear extension to classroom for Mr C. Edwards (Heysham Central Ward)

13/00667/FUL 2 Highgrove Road, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection of a Application Permitted single storey side and rear extension for Mr Peter Charnley (Scotforth West Ward)

13/00669/FUL 11 Hornby Hall Close, Hornby, Lancaster Erection of a Application Permitted two storey porch to the front, a lean-to extension to the side and alterations to existing raised terrace for Mr & Mrs J.L. Bibby (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

13/00670/FUL 2 - 4 Sanders Grove, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Refused Retrospective application for garden wall to street side curtilage for Mr D. Standen (Harbour Ward)

13/00091/DIS Warton Grange Farm, Farleton Close, Warton Discharge Request Completed of conditions 3, 5, 6, 8 and 11 on approved application 12/00938/FUL for Mr Barker (Warton Ward)

13/00092/DIS Luneside West Development Site, Thetis Road, Lune Initial Response Sent Business Park Discharge of conditions 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29 and 30 on approved application 10/00660/FUL for Barratt Homes (Manchester) (Castle Ward) Page 86 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS 13/00097/DIS Woodbeck House, Roman Road, Cowan Bridge Request Completed Discharge of condition 3 on approved application 13/00477/LB for Mr And Mrs Ian McGregor (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

13/00098/DIS Woodbeck House, Roman Road, Cowan Bridge Request Completed Discharge of conditions 3 and 9 on approved application 12/00942/FUL for Mr And Mrs Ian McGregor (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

13/00672/VCN Rickerby Ltd, Scotland Road, Warton Erection of Application Permitted proposed new workshop, parts store, showroom, display areas and associated landscaping, access, car parking and drainage works (pursuant to the variation of condition 3 on planning permission 11/00603/FUL which restricts the occupation to Rickerby Ltd only) for Rickerby Ltd (Warton Ward)

13/00673/FUL Kitchen Ground Farm, Kit Brow Lane, Ellel Erection of a Application Permitted new agricultural livestock building for K & DE Woodhouse (Ellel Ward)

13/00677/FUL Tesco, Lancaster Road, Carnforth Erection of a Application Permitted customer collection canopy for Tesco Stores Ltd (Carnforth Ward)

13/00686/FUL 67 Twemlow Parade, Heysham, Morecambe Application Permitted Restrospective application for the construction of balcony to existing dormers for Mrs M Baker (Heysham Central Ward)

13/00102/DIS Heysham South Wind Farm Site, Lancaster Morecambe Request Completed Bypass, Heaton With Oxcliffe Discharge of conditions 7 and 24 on approved application 11/00689/FUL for Banks Renewables (Heysham South Wind Farm) Ltd (Overton Ward)

13/00106/DIS Beechwood Farm, Lancaster Road, Cockerham Request Completed Discharge of conditions 14, 15, 16 and 21 on approved application 13/00123/CU for Mrs Victoria Walmsley (Ellel Ward)

13/00683/FUL Station Garage, Lancaster Road, Caton Erection of Application Permitted reception office extension and roller shutter workshop door for Station Garage (Caton)Ltd (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

13/00689/PAH 12 Leycester Drive, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection of a Prior Approval Not 5 metre deep conservatory to the rear for Mrs C Required Wilcocks (Skerton West Ward)

13/00690/PAH 5 Dalesview Crescent, Heysham, Morecambe Erection Prior Approval Not of a 4.25m deep orangery for Lorraine Smith (Heysham Required South Ward)

13/00688/LB 27 Queen Street, Lancaster, Lancashire Listed Building Application Permitted application to reinstate basement window and to renovate existing sash windows to the front for Robin Thompson (Dukes Ward)

13/00693/FUL 20 Longmeadow Lane, Heysham, Morecambe Application Permitted Installation of a new single storey bay window to the front elevation for Mr T Hallam (Heysham South Ward) Page 87 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS 13/00104/DIS Harvey House, Ashton Road, Lancaster Discharge of Request Completed conditions 4 and 5 on approved application 13/00364/FUL for Mr Keith Owen (Scotforth West Ward)

13/00695/PAH 26 Redmayne Drive, Carnforth, Lancashire Erection of Prior Approval Not 5.7 metre deep single storey rear conservatory for John Required Farnworth (Carnforth Ward)

13/00702/PAH 17 Percy Road, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection of 5.42m Prior Approval Not deep single storey extension to the rear for Mr G Seacy Required (Scotforth West Ward)

13/00704/CU 26 Marine Road West, Morecambe, Lancashire Change Application Permitted of use from hotel (use class C1) into four self contained residential flats (use class C3) for Mr B. Long (Harbour Ward)

13/00705/FUL 5 Esthwaite Gardens, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection of Application Permitted first floor extension over existing porch to front for Mr & Mrs T Kendall (Bulk Ward)

13/00706/FUL 120 Westgate, Morecambe, Lancashire Erection of first Application Permitted floor extension to the side for Mr & Mrs H. Daly (Westgate Ward)

13/00712/FUL 5 St Andrews Close, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection of a Application Permitted single storey rear extension for Mr David Taylor (John O'Gaunt Ward)

13/00714/FUL 30 Clougha Avenue, Halton, Lancaster Construction of a Application Permitted dormer to the front roof slope for Mr Michael Bateson (Halton With Aughton Ward)

13/00730/EIO Land Off Middleton Road, Middleton Road, Heysham Request Completed Scoping request for a single wind turbine for Wind Direct (Overton Ward)

13/00108/DIS 160 Balmoral Road, Heysham, Morecambe Discharge of Request Completed conditions 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 on approved application 12/01188/CU for Mr J. Cunningham (Heysham North Ward)

13/00732/FUL 3 Cove Road, Silverdale, Carnforth Erection of a single Application Permitted storey rear extension and front porch for Mr S J And Mrs L Ormrod (Silverdale Ward)

13/00115/DIS 2 Elms Road, Morecambe, Lancashire Discharge of Application Withdrawn conditions 1 and 2 on approved application 13/00272/FUL for Mrs Joy Whitaker (Bare Ward)

13/00116/DIS 7 Tall Trees, Lancaster, Lancashire Discharge of Request Completed conditions 5 on approved application 12/01039/FUL for Mr Mark Scales (Skerton East Ward)

13/00736/ADV Tesco, Lancaster Road, Carnforth Advertisement Application Permitted consent for the display of 3 non illuminated fascia signs, 1 illuminated fascia sign, 4 non illuminated hanging signs and 3 other non illuminated signs for Tesco Stores Ltd (Carnforth Ward) Page 88 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS 13/00749/FUL The Bungalow, Town End Garage, Sand Lane Erection Application Permitted of single storey rear extension and enlargement of existing dormer to rear roof slope for Mr Geoff Thursby (Warton Ward)

13/00741/FUL Site To The West Of Red Bridge Lodge, Red Bridge Application Permitted Lodge, Red Bridge Lane Demolition of existing agricultural feed store and erection of a replacement agricultural feed store for Mr Michael Holgate (Silverdale Ward)

13/00747/FUL Summerfield House, Long Level, Burrow Change of Use Application Permitted Application for the creation of a gravelled access driveway across section of adjoining agricultural field. for Mr Derek Durling (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

13/00118/DIS 1 Queen Square, Lancaster, Lancashire Discharge of Initial Response Sent conditions 4, 5, 7 and 8 on approved application 13/00304/CU for Mr & Mrs Andrew Edwards (Dukes Ward)

13/00119/DIS 4 Westfield Hamlet, Nether Kellet, Carnforth Discharge Request Completed of condition 4 on approved application 12/00532/FUL for Ms Joanne Holmes (Kellet Ward)

13/00120/DIS 1 Queen Square, Lancaster, Lancashire Discharge of Initial Response Sent conditions 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 on approved application 13/00305/LB for Mr & Mrs Andrew Edwards (Dukes Ward)

13/00121/DIS 4 Westfield Hamlet, Nether Kellet, Carnforth Discharge Request Completed of condition 3 on approved application 12/00807/LB for Ms Joanne Holmes (Kellet Ward)

13/00751/LB 1 Queen Square, Lancaster, Lancashire Listed Building Application Permitted Application for works to facilitate the change of use into a residential dwelling and four rooflights to the rear elevation (amendment to approved application 13/00305/LB) for Mr & Mrs Andrew Edwards (Dukes Ward)

13/00755/CU Station House, Wandales Lane, Kirkby Lonsdale Application Permitted Change of use of attached extension from Pottery Art and Crafts workshop and Tearoom to residential use for Mr John Chapman (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

13/00125/DIS Middleton And Overton Sea Defences, First Terrace, Request Completed Sunderland Point Discharge of conditions 3, 4 and 6 on approved application 13/00105/FUL for Sunderland Point Community Association (Overton Ward)

13/00126/DIS 15 Main Road, Nether Kellet, Carnforth Discharge of Request Completed conditions 9, 11, 14 and 15 on approved application 12/01142/CU for Mr R Mason (Kellet Ward)

13/00768/AD Land Off, Borwick Lane, Warton Agricultural Prior Approval Not Determination as to whether further details are required Required for the erection of a portal frame building adjoining an existing building for Mr M Allen (Warton Ward) Page 89 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS 13/00781/ELDC Mole End Barn, Woodman Lane, Burrow Lawful Application Permitted Development Certificate for existing use as office use only (B1) for Spirit Of Andes Ltd (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

13/00769/FUL 24 Newmarket Avenue, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection Application Permitted of a single storey rear/side extension, single storey extension to the front and construction of a disabled access ramp for Mr Chris Hargreaves (Scotforth East Ward)

13/00779/EIR Heysham 1 Power Station, Heysham Power Station, Request Completed Princess Alexandra Way Screening opinion for outfall repairs for EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Ltd (Overton Ward)

13/00790/FUL 13A Victoria Parade, Morecambe, Lancashire Erection Application Permitted of a conservatory for Mr And Mrs Taylor (Poulton Ward)

13/00796/EIR Beaumont Cote Farm, Strellas Lane, Slyne Screening Request Completed Opinion for the erection of a wind turbine for Kinetica Energy Limited (Slyne With Hest Ward)

13/00132/DIS 8 Moorside Road, Brookhouse, Lancaster Discharge of Request Completed condition 3 on approved application 13/00454/FUL for Mr A Sturman (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

13/00134/DIS Sycamore House, Wyresdale Road, Quernmore Request Completed Discharge of conditions 4, 5 and 7 on approved application 13/00234/FUL for Mr & Mrs Trevor Brown (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

13/00135/DIS Lancaster And Morecambe College, Morecambe Road, Initial Response Sent Lancaster Discharge of conditions 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 on approved application 12/00514/FUL for Lancaster & Morecambe College (Torrisholme Ward)

13/00823/CCC Sandylands Community Primary School, Hampton No Objections Road, Heysham Replacement of existing 3m high mesh fencing with 3m high secure weld mesh fence for Lancashire County Council (Heysham North Ward)

13/00844/EIR Beaumont Cote Farm, Strellas Lane, Slyne EIA Request Completed Screening request for a single windturbine with a height of 81m from ground to blade tip for Kinetica Energy (Slyne With Hest Ward)

13/00847/AD Bell Hill Barn, Bell Hill Farm, Littledale Road Agricultural Prior Approval Not Determination for the erection of an agricultural storage Required building for Mr D Fulford (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

13/00861/AD Marshaw Farm, Abbeystead Road, Over Wyresdale Prior Approval Not Agricultural determination for the construction of new Required access road and area of hardstanding for Mr KJ Curwen (Ellel Ward)

13/00142/DIS 86 Main Street, Warton, Carnforth Discharge of all Request Completed conditions on approved application 11/00390/FUL for Mr Andre Hunt (Warton Ward) Page 90 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS 13/00900/NMA 22 St Johns Road, Heysham, Morecambe Non-material Application Permitted amendment to approved application 12/01013/FUL to substitution of hipped roof with flat roof for Canon Dunston Cooper (Heysham Central Ward)

13/00144/DIS Booths, Scotland Road, Carnforth Discharge of Request Completed conditions 4a, 4b and 5 on approved application 13/00378/FUL for Mr Mike Thomson (Carnforth Ward) Page 91 Agenda Item 16

PLANNING AND HIGHWAYS REGULATORY COMMITTEE

THE WALNEY EXTENSION OFFSHORE WINDFARM LOCAL IMPACT REPORT

16 September 2013

Report of the Chief Officer (Regeneration & Planning)

PURPOSE OF REPORT To consider a joint Local Impact Report from Cumbria County Council, Copeland Borough Council, South Lakeland District Council, Lake District National Park Authority, Lancashire County Council and Lancaster City Council relating to an application for a Development Consent Order to enable DONG Energy to construct and operate the Walney Extension Offshore Wind Farm in the Irish Sea comprising between 93 and 207 turbines with a total generating capacity of up to 750 megawatts, together with a new electricity substation and associated underground cabling at Middleton and Heysham.

This report is public

RECOMMENDATION

1. To approve the contents of the joint Local Impact Report (set out in Annex 1) for submission to the Planning Inspectorate. 2. To make representation to the Planning Inspectorate stating that the City Council supports the proposal, taking account of the matters in the Local Impact Report and the mitigations suggested. 3. To authorise the Chief Officer to work with the Planning Performance Agreement authorities at the forthcoming Examination, including the preparation of a Statement of Common Grounds.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 On 28 June 2013, DONG Energy submitted an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) to build and operate an extension to the Walney Offshore Wind Farm, comprising between 93 and 207 turbines with a total generating capacity of up to 750 megawatts (MW), together with a new electricity substation and associated underground cabling at Heysham and Middleton. The proposed wind farm is located in the Irish Sea between Cumbria and the Isle of Man, about 19km west of the Isle of Walney, Barrow in Furness. The electricity generated will be exported via undersea cables which will come ashore at Pott’s Corner near Middleton. Page 92

1.2 The project consists of wind turbines, foundations, offshore substations, an onshore substation, offshore cables (connecting the turbines to offshore substations, and then exporting to the mainland), and onshore export cables.

1.3 As the proposed wind farm is an off-shore electricity generating station having a capacity of more than 100MW, it is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) within the terms of Sections 14 & 15 of the Planning Act 2008. The application for the DCO will therefore be determined by the Secretary of State, following consideration by PINS.

1.4 Lancaster City Council is a statutory consultee on this development alongside South Lakeland District Council, Lancashire County Council and Cumbria County Council. Other local authorities within and adjoining the Lancaster and Lancashire areas are also statutory consultees, but do not consider themselves impacted by the development and have not been actively participating in the process.

1.5 The four local authorities mentioned in the paragraph 1.4, together with Copeland Borough Council and Lake District National Park Authority, have been working together under the terms of a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) to engage with DONG Energy in the pre-application process. The PPA authorities have previously commented on the emerging proposals and the developer’s consultation arrangements.

1.6 The PPA between the six local authorities and DONG Energy, was signed in February 2013. This has assisted the local authorities in the preparation of all the documentation and assessments which are required as part of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project process. The PPA has enabled Lancaster City Council and the other authorities to commit the necessary level of resources to their participation in the project.

1.7 The Local Impact Report (LIR) has been prepared jointly between the six PPA authorities, with Cumbria County Council leading on the offshore impacts and Lancashire County Council dealing with the onshore impacts.

1.8 Within fourteen days of the DCO submission, the local authorities were required to respond to PINS, to give their views on the adequacy of the pre-application consultation process set out in the applicant’s Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). A joint response was submitted on behalf of the PPA authorities, which concluded that adequate consultation had been undertaken in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Planning Act 2008.

1.9 Following this, on 22 July 2013 PINS confirmed that it had accepted the application, which now takes the application into what is known as the Pre-Examination stage, and this is expected to last 2-3 months. The acceptance of the application also triggers a series of immediate deadlines for statutory consultees, such as Lancaster City Council and the other local authorities, to respond to the application prior to the Examination stage, which could last up to 6 months thereafter.

1.10 A key input for statutory consultees as part of the Examination stage process is that the City Council and the other PPA authorities will be formally invited by the Secretary of State to give their views on the proposal, and to prepare and submit a Local Impact Report setting out what they consider to be the effects of the development upon the local area. The LIR will be required to be submitted following a formal Pre-Examination meeting to be held by PINS probably sometime in November 2013. Page 93

1.11 Throughout the preliminary stages, the City Council has worked jointly with other local authorities to submit officer responses to consultations by DONG Energy and the Planning Inspectorate on the applicant’s Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI), a number of technical reports, the draft Environmental Statement (ES), and the draft Development Consent Order. The preparation of the attached joint LIR is a further example of collaboration between the authorities, in which we share the same conclusion.

1.12 The Planning and Highways Regulatory Committee is invited to consider and approve the draft LIR as set out in Annex 1. It is for the Committee to make representations about whether the City Council supports the proposal or not, taking account of the LIR. The other local authorities will endorse the joint Local Impact report separately.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL Site location and surrounding area

2.1 The proposed Walney Wind Farm Extension would be located immediately north west of the existing Walney 1 & 2 Wind Farms in the Irish Sea, approximately 19km west of Walney Island and 36km east of the Isle of Man. The site is nearly 150 square kilometres in area (see map 1).

Map 1: Location of offshore wind farm and export cables

Page 94

2.2 Undersea cables will bring the electricity ashore at Pott’s Corner near Middleton in Lancaster district. Underground onshore cables will then connect to a new substation to be built alongside the A683, immediately south east of Heysham (see map 2).

Map 2: Location of onshore substation and underground cable route

The proposed development

2.3 The exact size, layout and methodology for delivery of the proposed wind farm is not yet determined and the developer needs to retain some flexibility to take into account technological advancements, infrastructure availability and costs up to the time of construction. For this reason the proposal is described in the form of a design envelope, which states the maximum adverse case scenario within which the project would be built. This is an established principle, also known as the ‘Rochdale envelope’ Page 95

(after legal cases involving Rochdale Council) which is commonly used for proposals of this type, where there is a rapid development of the technology, changing market conditions and a long lead-in time to construction.

2.4 The project would involve the construction of between 93 and 207 wind turbines and occupy an area of up to 149 square kilometres (57 square miles) in the Irish Sea. The turbines would each have a generating capacity of between 3.6MW and 8.0MW. The physical dimensions of the turbines would be as follows:

• Hub height between 82 and 122 metres • Rotor blade diameter ranging from 120 to 200 metres • Maximum blade tip height ranging from 142 to 222 metres • Clearance above sea level of at least 22 metres

2.5 Indicative layouts have been presented by the developer, but none of these represent the actual layout that will be built. They are intended to illustrate possible scenarios within the design envelope of the project. The separation distance between each turbine will be a minimum of 737 metres.

2.6 The foundations for the turbines will depend on a number of factors, including the type and size of turbine, maintenance requirements, water depth, tidal conditions, weather conditions, wind and wave loading, seabed stability, geology, decommissioning, transportation, costs and other technical constraints.

2.7 A network of inter-array cables will connect the wind turbines to an offshore substation within the wind farm area, at a voltage of 33kV or 66kV. The inter-array cables will be installed on the seabed by the most suitable method, including ploughing, trenching, jetting, cutting and rock-cover. The cables will be buried up to 3 metres below the seabed, with this increasing to up to 10 metres deep where mobile sand waves are present.

2.8 Up to three offshore substations may be required, but the most likely scenario is that two will be needed. Each substation is expected to comprise a deck (‘topside’) which would include switchgear, transformers, helideck, mast, crane and lighting. The maximum height of the substation would be 110 metres above low tide and the footprint would be a maximum of 70m x 70m.

2.9 Between two and five undersea export cables would be required to transmit the electricity from the offshore substations to the shore. These cables would carry alternating current (AC) electricity between 132kV and 220kV. They would be buried up to 3 metres deep on the seabed, affecting a strip up to 10 metres wide (per cable). Where the desired burial depth cannot be achieved due to seabed conditions or at the crossing of other cables or pipelines the cables would be protected by rock dumping. Where the cables come ashore, horizontal directional drilling will be used to tunnel beneath large structures such as sea walls, and the sensitive inter-tidal mud-flats and salt marsh.

2.10 The onshore cables would be installed in a single trench up to 3m wide, which would require a working corridor of up to 40m wide. The onshore cable route from the shoreline to the proposed new onshore substation is approximately 4.5km in length. During construction, temporary access roads would be needed to enable materials to be transported along the cable corridor. Following construction, the ground would be reinstated and returned to its former use, most of which is cultivated farmland. Page 96

2.11 A new onshore substation is proposed to be built near to National Grid’s proposed (and consented: 13/00393/FUL) new substation in Heysham. The substation will connect electricity production from the wind farm to the National Grid and is likely to include transformers, switchgear, filters, reactive compensation devices and other technical equipment; together with operational requirements such as access roads, car parking, a turning area and a facilities building. Vehicular access to the new substation will be former from an existing roundabout on the A683 to the south east of Heysham.

2.12 The location of the onshore port base for the construction phase is not yet known and does not form part of this DCO application. A number of Irish Sea ports are being considered. A range of different vessels will be involved in the offshore construction phase, including:

• Foundation installation or jack-up vessels • Cable laying vessels • Crew and transfer vessels • Service vessels • Anchor vessels • Tugs

2.13 Construction materials for the offshore work would be transported generally by sea, and it is anticipated that some 500 construction jobs would be created at its peak .

2.14 Similarly, the operational and maintenance base has not yet been chosen. It may be that these activities are undertaken from an existing base, such as Barrow, or that new facilities are proposed, which may be the subject of a separate future planning application. The applicant has supplied indicative information concerning the operational base, which would comprise:

• Buildings: offices 1,000 sq m, warehouse 1,000 sq m • Parking: 100 spaces • Harbour: pontoon, berthing and vessel fuelling • Staff: up to 100 technicians and 20 office staff • Traffic: 200 cars and 10 trucks per day • Total site area: 6,000 sq m • Service Vessels: 8 return journeys per day • Helicopter service: approx 17 return journeys per day

2.15 The wind farm would be operational continuously through out the year, generating electricity whenever the wind speeds are suitable, which is expected to be the 85% of the time.

2.16 Subject to approval, construction is expected to commence in April 2016 and would take two years to complete. The wind farm would become operational in 2020 and would have a minimum operational life of 25 years. At the end of the operational life the project would be decommissioned in accordance with an approved Decommissioning Plan. As a minimum this would entail the removal of the turbines and foundations.

Page 97

3.0 KEY ISSUES RAISED IN THE LOCAL IMPACT REPORT

Policy considerations

3.1 Heysham is a popular location for accommodating energy infrastructure: initially this was because the first nuclear power station required access to a ready supply of water for cooling the reactors. This has grown so that today there are two nuclear power stations, two electricity substations and the cable connections from two further offshore wind-farms are already located in close proximity to the current proposal. In addition, National Grid has consent from Lancaster City Council to install a new electricity substation on land immediately west of the DONG proposal (application no. 13/00393/FUL: decision dated 23 July 2013).

3.2 As far as the current proposal is concerned, there is no planning history of applications on any of the land affected by the cable route or the substation.

3.3 National policy indicates that there should be a presumption in favour of granting consent to applications for energy related Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. National Policy Statement (NPS) for energy (EN1) states that this presumption applies unless more specific and relevant policies set out in the NPS clearly indicate that consent should be refused.

3.4 NPS for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN3) reaffirms advice in EN1 on the basis that the need for infrastructure covered by the NPS has been demonstrated, and that there are ambitious renewable energy targets in place and a significant increase in large-scale renewable energy infrastructure is necessary to meet the Government’s 15% renewable energy target.

3.5 NPS EN1 states that there is no requirement to consider alternatives or to establish that the proposed project represents the best option. There is only a requirement for alternatives that have been considered by the applicant to be reported. Consideration of alternatives focused mainly on the location of the onshore substation and the route of the export cable connecting to it. The way these alternatives have been considered is set out in the ES (Chapter 5: Site Selection).

Evaluation of the applicant’s Environmental Impact Assessment

3.6 The Environmental Statement submitted in support of the application includes detailed topic based assessments of the environmental impacts of the projects. These cover onshore and offshore impacts upon the natural and built environment.

3.7 The PPA authorities have reviewed the parts of the ES that are relevant to their jurisdiction and geographical areas. The LIR attached to this committee report has been prepared in two parts, dealing separately with impacts arising from the onshore works (mainly affecting Lancaster district) and offshore works (mainly affecting coastal communities in Cumbria).

3.8 The LIR produced by the PPA authorities has not considered matters which relate solely to the marine environment, such as benthic ecology. Such matters fall within the jurisdiction of other bodies, notably the Marine Management Organisation and relevant statutory consultees including Natural England, English Heritage, Cefas and the Environment Agency. The applicant has in general used appropriate techniques to evaluate the impacts of the proposal.

Page 98

4.0 CONCLUSION

4.1 Consideration of the impacts of the proposed Walney Extension application is set out in the attached Local Impact Report. In respect of the known impacts of the onshore elements of the project there are positive, neutral and negative impacts. The PPA authorities consider that the negative impacts of the onshore elements of the project are not significant overall, and they can be mitigated against by requirements in the DCO and/or a s106 agreement. These relate to the following matters:

• Further consideration of avoidance, mitigation and compensation relating to the impacts on protected sites, and protected and priority species; • Consideration of the viability of the prior extraction of minerals from the area of search corresponding with the location of the substation; • Further assessment of the landscape and visual impacts of the substation proposals. • The requirement for a “strip, map and record” process of mitigation during the construction of the substation; • Safety on the local highways network, highways maintenance and the routing of abnormal loads from the M6; • The need to maximise the use of, and support for, local businesses and employment, consistent with the Council’s inward investment policies and branding.

4.2 Discussions are still required between the PPA authorities and the applicant on matters including the landscape and visual impact of the proposals. The authorities also expect to be involved in decisions on the construction port and O&M base.

4.3 The findings and recommendations contained in the joint PPA authorities Local Impact Report are therefore commended to the Planning and Highways Regulatory Committee.

Page 99

CONCLUSION OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT (including Health & Safety, Equality & Diversity, Human Rights, Community Safety, Sustainability and Rural Proofing) No direct implications arising from the report.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

No Legal implications arising from the Report

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

None.

OTHER RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Human Resources: none.

Information Services: none.

Property: none. No City Council land is affected by this project.

Open Spaces: none.

Background Papers Contact Officer: David Porter Telephone: 01524 5823355 The draft Development Consent Order Email: [email protected] (DCO) and all the relevant EIA and other Ref: information is available on the Planning Inspectorate website, and you can download it here: http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/pro jects/north-west/walney-extension-offshore- wind-farm/

Page 100

ANNEX 1 : Walney Extension – Local Impact Report

PLANNING ACT 2008 – RULE 8(1) (B) OF INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (EXAMINATION PROCEDURE) RULES 2010 – SUBMISSION OF LOCAL IMPACT REPORT

A JOINT PPA AUTHORITIES LOCAL IMPACT REPORT UNDER SECTION 60 OF THE PLANNING ACT 2008 INTO:-

AN APPLICATION BY DONG ENERGY FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER (DCO) TO ENABLE THE APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE THE WALNEY OFFSHORE WINDFARM EXTENSION WITH A MAXIMUM CAPACITY OF 750MW TOGETHER WITH A NUMBER OF ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENTS.

BACKGROUND

1. On the 28 th June 2013, DONG Energy submitted an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) to build and operate an extension to the Walney Offshore Wind farm, comprising a maximum number of 207 turbines with a total generating capacity of up to 750 megawatts (MW). The proposed wind farm is located in the Irish Sea between Cumbria and the Isle of Man, about 19km west of the Isle of Walney, Barrow in Furness. The electricity generated will be exported via undersea cables to the mainland near Heysham in Lancashire. The project consists of wind turbines, foundations, offshore substations, onshore substation, offshore cables (connecting the turbines and offshore substations), offshore export cables and onshore export cables.

2. As the proposed wind farm is an off-shore electricity generating station having a capacity of more than 100MW, it is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) within the terms of Sections 14 & 15 of the Planning Act 2008. The application for the DCO will therefore be determined by the Secretary of State, following consideration by PIN.

3. Lancashire County Council and Lancaster City Council as hosts for the onshore development, together with Cumbria County Council and South Lakeland District Council as adjoining authorities are statutory consultees on this development,. Other local authorities within and adjoining the Lancaster and Lancashire areas are also statutory consultees, but do not consider themselves impacted by the development and have not been actively participating in the process.

4. The four local authorities mentioned in paragraph 3 above, together with Copeland Borough Council and Lake District National Park Authority (who are within the zone of visual influence of the development) have been working together under the terms of a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) to engage with DONG Energy in the pre- application process. The PPA authorities have previously commented on the emerging proposals and the developer’s consultation arrangements.

5. The PPA between the six local authorities and DONG Energy was signed in February 2013. This has assisted the local authorities in the preparation of all the documentation and assessments which are required as part of the NSIP process. The PPA has enabled Cumbria County Council and the other authorities to commit the necessary level of resources to their participation in the project. Page 101

6. The Local Impact Report has been prepared jointly between the six PPA authorities, with Cumbria County Council leading on the offshore impacts and Lancashire County Council leading in respect of the onshore impacts, which impact upon land within the Lancaster City Council area.

7. Within fourteen days of the DCO submission, the local authorities were required to respond to PINS, to give their views on the adequacy of the pre-application consultation process set out in the applicant’s Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). A joint response was submitted on behalf of the PPA authorities, which concluded that adequate consultation had been undertaken in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Planning Act 2008.

8. Following this, on 22 July 2013 PINS confirmed that they had accepted the application, which now takes the application into what is known as the Pre-Examination stage, which is expected to last 2-3 months. The acceptance of the application also triggers a series of immediate deadlines for statutory consultees, such as the PPA authorities, to respond to the application prior to the Examination stage, which is expected to last up to 6 months thereafter.

9. A key input as part of the Examination stage process is that the PPA authorities will be formally invited by the Secretary of State to give their views on the proposal, and to prepare and submit a Local Impact Report setting out what they consider to be the effects of the development upon the local area. This Local Impact Report will be required to be submitted following a formal Pre-Examination meeting to be held by PINS probably sometime in October 2013, with the submission of the Local Impact Report likely to be due in November 2013.

10. The views of local members on the proposed development will be attached as Appendix 1 to this Local Impact Report when it is submitted to PINS.

PART ONE: OFFSHORE IMPACTS

11. This part of the Local Impact Report (LIR) deals with impacts associated wilth the offshore elements of the project, in particular the impacts arising from:

• The wind turbines, offshore substations and undersea cables • Construction of offshore elements • Operation and maintenance of the wind farm • Decommissioning

12. Most of these aspects will have an impact upon Cumbria, and the specific O&M impacts will only be capable of assessment when the port location has been confirmed. The onshore aspects relating to cable landfall, the onshore substation and connections into the National Grid, will impact upon Lancashire and are dealt with in Part Two of the LIR.

Location and Site Characteristics

13. The proposed Walney Wind farm Extension would be located immediately west-north- west of the existing Walney 1 & 2 Wind farms in the Irish Sea, approximately 19km west of Walney Island and 36km east of the Isle of Man. It would lie approximately Page 102

26km from the Millom coastline and 40km from St Bees Head. The site is nearly 150 square kilometres in area.

14. The seascape in this part of the Irish Sea is characterised by the presence of existing energy infrastructure. In addition to Walney 1 & 2, there are three other windfams in the area – West of Duddon Sands (under construction), Barrow and Ormonde. The latter two wind farms are those seen most readily from land, being approximately 7km from the Walney shoreline at the nearest point. There are also eight gas platforms in the area.

15. A number of commercial shipping routes operate in the locality, providing links between NW England, the Isle of Man and Ireland.

16. The sea depth in the area of the proposed Walney Extension varies from 21m to 55m (at low tide).

Description of the Proposed Development

17. The exact size, layout and methodology for delivery of the proposed wind farm is yet to be determined and the developer needs to retain some flexibility to take into account technological advancements, infrastructure availability and costs up to the time of construction. For this reason the proposal is described in the form of a design envelope, which states the maximum adverse case scenario within which the project would be built. This is an established principle, also known as the ‘Rochdale envelope’ (after legal cases involving Rochdale Council) which is commonly used for proposals of this type, where there is a rapid development of the technology, changing market conditions and a long lead-in time to construction.

18. The project would involve the construction of between 93 and 207 wind turbines and occupy an area of up to 149 square kilometres (57 square miles) in the Irish Sea. The turbines would have a generating capacity of between 3.6MW and 8.0MW. The physical dimensions of the turbines would be within the following range:

19. Indicative layouts have been presented by the developer, but none of these necessarily represent the actual layout that will be built. They are intended to illustrate possible scenarios within the design envelope of the project. The separation distance between each turbine will be a minimum of 737 metres.

20. The foundations for the turbines will depend on a number of factors, including the type and size of turbine, maintenance requirements, water depth, tidal conditions, weather conditions, wind and wave loading, seabed stability, geology, decommissioning, transportation, costs and other technical constraints.

21. The following foundation types will be considered: Page 103

• Single steel monopole – a 9m diameter steel tube driven into the seabed to a depth of up to 45m. Requires minimal seabed preparation and drilling in an estimated 20% of cases; • Gravity base – a conical structure held in place by its own mass, which would be up to 40m diameter at seabed level and with a maximum shaft diameter of 12m. Requires seabed levelling and sediment removal, but no piling or drilling; • Jacket – a three or four legged steel lattice structure, fixed to the seabed by piles at each corner or by using suction caissons. The legs are up to 40m apart on the sea bed. Requires minimal seabed preparation; piles up to 70m deep are driven into the seabed to secure the foundation.

22. To prevent scour (undermining) of the foundation, it may be necessary to lay rock armour around the foundations on the sea bed. This rock protection layer may be up to 2m deep for a distance of up to 46m around each foundation (depending on the type)

23. Each turbine is installed from a jack-up vessel, which is equipped with cranes and other equipment to lift and fix the various components into place. Firstly the turbine tower is lifted into position and mounted securely on the foundation. Then the hub is lifted to the top of the tower and securely attached. Finally the three blades are installed, either one by one or as a pre-assembled unit.

24. A network of inter-array cables (up to 27km in length) will connect the wind turbines to an offshore substation within the wind farm area, at a voltage of 33kV or 66kV. The inter-array cables will be installed on the seabed using the most suitable method, which could include ploughing, trenching, jetting, cutting and rock-cover. The cables will be buried up to 3 metres below the seabed, with this increasing to up to 10 metres deep where mobile sand waves are present.

25. Up to three offshore substations (132kV to 220kV) will be required. Each substation will be mounted on a jacket foundation; most likely of steel, but possibly concrete. The foundation will be larger than for turbines, with up to 70m between each leg at seabed level. The substation will incorporate a deck (‘topside’), which houses switchgear, transformers, helicopter deck, mast, crane and lighting. The maximum height of the substation would be 110 metres above low tide.

26. Up to five undersea export cables would be required to transmit the electricity from the offshore substation to the shore – a distance of 96km. These cables would carry alternating current (AC) electricity between 132kV and 220kV. They would be buried up to 3 metres deep on the seabed, affecting a strip up to 10 metres wide (per cable). Where the desired burial depth cannot be achieved due to seabed conditions or at the crossing of other cables or pipelines the cables would be protected by rock dumping.

27. The location of the onshore base for the construction phase is not yet known and does not form part of this DCO application. A number of Irish Sea ports are being considered. A range of different vessels will be involved in the construction phase, including:

• Foundation installation or jack-up vessels • Cable laying vessels • Crew and transfer vessels • Service vessels Page 104

• Anchor vessels • Tugs

28. Construction materials for the offshore work would be transported generally by sea, and it is anticipated that almost 500 construction jobs would be created at its peak .

29. Similarly, the operational and maintenance base has not yet been chosen. It may be that these activities are undertaken from an existing base, such as Barrow, or that new facilities are proposed, which may be the subject of a separate future planning application. The applicant has supplied indicative information concerning the operational base, which would comprise:

30. The wind farm would be operational continuously through out the year, generating electricity whenever the wind speeds are suitable, which is expected to be about 85% of the time.

31. Subject to approval, construction of the offshore elements is expected to commence in April 2016 and would take two years to complete. The wind farm would become operational in March 2018 and would have a minimum operational life of approximately 25 years.

32. Decommissioning will take place at the end of the operational life of the wind farm. A Decommissioning Plan will be approved as a requirement of the DCO. The plan will be reviewed as the decommissioning period approaches, but is expected to involve removal of the turbines, offshore substations and all structures above the sea bed. It is also to include removal of foundations to at least 1 metre below the seabed.

Planning History

33. As the development is offshore and therefore beyond the administrative boundaries of the PPA authorities, there is no conventional planning history associated with the offshore elements of the project.

34. There are other offshore wind farms in this part of the Irish Sea which have been consented under regimes that pre-date the NSIP process. These are as follows:

• Barrow, 30 turbines (90MW), operational 2006 • Ormonde, 30 turbines (150MW), operational 2011 • Walney 1 & 2, 102 turbines (367MW), operational 2012 Page 105

• West of Duddon Sands, 108 turbines (389MW), under construction

Planning Policy

National Policy Statements

35. National Policy Statements (NPSs) for Energy Infrastructure are relevant, especially the following (all published in July 2011):

• EN-1: Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy • EN-3: Renewable Energy Infrastructure • EN-5: Energy Networks Infrastructure

36. These NPSs expand upon the statutory provisions of the Planning Act 2008 and set out national policy for major energy infrastructure. They are the primary basis for considering and examining nationally significant infrastructure proposals relating to renewable energy. They set out the need for new nationally significant energy infrastructure projects (including those powered by wind turbines), and explain how assessment principles and criteria will be applied to schemes.

37. EN-1 states that there should be a presumption in favour of granting consent for such projects unless more specific and relevant policies set out in the NPSs clearly indicate that consent should be refused.

38. EN-1 states that there is an urgent need to deliver large-scale renewable energy infrastructure, which is vital to meet the Government’s aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 (from 1990 levels). The UK has committed to achieving 15% of its total energy needs from renewable resources by 2020 and offshore wind energy is the main way of achieving this.

39. In evaluating proposals, PINS will need to consider the environmental, social and economic benefits and adverse impacts of the project, as identified in the NPSs, the application or elsewhere, including the Local Impact Report.

40. EN-3 reaffirms advice in EN-1 on the basis that the need for infrastructure covered by the NPS has been demonstrated, and that there are ambitious renewable energy targets in place.

41. EN-3 explains that a Development Consent Order for an offshore wind farm will normally include a deemed Marine Licence. The licence is concerned with the protection of the environment, human health and legitimate uses of the sea. The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is the body normally responsible for such matters and is an important consultee in respect of offshore wind proposals.

42. EN-1 states that PINS should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime and other environmentally regulatory regimes, including those on land drainage, water abstraction and biodiversity, will be properly applied and enforced by the relevant regulator, and should act to complement but not seek to duplicate them.

43. EN-3 makes it clear that economic viability is a matter for the applicant and not something to be assessed as part of the application process. Page 106

44. EN-3 states that it is unlikely that wind farm operators will know precisely which turbines will be procured until some time after consent has been granted. The ‘Rochdale Envelope’ approach of setting out the maximum adverse impact scenario is advocated to deal with this uncertainty.

National Planning Policy Framework

45. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England. The document recognises three dimensions to sustainable development as being economic, social and environmental. It makes it clear that these roles should not be considered in isolation.

46. Whilst the NPPF does not contain specific policies for NSIPs, there are relevant matters within the framework, including those relating to energy and climate change.

47. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF states that one of the core principles of planning should be to, “Support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate,…….and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy)”

48. Paragraph 93 states that planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.

49. Paragraph 162 states that “local planning authorities should work with other authorities and providers to..... take account of the need for strategic infrastructure including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas”.

Local Impacts

50. This section sets out the impacts resulting from the offshore elements of the proposed wind farm, insofar as they impact upon the administrative areas of Cumbria and Lancashire, the coastal districts of Copeland, Barrow, South Lakeland, Lancaster and the Lake District National Park Authority. It does not consider the impacts on the marine environment, except where they are relevant to the coast or shoreline, as responsibility for the sea lies with the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) and other relevant bodies such as Natural England, Cefas, English Heritage and the Environment Agency. The MMO considers not only the environmental impacts, but also relevant economic impacts on fishing, shipping and recreation, in consultation with the appropriate specialist bodies.

51. The section also deals with onshore impacts resulting from construction of the offshore elements of the wind farm and its subsequent operation and maintenance, which may affect Cumbrian or Lancashire ports.

52. For clarification, intertidal ornithology is dealt with in the onshore impacts section, since the principal impacts arise in respect of the export cable which comes ashore at Middleton, near Heysham (Lancaster district), within the designated European habitats of Morecambe Bay.

53. Throughout the pre-application stage, the PPA authorities have commented on a range of documents produced by the applicant. These include the Preliminary Environmental Page 107

Information (PEI), a number of technical reports, the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) and the draft Environmental Statement (ES).

54. The main matters raised in PPA responses are: seascape (PEI, technical reports, draft ES), ornithology (PEI), transport (PEI), noise (PEI, technical reports, draft ES), socio- economic (PEI and draft ES), impact mitigation (PEI), community benefit contributions (PEI), and seabed sediments (draft DCO and draft ES).

55. Some of these issues have been adequately addressed by DONG Energy. Set out below are the matters arising from the offshore elements of the project that most likely have impacts onshore and to be of concern to residents and local authorities.

Seascape, Landscape and Visual Impact

56. This section is concerned with the visual impacts of the offshore elements of the project. The impact of the onshore elements is dealt with in the onshore part of the LIR.

57. The Walney Extension project will increase the number and extent of wind turbines within the Irish Sea. The visual impact of the wind farm when viewed from the Cumbrian coastline could give rise to concern. The turbines would be seen most readily from the Walney coast, where they would be 19km offshore at the nearest point. There is considered to be negligible impact on the Lancashire coast because of the distance from the shoreline and the position of the wind farm ‘behind’ a number of existing offshore wind farms.

58. The applicant’s Seascape, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, contained in Chapter 9 of the ES, has been reviewed in detail by Cumbria County Council’s Landscape and Countryside Officer, whose comments underpin this section.

59. In Chapter 19, a total of ten onshore viewpoints on the west coast of Cumbria have been identified from which to consider the effects of the development (details below). The distance to the nearest turbine ranges from 40km at St Bees to 21km at Biggar Bank, Walney Island. Three of the viewpoints have been used in order to consider the cumulative effects of the scheme in conjunction with existing and consented wind energy developments. Wireframes and photomontages have been prepared for all viewpoints.

60. The SLVIA has been predicated upon a worst case scenario basis, following the Rochdale Envelope approach. The ES notes that this has been taken to be the 207 x 142m turbine (to blade tip) scenario, due to the following factors:

• The 207 turbine scenario would give rise to the greatest increase in density of wind turbines in views. • The density and number of turbines is more critical than turbine height from elevated viewpoints. • The 207 turbine scenario would create a greater contrast in vertical scale with existing turbines - creating an additional ‘bank’ of rotating elements. • The taller turbines did not yield a meaningful increase in the area of visibility from land based viewpoints. • The greater number of turbines would yield a greater number of light sources (at night).

Page 108

61. Following requests made by consultees during earlier stages of consultation on the scheme, additional photomontages were developed for the 93 x 222m turbine (to blade tip) scenario. At the time of writing this response, photomontages had been prepared in regard to six of the ten Cumbrian viewpoints. These were considered in the PPA authorities’ assessment of the scheme. The PPA authorities have previously expressed concern about the methodology used for production of the photomontages, which it is considered may under represent the vertical scale of the turbines (see also para. 76 below).

62. Clearly, a key factor in the assessment of landscape and visual impact is distance. The Cumbria Wind Energy SPD includes a review of good practice guidance in regard to the effect of distance upon visibility/perception. This notes that at distances of between 15 to 30kms, turbines are generally seen as minor elements of a wide landscape composition, perceptible only in clear conditions - going on to state that at distances much greater than 30km, the limit of visibility to the human eye is being approached. (It is noted that this good practice guidance is predicated upon the assessment of turbines up to a height of 120m - the proposed turbines may be up to 222m in height, as noted above). DTI guidance on the Assessment of the Impact of Offshore Wind farms refers to the effects of the earth’s curvature upon long distance views, and recommends a 35km seaward limit of visual significance for regional seascape units for Round 2 offshore wind farm SVIAs. The larger turbines will mean that the seaward limit will increase.

63. Prevailing weather conditions can have a significant effect upon visual impact at the distances under consideration. This is considered in the ES, which includes an assessment of average visibility, taken from meteorological recording stations. At St Bees Head visibility is less than 40km for 98.6% of the time, and at Walney Island visibility is less than 20km for 55.9% of the time.

64. A key factor to take into account in the assessment of the scheme is cumulative impact. Several existing offshore wind farm developments are clearly visible from viewpoints in the county. The ES considers the impact of the scheme in conjunction with existing and consented wind farm schemes, both onshore and offshore. It is relevant to note in this respect that officers raised concerns in regard to the significant cumulative impact of the Walney 1 and 2 schemes when these were considered by Cumbria County Council’s Development Control and Regulation Committee in 2006.

65. A review of the SLVIA Technical Report (Annex B.13.A), which includes the landscape and visual assessment used to inform Chapter 19, was undertaken by WYG on behalf of the PPA authorities in early 2013. It is relevant to note that WYG concluded that that the approach and methodology generally followed good practice, and whilst some variances in magnitude of change were identified at some viewpoints, these did not significantly alter the overall assessment.

Assessment

66. This assessment focuses upon the operational phase of the development, as this is regarded as the most significant phase in landscape and visual terms. The following table summarises the assessment of Cumbrian viewpoints included in the ES:

Page 109

Viewpoint Viewpoint Distance Sensitivity Magnitude of Significance Ref Location to nearest of visual impact of effect turbine receptor 1 St Bees Head 40km High Low-Negligible Minor 2 Thornhill 39km Low Low-Negligible Negligible 3 Seascale 34km High- Low-Negligible Minor Beachfront Medium 4 Seafront at 32km High Low Moderate Ravenglass 5 Black Combe, 28km High Medium-Low Major/ Bootle Fell Moderate to Moderate 6 Coastal Path, 24km High Low Moderate Silecroft 7 Public 28km High Low-Negligible Minor Footpath, NW of Millom 8 Askam in 29km High Negligible Negligible Furness 9 Biggar Bank 21km High Low Negligible Road, Walney Island 10 South End 23km High Low Negligible Haws, Walney Island

67. In the PPA authorities’ view, the sensitivity of visual receptors should be regarded as ‘high’ at viewpoint 3, given the popularity of the area with visitors, who are likely to rate landscape/seascape quality as being of high importance. This would therefore increase the significance of effect to borderline ‘moderate’.

68. In the PPA authorities’ view the sensitivity of visual receptors at viewpoint 2 should be regarded as ‘medium’ given the potential impact upon residents on the edge of Thornhill. This would increase the significance of effect to ‘Minor’.

69. With the exception of these points, the authorities are in general agreement with the predicted effects. Seascape character is a key consideration, and whilst the sensitivity of receptors is correctly identified as being generally high, the predicted magnitude of impact for each viewpoint reflects the distance of the turbines, and the relatively small proportion of time over which the meteorological data would suggest they will be visible from land. The methodology used to establish magnitude of impact is acceptable. Table 19.15 of the ES notes that the criteria used to assess relative impact are as follows:

• ‘High’ - the degree of change must be such that the project is dominant, commanding and unmistakeable and being the foremost feature, easily seen. • Medium’ - the degree of change must be such that the project is conspicuous, well defined, clearly visible and catches the eye. • Low’ - the degree of change must be such that the project is apparent, obvious and evident. Page 110

• Negligible’ - the project is not obvious, lacks definition and its presence is both subtle and blurred.

70. Having considered the two sets of photomontages, the PPA authorities agree with the logic applied by the applicant to worst case scenario selection (19.7.9) in regard to those viewpoints where the bulk of the scheme will be seen as a backdrop to the existing offshore schemes (viewpoints 8, 9 & 10), and from elevated viewpoints around Black Combe (5), where the density and spread of turbines will be most apparent.

71. However, in the PPA authorities’ view, the larger turbine scenario would have a greater impact upon those sea-level viewpoints where a relatively large proportion of the angle of view is taken up by the scheme on its own (viewpoints 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6). Given the distance however, it is not felt that this would significantly alter the assessment of magnitude. Given this, and that the most significant impact - upon viewpoint 5 - will be exacerbated by a greater number of turbines, the authorities are satisfied that the worst case scenario applied by the applicant gives a reasonable assessment of impact upon the county as a whole.

72. It is key to note therefore, that only the impact upon viewpoint 5 is regarded as ‘significant’ (major/moderate and above) in EIA terms.

73. In regard to effects upon landscape and seascape character, the ES assesses anticipated impacts upon both local landscape character types (LCTs), and regional seascape units. This concludes that the significance of effect will be ‘negligible’ for the majority of Cumbrian LCTs identified, with the exception of a ‘minor’ rating for the Intertidal Flats, Coastal Marsh and Dunes and Beaches sub-types. The significance of effect upon the Duddon Estuary, Walney Island and Morecambe Bay regional seascape units are assessed as ‘moderate’ to ‘moderate/minor’ (reducing to ‘negligible’ in the north), ‘moderate/minor’, and ‘negligible’ respectively. The PPA authorities concur with this assessment.

74. In regard to cumulative impact, it is key to establish the net effect of the scheme under consideration. The existing and consented offshore schemes are located in closer proximity to the shoreline, and will be more prominent in many views where the Walney Extension Wind farm is simultaneously visible. The most significant cumulative effects arising from the scheme are likely to occur from viewpoints where the turbines will encroach into undeveloped areas of seascape, thereby extending the influence of turbines in seaward views.

75. The significance of cumulative effect upon regional seascape character units is assessed as being moderate to moderate/minor, with the impact upon LCTs and viewpoints ‘minor’. This would reflect the pre-existing cumulative effects already apparent. The authorities would generally agree with this, but consider that the effect upon landscape sub-type 1a, Bay and Estuary: Intertidal Flats should be regarded as ‘low’ rather than ‘low-negligible’. This is due to the fact that this sub type extends along the west coast of the Cumbria for much of the zone of theoretical visibility of the scheme, with views being therefore theoretically possible across much of this area. This would increase the significance of effect to ‘moderate’ in regard to this sub-type.

76. As pointed out in para. 61 above and para 180 below, the PPA authorities have raised some concerns regarding the methodology for visual impact assessment and the production of photomontages. At the time of writing a meeting was still to be held with the applicant’s landscape consultant to discuss these issues. The PPA authorities therefore may wish to comment further on seascape, landscape and visual impact subject to the outcome of this meeting. Page 111

77. In conclusion therefore, the assessment gives a generally accurate reflection of the likely landscape, seascape and visual effects, albeit the points made above should be noted.

Transport

78. The potential impacts of the offshore construction and O & M base activities upon the transport network are not examined in the ES. The ES (Chapter 28: Traffic and Transport) limits its scope to the assessment of impacts arising from the onshore development. These aspects are covered in the onshore part of this LIR.

79. The port to be used as a base for construction, operation and maintenance (O&M) of the wind farm has yet to be decided. The existing wind farms in the area are operated and maintained from dedicated facilities built at Barrow Port, which DONG Energy have confirmed is one of a number of ports under consideration.

80. Transportation impacts associated with either activity could be significant and include travel to work journeys, construction traffic, and the movement of construction materials by road, rail or sea, together with associated congestion, noise and pollution.

81. The turbine foundations and cable laying will require significant quantities of construction materials, some of which may need to be transported from onshore sources to the construction site offshore, via local roads and harbours. Such movements may result in significant deterioration or damage to the highway and could have significant impacts upon communities along the route.

82. While the proposed development has the potential to have a significant impact on the Cumbrian or Lancashire highway and transportation network should Barrow-in- Furness, Workington or Heysham, be selected as a construction port or Operation & Maintenance base, currently there are too many variables and insufficient detail to provide an assessment of the resulting impact in order to identify any necessary mitigating measures. It is also unclear within the supporting documentation of the exact consent process to be followed for these elements. As such there remains uncertainty whether subsequent consent processes will necessitate formal consultation with the relevant highway authority and whether the aforementioned detrimental impacts will be appropriately assessed and appropriate mitigating measures identified and secured.

83. In discussions about this matter, the applicant has indicated that onshore activities relating to the offshore construction work will take place within the terms of existing consents, e.g. port operations or require planning consent. The PPA authorities do not accept that this is necessarily the case and at the Examination stage will seek to ensure that the issue is fully considered and appropriate mitigation provided.

Socio Economic

84. There are potential benefits and adverse impacts associated with the proposed wind farm.

85. The applicant’s assessment in the ES (Chapter 31: Socio Economics) identifies a number of relevant issues to consider, in line with NPS guidance. These include job creation and training, impact on tourism (including the visual impact of the development), influx of workers, existing socio economic conditions, and the cumulative effects as a result of interaction with other projects. Page 112

86. The applicant’s assessment suggests that nearly 500 jobs will be created throughout the main (four year) construction period. Of these, an estimated 230 will be in the North West (NW). Nearly 100 more jobs are expected to be created in the NW indirectly through the supply chain or as a result of increased spend.

87. During the operational phase (2020 - 2044), the applicant anticipates that around 380 direct jobs will be created. 185 of these jobs will be created in the NW, with two thirds at the operations and maintenance base. This number would comprise 100 technicians and 20 office staff. A further 75 jobs would be created through the supply chain and increased spending in the area.

88. It is worth noting that the existing Walney 1 & 2 schemes have created 76 new jobs which will exist for the operational lifetime of the wind farm. The evidence suggests that the majority of these jobs are filled by local people and it is the applicant’s stated intention to recruit suitably skilled local people and involve local services where possible. A study by DONG Energy has shown that the local economy benefitted to the tune of around £950,000 per month during construction of these earlier schemes.

89. The additional employment created by the proposed wind farm has been estimated to add £63.5M to the value of the local economy during the construction period and £14M per annum during operation.

90. As there is not yet a firm indication of the construction port or the location of the operations and maintenance (O&M) base, it is difficult to ascertain the socio-economic impact (both beneficial and adverse) upon Cumbria and Lancashire. The potential construction ports include Liverpool, Belfast, Heysham and Barrow. These are also the potential locations for the O&M base, along with Workington, Douglas and Garston. An early decision on this would allow for detailed discussion around the necessary support that local partners can provide in supporting local recruitment, suitable training options, alerting the potential local supply chain and evaluating any impact on local services, housing and businesses which may need to be mitigated.

91. The PPA authorities would especially welcome early discussions around developing a local supply chain framework to ensure that local businesses are provided with ample opportunity to secure work and provide services during each phase of the development. For example, the authorities would want to explore opportunities for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to benefit from innovative approaches to training schemes such as shared and community apprentices, or to be supported and mentored to achieve the necessary quality standards that DONG Energy would need to see in any contractors it employs.

92. There is potential for the additional employment created by the development to lead to pressure on the local housing market. The applicant has assessed this impact as not significant, as there is suitable accommodation available in the potential construction ports (including Heysham and Barrow) to accommodate the anticipated number of temporary workers. The housing needs of locally engaged staff are likely to be already met.

93. The effect of the project upon the local fishing industry is assessed by the applicant as not significant. The project lies within an area of limited fishing activity, which takes its catch to Whitehaven and accounts for 30% of the port value. The wind farm would occupy only a small part of this fishing zone (ICES 36E6) and is expected to have limited impact on profitability or employment. Smaller vessels will be able to continue to fish in and around the wind farm once it is operational. Page 113

94. The applicant has researched the effects upon coastal tourism resulting from the visual impact of the wind farm. This included a review of previous survey research carried out with visitors and tourism businesses which suggests that there is little evidence to suggest that the minor visual impact will have any significant negative impact on tourism. (Visual impact as a whole is addressed in “Seascape, Landscape and Visual Impact” section above).

95. The evidence presented in the ES suggests that majority of visitors do not expect their behaviour to be influenced by the presence of a wind farm. Tourism activities where the primary focus of the visitors is on enjoying the landscape especially its wildness and tranquillity (eg. walking) are more likely to be adversely affected by wind farm developments

96. The SLVIA (see “Seascape, Landscape and Visual Impact” section above) highlights that across the range of identified viewpoints the visual impacts are assessed to be mainly minor to negligible. The only visual impact that is assessed as significant in EIA terms is the view from Black Combe at Bootle Fell. The change in visual impact given the existing visual context is stated to be minimal.

97. Britain’s Energy Coast vision is for West Cumbria to maximise the economic benefit for local communities from investment in energy related proposals and to seek opportunities to diversify the local economy. The same economic vision also applies in Lancashire.

98. DONG Energy has agreed in principle to the establishment of a Community Benefit Fund (CBF) if a DCO is granted. The PPA authorities welcome this, but recognise that the CBF falls outside the planning process. This will be paid to communities in recognition that the project may have national benefits but the impacts are local and long term.

99. In overall terms, the authorities consider that the applicant’s ES has adequately assessed and described the socio economic impacts. However, the authorities wish to maximise the economic benefits for the area by seeking agreement with the applicant to promote local employment, training and supply chain opportunities. This will continue to be pursued with the applicant.

Sea bed sediments

100. The PPA authorities have drawn the applicant’s attention to the possible presence of: • radioactive particles contained within sediments on the sea bed • radioactive debris on the sea bed

101. The authorities are concerned that, if radioactive material is disturbed during construction of the wind turbines, it could result in the release and movement of radioactive particles, which could in turn lead to contamination of the coastline.

102. It is known that radioactive particles are present within sea bed sediments in the Irish Sea as a result of historic discharges from Sellafield. The Environment Agency regulates the monitoring of sea bed sediments and certain beaches on the Cumbria coastline.

103. The applicant has addressed this issue in ES Chapter 8 Sediment and Water Quality. Reference is made to an HPA study (2011) of radioactivity on Cumbrian beaches which indicates a very low existing risk to people using the beach. The applicant has Page 114

also indicated that any disturbed sediment particles from the offshore construction works would re-settle on the sea bed long before they could be carried to the shore.

104. The applicant refers to a previous study into the health risk surrounding the disturbance of radionuclides in sea bed sediments undertaken for the Walney 1 & 2 wind farms. This concluded that there would be no impacts on human health and the applicant considers that the results are equally applicable to the Walney Extension project, because of its close proximity.

105. The applicant will carry out sampling for radioactivity should dredging for gravity base foundations be required to enable a further risk assessment to be carried out.

106. The ES concludes that no impact to human health will result from the disturbance of radionuclides during the construction period.

107. The PPA authorities wish to seek clarification of the methodology and assumptions underpinning the applicant’s approach before accepting their conclusion that there is no impact to human health. The HPA study for example does not consider the issue of further sediments being deposited on beaches and it is necessary to check the validity and relevance of the other studies referred to. The authorities would also wish to consult the EA before coming to a final view.

Noise

108. The ES (Chapter 9: Offshore Noise and Vibration) assesses noise impacts, which are at their highest level during the piling of foundations in the construction phase.

109. A maximum noise level of 31.5 decibels is predicted at the nearest onshore point (19km from the nearest turbine). This is significantly below the guideline levels of the World Health Organisation and the relevant British Standards.

110. The ES concludes that it is extremely unlikely that the levels of noise experienced by humans onshore will be a cause for concern.

111. In respect of noise resulting from onshore construction (in Lancaster district), the applicant is proposing to publish contact details for concerned members to speak to a site representative.

112. The PPA authorities accept the applicant’s assessments that the noise arising from offshore construction is unlikely to cause disturbance onshore. However, it is suggested that contact details also be made available to residents on the Cumbrian coast during construction to enable any concerns to be expressed. This would be consistent with the arrangements for onshore noise (see para 194).

Decommissioning

113. The applicant proposes to decommission the wind farm at the end of its operational life. This is explained in the ES (Section 4.18 of Chapter 4: Project Description).

114. The decommissioning of the offshore elements would include removal of the turbines, sub stations and foundations (to a depth of around 1 metre below sea bed level). This will effectively restore the sea bed to its condition prior to development.

115. The applicant proposes to leave in place the deeper parts of the foundations and the undersea cables, as the impacts of removing these could be damaging to the marine Page 115

environment. Similarly, any rock armour may be left in place if it is considered desirable to preserve marine habitats which may have become established.

116. Under the terms of the DCO, a Decommissioning Plan will be required to be submitted to the Secretary of State following consultation with the MMO and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), prior to commencement of construction. The plan will be continually reviewed so that it remains relevant at the time decommissioning takes place.

117. It is understood that DONG Energy will be required to provide a bond, which will guarantee the availability of funding to undertake decommissioning. However, the process for securing the bond is not apparent in the application.

118. The PPA authorities are in agreement with the applicant’s approach to decommissioning, but consider that there should be a clear timescale specified for approval of the Decommissioning Plan and the mechanism for securing the bond needs to be clear.

PART TWO: ONSHORE IMPACTS

119. This part of the Local Impact Report (LIR) deals with impacts associated with the onshore elements of the project, in particular the impacts arising from:

• The Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) required to bring the export cables ashore • Underground cabling between the shore and the new substation • Construction of the new substation • Connections to the National Grid

120. It is these aspects that will have an impact upon Lancaster district in Lancashire.

Location and site characteristics

121. The onshore element of the Walney Extension wind farm will be located south of Heysham, within the district of Lancaster in Lancashire. The landscape close to and around the site is predominantly low-lying pasture, open in character with hedged or ditched field boundaries, farmsteads and generally low tree cover.

122. The settlement pattern focuses on the small village of Middleton, with the larger settlement of Heysham to the north. Development in the surrounding area includes the port and nuclear power stations at Heysham (including existing substations and transmission pylons), several caravan parks serving the local tourist industry, and a number of industrial developments. Overall, the area identified for the substation lies on the edge of the built up area of Heysham, whilst the proposed cable route and cable landing crosses open farmland to the east and south of Middleton.

Page 116

Description of the proposed development

Onshore cable route

123. Up to 5 export cables will make landfall at Middleton Sands, near Heysham. Where the cables come ashore and cross the intertidal saltmarsh they will be installed using a tunnelling technique known as Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) and pass at depth beneath the saltmarsh. The cables will then be buried in standard cable trenches along a route running from Middleton Sands terminating at the proposed substation site located to the north of the Lancaster West Business Park approximately 3.5 km to the north and east.

124. An indicative working width for the cable route of up to a maximum 40m during construction activities will be required. The corridor has been aligned to take into account field boundaries and other features and passes to the east of Middleton village and a business park. The cable route will consist of a number of cable jointing bays separated at points typically around 600-1000m distance along the cable. Each jointing bay will be approximately 10m long, 2m wide and buried at 1.5m with a reinforced concrete floor. The distance between the jointing bays will be defined by the cable voltage and the length of the cables wound onto drums.

125. A temporary working compound will be required at Middleton Sands in order to accommodate the drilling equipment and operations associated with the HDD.

Onshore substation

126. The proposed substation will be located to the north of the A683, opposite the entrance to the Lancaster West Business Park. The site area covers 2.9 ha and will include electrical equipment needed for the connection of the wind farm and for compliance with the code for connecting to the National Grid. This equipment is likely to include transformers (to step up the voltage to 400kV); switchgear (indoors); conductors; reactive compensation; filters; control, telecoms and relay rooms; HGV access and turning; car parking and internal roads; drainage and oil containment; noise mitigation; any necessary fire fighting plant; and perimeter and internal compound fencing.

127. The proposed development floor level is between 5.1m and 6.0m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD). The maximum height of the substation buildings and major components (excluding lighting protection) will be 21m AOD. The lightning protection which represents the tallest component of the substation has proposed maximum height of 29m AOD.

128. A 400kV cable connection between the Project substation and a new NGET substation to enable the Project to connect into the national grid will be provided. This cable corridor section will be approximately 315 m long (depending on the final location of the Project substation). Temporary working compounds have also been identified on land adjacent to the substation site covering an area of approximately 13 ha.

Planning history

129. Heysham is a popular location for accommodating energy infrastructure: initially this was because the first nuclear power station required access to a ready supply of water for cooling the reactors. This has grown so that today there are two nuclear power stations, two electricity substations and the cable connections from two further offshore wind-farms are already located in close proximity to the current proposal. In addition, Page 117

National Grid has consent from Lancaster City Council to install a new electricity substation on land immediately west of the DONG Energy proposal (application no. 13/00393/FUL: decision dated 23 July 2013).

130. As far as the current proposal is concerned, there is no planning history of applications on any of the land affected by the cable route or the substation.

Planning policy

National

131. The NPPF came into effect on 27 March 2012. The document recognises three dimensions to sustainable development as being economic, social and environmental. It makes it clear that these roles should not be considered in isolation. The NPPF makes it clear that local authorities should work with neighbouring authorities and transport providers to develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure to support sustainable development. Importantly the government recognises that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas.

132. Of particular relevance to the consideration of the Walney Extension offshore wind farm proposal are the sections in the NPPF relating to:

• Building a strong, competitive economy (paragraphs 18 – 22); • Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change (paragraphs 93 – 108).

133. In addition to the NPPF, the development plan is required to be consistent with relevant national policy contained in the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure especially the following (all published in July 2011):

• EN-1: Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy • EN-3: Renewable Energy Infrastructure • EN-5: Energy Networks Infrastructure

134. These policy statements expand upon the Planning Act 2008 and are the primary basis for examining NSIPs proposals. The policy statements set out the need for new nationally significant energy infrastructure projects (including those powered by wind turbines), and explains how assessment principles and criteria will be applied to schemes.

Local

135. The Lancaster District Core Strategy (2008) includes Policy ER7 relating to Renewable Energy. The policy identifies South Heysham as a key focus for the industry, partly in association with the major offshore wind energy schemes in Morecambe Bay and the Irish Sea.

Page 118

136. The Lancaster District Local Plan (strike-through edition 2008) includes policy E24 which requires new or replacement electricity lines to take the least visually harmful route.

137. The City Council is currently preparing new development plan documents (DPDs) which will eventually replace the Core Strategy and District Local Plan. These include the Development Management DPD and the Land Allocations DPD, which will identify land to meet future development needs and land to be protected from development. The Development Management DPD will include policy direction on enhancing renewable energy opportunities, whilst the Land Allocations DPD identifies the Heysham Energy Coast on the Local Plan Policies Map as an area where the Council anticipates further energy investment, including the construction of new substations and other grid-related infrastructure.

138. At the Preferred Options stage of developing the DPDs, representations were made on amenity, landscape, and environmental capacity and contamination matters connected with the Energy Coast. One representation called for greater consideration of cumulative impacts and another for more specific designations of land within the Energy Coast. This last point is important because whilst there were no representations on the proposed area identified for a substation on land to the west of the proposed DONG Energy substation, the DONG Energy substation site was not shown on the Policies Map of the DPD. It was shown as part of a wider area of open countryside, and so representors did not have the opportunity to comment on this proposal as part of the DPD consultation.

139. The Development Management and Land Allocations DPDs warrant material consideration in this process according to the guidance set out in NPPF, paragraph 216. They provide more detail on the strategic principles already adopted within the Core Strategy, and through the course of 2013 as the documents are revised in advance of publication and submission, the weight attached to both documents will increase. Specifically, the Development Management DPD will reach Publication Stage in the autumn of 2013, whilst the Land Allocations DPD will require an addendum consultation in autumn 2013.

140. The Joint Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Site Allocations & Development Management Policies, to be adopted on 26 September 2013), identifies a Minerals Safeguarding Area (MSA) on open land to the south of Heysham which includes the site for the proposed substation. Policy M2 of the plan safeguards the site as a location for sand and gravel deposits. Policy M2 states that planning permission should not be granted unless it meets one of a series of exceptions.

141. The Site Allocations and Development Management DPD also identifies sites at Lancaster West Business Park and Heysham Industrial Estate as being suitable for waste management, recycling transfer and materials recovery. The site at Lancaster West Business Park adjoins the proposed DONG Energy substation and its cable route south of the substation towards Middleton village. These site allocations will not be compromised by the onshore elements of the project.

Approach to the assessments

142. The PPA local authorities have assessed the impacts of the proposal, based on the chapter headings contained within the applicant's ES. Each chapter heading has been assigned to relevant specific officers for comment. The PPA authorities have been able to draw on in-house specialist advice covering: Page 119

• Planning • Ecology • Archaeology • Landscape • Highways • Economic development • Environmental health • Flood risk

143. Where relevant the PPA authorities have made reference to the DONG Energy typology of significance adopted within the ES (see Section 3.4 of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report, August 2012).

Planning Assessment

Chapter 14 – Intertidal Ornithology

144. Natural England is the statutory nature conservation body for the purposes of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). The Habitats Regulations place a duty on competent authorities ( i.e . the decision maker in this case) to consult the appropriate nature conservation body in the assessment of the implications of proposals for European sites.

145. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) also places duties on Natural England in respect of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), and there is a procedure to be followed prior to the authorisation of operations likely to damage SSSIs. Therefore, it is the PPA authorities' view that it is the role for Natural England to provide detailed advice in terms of the implications for the nationally and internationally designated sites.

Chapter 23 – Hydrology and Flood Risk

146. The temporary works associated with the cable routes and potentially the access routes to the substation site will have an impact on water courses. The applicant should be aware that Ordinary Water Consents will be required from Lancashire County Council.

147. Annex B.14 (Flood Risk Assessment) of the ES makes reference to the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) at the substation site. The applicant should consider, in line with good practice and paragraph 118 of the NPPF, to incorporate biodiversity enhancement opportunities wherever possible. The PPA authorities view is that the use of ponds should be considered as part of the surface water management strategy.

Chapter 24 – Terrestrial Ecology and Nature Conservation

148. Much of the area potentially affected by these proposals is of relatively low biodiversity value and it is accepted that, for example, temporary impacts on agriculturally improved habitats are unlikely to result in significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, and that the reinstatement of agriculturally improved land (species-poor grassland) and habitats such as hedgerows is achievable. Page 120

149. However, the development does also affect protected sites and protected and priority species, and there is therefore a need for the ES to demonstrate adequate avoidance, mitigation and compensation. Whilst some of the issues from the draft ES have now been addressed, it is the PPA authorities' view that there remain omissions, errors and inconsistencies in Chapter24. These are detailed below.

Designated Sites

150. In respect of statutory designated sites, and associated biodiversity interests, Natural England is the relevant nature conservation body and it will ultimately be for Natural England to advise the competent authority in respect of impacts on such sites.

• Lune Estuary SSSI/ Morecambe Bay SSSI and SAC (and associated species including Belted Beauty moth).

151. The draft Environmental Statement had indicated that the proposals would have a potentially catastrophic impact on the population (and saltmarsh habitat) of Belted Beauty moth within Morecambe Bay SSSI and SAC, for which no mitigation or post- construction monitoring was proposed.

152. Following the concerns raised by numerous consultees, Chapter 24 now indicates that trenchless (HDD) crossing of the saltmarsh can be carried out without any above ground impacts on the salt marsh. Whilst this would appear to avoid impacts on the designated site and associated species, the ES goes on to introduce some uncertainty about whether or not impacts would indeed be avoided, e.g . Paragraphs 24.9.2.3 and 24.9.2.4) indicate that there will be no storage of material or vehicle movements on the saltmarsh " unless otherwise approved in writing by the relevant planning authority ". It is not clear under what circumstances the developer might need access to the saltmarsh, but this does appear to introduce the possibility that, even with HDD, impacts might not be entirely avoided

153. Paragraph 24.9.2.7 introduces the possibility of HDD failure or a break out of inert drilling muds (which would result in impacts on the designated site and habitat of Belted Beauty moth). However, since there are apparently alternative routes that would avoid actual and potential impacts on the designated site, it would seem appropriate for the determining (and competent) authority to be satisfied that the proposed method of working is feasible in this case ( i.e . significant impacts are reasonably unlikely).

• Heysham Moss SSSI, Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and Biological Heritage Site (BHS).

154. Paragraphs 24.9.2.11 – 24.9.2.15 appear confused, with the distinction between the SSSI and BHS (Local Site) not clearly identified. Impacts on the BHS (immediately adjacent to the proposed substation site) do not appear to be addressed in the ES and the biodiversity value of the BHS appears to be poorly understood, e.g . paragraph 24.9.3.7 states that birds are not cited as qualifying features of the SSSI/ BHS. This is incorrect: one of the qualifying criteria for the BHS designation relates to birds.

European protected species

• Great crested newts

155. Great crested newts are known to be present within 250m of the proposed development. Chapter 24 suggests that a licence will not be required, but states that Page 121

updated surveys will be carried out and reasonable precautions will need to be employed.

156. Whilst non-licensed avoidance measures may be appropriate in this case, the draft ES had clearly stated that works would need to be carried out under European protected species licence. Indeed, Annex B.15.B (Protected Species Survey Report) does still state that a licence will be required. The revised (formally submitted) chapter 24 does not appear to explain why it now disagrees with the conclusions and recommendations of the draft ES and protected species report.

157. The competent authority will need to have regard to the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) in the making of this planning decision, and will need to come to a view in respect of the likelihood of a breach of legislation and the need for a licence. Natural England is the statutory nature conservation body and should be asked for their opinion. It would also be helpful if the applicant could provide further clarification in terms of why a European protected species licence is no longer thought necessary for this species.

• Bats

158. Proposals have the potential to impact upon bats through habitat removal (severance of foraging and commuting routes) and lighting.

159. The ES indicates that bat activity surveys have been carried out during summer 2013 but are not yet available. In the absence of the results of these surveys, it is not possible for the PPA authorities to comment on the significance of potential impacts on bats and their habitat.

Protected species

• Nesting birds

160. The proposals will result in the loss of habitats potentially used by nesting (and foraging) birds. The ES suggests (paragraph 24.9.2.62) that although the duration of habitat loss and displacement would be 25 months, there is other habitat elsewhere that birds could use. Whilst many species of bird are adaptable, and could move, this does depend on there being suitable and unoccupied habitat into which displaced birds could relocate.

161. Paragraph 24.9.2.68 indicates that bird boxes will be erected on suitable trees surrounding the cable corridor and substation to provide alternative nesting habitat during construction and compensatory habitat upon completion. It is not clear what species would be targeted, or that there are suitable trees in suitable locations where bird boxes could be deployed to effectively mitigate impacts.

162. Paragraph 24.9.2.70 states that screening planting around the substation will provide habitat during construction and compensatory habitat upon completion. However, most of the proposed planting around the substation is located within the temporary working areas/ cable corridor and it therefore seems highly unlikely that the screen planting would be planted before completion of construction. Even if the landscaping was to be created at an early stage, it seems highly unlikely that planting would be sufficiently mature to provide habitat during construction or that vegetation within a construction site/ temporary working area would be of any significant value to nesting birds. Moreover, if suitable bird nesting habitat is created within the working area, and birds did nest during construction, then this may result in constraints (time delays) to Page 122

development, i.e . the applicant's legal duty to avoid a breach of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

163. It would therefore seem more appropriate for consideration to additionally be given to providing offsetting in the longer-term through the enhancement of habitat (including hedgerows and ditches) for nesting birds.

164. Paragraph 24.9.2.70 states that after mitigation (mainly compliance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended): avoidance of impacts on nesting birds, their nests and eggs) there will be no significant residual impact on nesting birds. However, it is the PPA authorities’ view that the ES does not demonstrate this. For example, the substation and associated screening planting are located in an area of coastal and floodplain grazing marsh, adjacent to a BHS (Local Site). According to the site description, the BHS is of ornithological value for breeding and wintering birds, some of which are ground-nesting/ ground-feeding and may therefore be displaced away from the substation and associated screen planting. The proposals may thus result in at least an indirect effect on the BHS, an impact which does not appear to be considered, and for which no mitigation appears to be proposed. Whilst the residual impact might not be 'significant', planning policy requires net gains in biodiversity. It seems unlikely that these proposals will not deliver gains.

• Wintering birds (qualifying features Morecambe Bay SPA)

165. Appendix 17.4 provides a summary of consultee responses to the draft ES. In response to concerns regarding potential impacts on pink-footed goose, appendix 17.4 indicates that further information has now been added to Chapter 24. This appears to be reference to paragraph 24.9.2.63, which concludes that works will not result in significant displacement of pink-footed goose because there's suitable habitat elsewhere. This does not constitute an adequate assessment of likely significant effect and does not appear to be based on a sound understanding of pink-footed goose ecology and habitat use.

• Reptiles

166. Paragraphs 24.9.2.71 onwards deal with mitigation for potential impacts on reptile species, including clearance of vegetation during summer. Whilst this would be appropriate, it may not be compatible with the mitigation proposed to avoid impacts on nesting birds ( e.g . paragraph 24.9.2.61: vegetation clearance will be undertaken outside of the period March to August inclusive).

Habitats and Species of Principal Importance in England (section 41 NERC Act 2006)

167. The proposals will result in the temporary loss of several hundred metres of hedgerow . Whilst hedgerow will be re-planted following construction, it would seem appropriate for enhanced hedgerows to be created ( i.e. increased species diversity, enhanced management for the benefit of biodiversity).

168. The proposals will result in temporary and permanent impacts on coastal and floodplain grazing marsh : the MAGIC website (hosted by Defra) suggests that much of the grassland in the cable corridor and substation footprint qualifies as this priority habitat. Other than simply reinstating post-construction, no mitigation or compensation/ enhancement is proposed.

169. Paragraph 24.9.3.11 claims that the permanent loss of 3.1ha of this habitat (substation) is not significant because this is only a small proportion of the total area of Page 123

the habitat locally. Whilst this may be true, the government has indicated that it is committed to halting or even reversing biodiversity declines; UK BAP priority habitats were identified as those being most threatened and requiring conservation action. It is therefore disappointing that no mitigation or compensation is proposed to offset this loss of priority habitat.

170. With regard to the Belted Beauty moth. The applicant now proposes HDD to avoid impacts on the designated site (and habitat of this species). Provided HDD can be successfully employed, and there is no subsequent requirement to damage habitats above-ground, then it seems that significant impacts on this species and its habitat may be avoidable.

171. Other Species of Principal importance that would be affected/ potentially affected by these proposals are also legally protected, and are considered separately (above).

Biodiversity enhancement

172. Table 24.1 summarises how the ES addresses the provisions of NPS EN-1 and EN-5. With specific reference to paragraph 5.3.4 of EN-1 (taking advantage of opportunities to conserve and enhance biodiversity), this appears weak. For example, the ES indicates that mitigation will be agreed with Natural England but may include provision of hibernacula, habitat creation and enhancement. This appears to be a specific reference to amphibian mitigation. However, the formally submitted Chapter 24 (contrary to the draft chapter) now indicates that mitigation for impacts on newts can be delivered through non-licensed avoidance measures, and Chapter 24 does not appear to propose any enhancement for amphibians.

173. The ES indicates that the project has been designed to avoid impacts to habitats such as hedgerows. Since the project will impact upon somewhere between 700 – 900m of hedgerow, it is difficult to see how this demonstrates avoidance of impacts on hedgerows. Impacts on other habitats, such as the priority habitat coastal and floodplain grazing marsh, have not been avoided.

174. The ES indicates that the project has been adapted to conserve nature conservation designated sites. This appears to be a reference to avoiding impacts on an internationally designated site through the use of HDD. Compliance with protected site legislation hardly constitutes taking advantage of opportunities to conserve and enhance biodiversity interests.

175. Paragraph 24.9.1.9 indicates that a Landscape Management Plan will be prepared and agreed. This should be required to demonstrate enhancement, and not merely reinstatement (as currently proposed in the ES). For example, paragraph 24.9.1.11 states that hedgerows will be reinstated using larger specimens to reduce the time for breaches to be filled, plants to be protected by tree guards for a minimum of two years. The use of larger specimens will result in a taller feature but will not necessarily fill the gaps more quickly, particularly if planted in tree guards which prevent side growth. The need for tree guards should be made on a case by case basis, and it may be more appropriate to consider fencing out the lengths of new hedgerow to enable a denser structure to form at the base. If tree guards are used, then it seems likely that a tall sparse hedge will be created which will need laying to achieve a dense structure (to achieve stockproofing and benefit to wildlife). Consideration could also be given to gapping up other hedgerows ( i.e . those not directly affected by proposals) and to diversifying the range of locally appropriate native species present. If possible, hedgerow trees should be planted. Page 124

176. Paragraph 24.9.1.10 states that landowners will be advised that if injurious weeds become problematical, they should be treated to avoid becoming dominant. In the opinion of the PPA authorities, if injurious weeds are likely to become problematical as a result of the actions of the developer, then the onus should be on the developer to treat (or finance treatment of) any resultant injurious weed infestation.

177. Paragraphs 24.9.2.24 – 24.9.2.27 deal with impacts on ditches (40m stretches for a period of two years maximum; culverts and bridges of shorter length, but retained for longer). The ES proposes that mitigation will be agreed with the Environment Agency, but states that areas of disturbed ground would be allowed to recolonise naturally. It should be noted that whilst natural recolonisation can be the most appropriate option in some cases, it is often selected because it is an easy option. In this case, it seems likely that in at least some locations natural recolonisation will result in establishment of vegetation of low biodiversity value. Where the affected ditches fall within coastal and floodplain grazing marsh priority habitat, and given that the acknowledgement that ditches will function as wildlife corridors in the landscape, it would seem appropriate for the proposals to result in enhancement of ditches for the benefit of biodiversity.

Chapter 25 – Land Use and Agriculture

178. The land, from a planning point of view, is unallocated and currently identified as open countryside. However, as set out in paragraph 138 of this document, it should be noted that the site falls within the Heysham Energy Coast where Lancaster City Council anticipates further energy investment. Attention is also drawn to the fact that the land is identified as a Mineral Safeguarding Area, as described in paragraph 140. It is the PPA authorities' view that the applicant should consider the viability of prior extraction before work commences on site.

179. The PPA authorities wish to ensure that the substation proposed by DONG Energy takes full account of the proposals and consents for the adjacent National Grid substation (13/00393/FUL: decision dated 23 July 2013, or if a new planning application is submitted, as revised). This applies in particular to the two schemes adopting, where practicable, a common approach to mitigation measures, on matters such as landscaping treatment and flood risk.

Chapter 26 – Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

180. The PPA authorities have previously raised concerns regarding the applicant's methodology relating to the landscape and visual impact of the onshore impacts. These are set out in the 'Response of the PPA Authorities to the Draft Environmental Statement (June 2013)'. These concerns are summarised in paragraphs 3.17 and 15.1 of that document and express the view that the PPA authorities were, as a result, unable to fully assess landscape and visual impacts. These concerns have not been addressed within the final ES. At a meeting of the PPA authorities and DONG Energy (15 August 2013), DONG Energy agreed to meet with the PPA authorities' landscape specialists to discuss the outstanding issues.

181. The PPA authorities reserve the right to comment further on landscape and visual impact subject to the above subsequent meeting and agreement being reached on the methodology.

Page 125

Chapter 27 – Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

182. Paragraph 27.9.2.9 of the Final ES states that the impact of the proposals upon Site 30 is assessed as 'moderate at most' even though the precise siting has yet to be established (derived from the Rochdale Envelope principle) and there is potential for its complete destruction of archaeology either by piling works for the substation (paragraph 27.9.2.3) or by de-watering (paragraph 27.9.2.4). Whilst the environmental information carried within the peat is irreplaceable, the presence of well-preserved peats within the Heysham Moss SSSI mean that there is a larger resource available and reduce the importance of this site somewhat although the potential for information on the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition should not be dismissed. A moderate impact on the palaeoenvironmental remains is thus a reasonable estimate. The site's potential for other types of remains (particularly artefacts of organic materials) must not be ignored, however and it is the PPA authorities view that an overall impact of major significance would be a fairer overall assessment.

183. Mitigation is discussed in several paragraphs, and a suggested scheme of works is set out in section 27.9.2.16 and in Table 27.7. Neither of these mentions the 'strip, map and record' or other assessment at the substation site, despite earlier comments noting the necessity of these and what is stated in Table 27.2 (top of page 10). As is noted in the chapter and above, the area of the substation has a reasonable potential for the preservation of prehistoric remains. These may be within the peat basin (Site 30) where rare organic materials may also survive, or outside the basin yet still on the fringes of Heysham and Brown Mosses where cut features and more robust materials could still survive.

184. Given this potential and the amount of disturbance that may result from the construction of the substation and the use of the adjacent temporary working area, a simple watching brief in this area does not appear adequate and a phased programme of work including both a coring survey and 'strip map and record' elements is required. The PPA authorities are satisfied that an amendment to requirement 29 (archaeology onshore) in the DCO would allow for this. There would be, however, no requirement to undertake any such mitigation work in the portion of the development site already occupied by the former railway sidings, on the assumption that any remains in this area would already have been destroyed.

185. With the exception of the immediate coastal strip, potential for as-yet unknown sites along the onshore cable route seems lower than within the substation site. In the coastal strip there is some potential for remains associated with the known WWII defences south of Heysham Harbour, and these may be disturbed by the cable route and works associated with HDD under the coastal saltmarsh. Given the lower significance (relatively) of such remains, and the limited disturbance and lower potential along the main cable route, a simple watching brief is considered adequate mitigation for this section of the works.

Chapter 28 – Traffic and Transport

186. When cable system installation is to cross any roads then the work should preferably be undertaken using the Horizontal Directional drilling methodology that has been identified. The applicant indicates that this is subject to further investigation of the site and conditions, but given the busy nature of the A638 and to avoid significant impacts, the Highways Authority preferred option is the use of HDD at this road crossing. The Highways Authority would wish to have discussions with the developer / contractor to ensure that this method would not affect the road surface or create any weakness under the road structure. Page 126

187. The proposal for access to the cable working corridor via a temporary access road is acceptable. The main requirement is that all vehicles must be able to enter and leave the site in forward gear. There should be sufficient room (length and width) at the entrance to the access road to ensure that all vehicles are able to pull off the adopted highway and not have to wait on the highway creating an obstruction. There will also need to be a sufficient length of hard surfacing at the entrance to prevent loose material being transported onto the highway. The best place for this access would be south of the A638 where the proposed access for the Banks Renewables wind turbine development is to be located. The Section 278 works associated with that project should form the basis of any agreement for this proposed work going forward. Any access road would be subject to same agreements as currently proposed with Banks Renewables for the erection of three wind turbines (11/00689/FUL: decision dated 28 November 2012).

188. With regard to the Carr Lane access the Highways Authority have concerns that the construction vehicles will cause disruption for other road users. This may require the creation of passing places along the road. This is likely to be particularly so with delivery of cable drums to site.

189. All abnormal loads traffic will have to use routes agreed by the Highways Authority, the Police and Developer and will be subject to a trial run prior to actual delivery. Timetable for any such deliveries should take into account external factors (such as timing of ferry arrivals / departures from Heysham). Clarification is required on the type and size of abnormal loads to be transported via M6 and come through Lancaster. Currently the document says these will be able to use the new Heysham-M6 link road, however, alternative arrangements should be considered at an early stage.

190. Site access to the main substation site will be from the existing roundabout to the north of the A638. As with proposals for works to south of the A638 there should be sufficient room to ensure that vehicles are not creating an obstruction on the existing highway.

Chapter 30 – Noise and Vibration

191. The PPA authorities are pleased to note that the potential for tonal noise from operation of the transformer station in close proximity to residential properties appears to have been addressed.

192. Provided that technical solutions are put in place to ensure that noise disturbance is not experienced by local residents and adequate monitoring arrangements are made, the PPA authorities do not wish to raise any concerns regarding noise.

193. In respect of noise resulting from onshore construction, the applicant is proposing to publish contact details for concerned members of the public to speak to a site representative. This could also be used by the public to raise any other concerns regarding construction.

Chapter 31 – Socio-economics

194. As there is not yet a firm indication of the construction port or the location of the operations and maintenance (O&M) base, it is difficult to ascertain the socio-economic impact (both beneficial and adverse) upon Cumbria and Lancashire. The potential construction ports include Liverpool, Belfast, Heysham and Barrow. These are also the potential locations for the O&M base, along with Workington, Douglas and Garston. Page 127

An early decision on this would allow for detailed discussion around the necessary support that local partners can provide in supporting local recruitment, suitable training options, alerting the potential local supply chain and evaluating any impact on local services, housing and businesses which may need to be mitigated.

195. Reference is made to Table 31.19 'Summary of significance, mitigation and monitoring'. With regard to the onshore element of the project the 'Construction phase' section is of relevance. Slight beneficial impacts associated with the supply chain and construction have been identified in the ES. There are also slight negative impacts associated with local services and disruption to local tourism and recreational businesses and activities. Given the scale of the overall investment associated with the project the overall local socio-economic benefits are disappointing. Furthermore there is no indication, despite earlier concerns raised by the PPA authorities, that mitigation measures will be put into place to maximise the use of local businesses and employment.

196. The PPA authorities would especially welcome early discussions around developing a local supply chain framework to ensure that local businesses are provided with ample opportunity to secure work and provide services during each phase of the development. For example, the authorities would want to explore opportunities for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to benefit from innovative approaches to training schemes such as shared and community apprentices, or to be supported and mentored to achieve the necessary quality standards that DONG Energy would need to see in any contractors it employs.

197 . DONG Energy has agreed in principle to the establishment of a Community Benefit Fund (CBF) if a DCO is granted. The PPA authorities welcome this, but recognise that the CBF falls outside the planning process. This will be paid to communities in recognition that the project may have national benefits but the impacts are local and long term.

Comments on Representations

198. The views of local members on the proposed development will be attached as Appendix 1 to this Local Impact Report when it is submitted to PINS.

Conclusions

199. In respect of the known impacts of the offshore elements of the project there are positive, neutral and negative impacts. The PPA authorities consider that the negative impacts of the onshore elements of the project are not significant overall, and in most cases they can be mitigated against by requirements in the DCO and/or a s106 agreement. These relate to the following matters:

• Consideration of transport impacts arising onshore relating to offshore construction activity and from the subsequent operation of the wind farm; • Economic impacts, most importantly the need to maximise job creation, training and supply chain benefits; • Ensuring that radioactive particles in sea bed sediments are not mobilised onto shore; • Ensuring that a means of contact is provided to enable any concerns to be • expressed by the public during construction; • Ensuring that decommissioning takes place. Page 128

200. The offshore seascape, landscape and visual impacts are only significant in EIA terms when considering the visual impact from high ground near the Cumbrian coast (e.g. the viewpoint at Black Combe, near Bootle). Due to the nature of this impact, it is not possible to undertake any mitigation other than selecting scenarios involving the lowest numbers of turbines.

201. In respect of the known impacts of the onshore elements of the project there are positive, neutral and negative impacts. The PPA authorities consider that the negative impacts of the onshore elements of the project are not significant overall, and they can be mitigated against by requirements in the DCO and/or a s106 agreement. These relate to the following matters:

202. Discussions are still required between the PPA authorities and the applicant on the landscape and visual impact of the proposals. The authorities also expect to be involved in decisions on the construction port and O&M base, and reserve the right to comment further on these topics.