_Date:5 December 2018

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

Dear Sir/Madam Planning Committee Agenda - 13 December 2018 Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Planning Committee will be held at 9.30 am on Thursday, 13 December 2018 at the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Penrith.

1 Apologies for Absence

2 Minutes

To sign the minutes Pla/94/11/18 to Pla/108/11/18 of the meeting of this Committee held on 15 November 2018 as a correct record of those proceedings (copies previously circulated).

3 Declarations of Interest

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

4 Appeal Decision Letters (Pages 7 - 12)

To receive report TES63/18 from the Deputy Director Technical Services which is attached and which lists decision letters from the Planning Inspectorate received since the last meeting:

Application Applicant/Appeal Appeal Decision No. 17/0534 Mr Lewis Faith The appeal is dismissed. The site is the first open and undeveloped field on the East side of Melmerby to Gamblesby road. It spans in an Easterly direction to the A686 Grid Ref (Easting): 361555 (Northing) 537616

www.eden.gov.uk Matthew Neal Deputy Chief Executive The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.

The development proposed is outline application for the development of 8 market lead homes based on traditional courtyard design. 5 Planning Issues (Pages 13 - 18)

To note the attached lists of the Deputy Director Technical Services. a) Applications determined under office delegated powers for the month of November 2018. b) Reasons for refusal on delegated decisions for the month of November 2018.

6 Planning Issues - Applications for Debate (Green Papers) (Pages 19 - 140)

To consider the reports of the Deputy Director Technical Services on the following applications:

Item Officer Page Application Details No Recommendation Number 1 Planning Application No: 18/0822 Recommended to:

Proposed erection of dwelling REFUSE Land adj to Ivy Cottage, Aiketgate, With Reasons 21 Armathwaite

Miss K Spooner and Mr J Robley 2 Planning Application No: 18/0564 Recommended to:

Reserved Matters application for access, APPROVE appearance, landscaping, layout and scale Subject to attached to approval 17/0095 Conditions 29 Land adjacent to Walmar, Croft Head, Sockbridge

Mr Wilkinson - JIW Properties 3 Planning Application No: 18/0775 Recommended to:

Outline application for residential APPROVE development with approval sought for Subject to 46 access Land at Eden View, Langwathby Conditions

JIW Properties Ltd

www.eden.gov.uk 2 4 Planning Application No: 18/0829 Recommended to:

Proposed Single Dwelling APPROVE 65 Subject to Skirsgill Lane, Eamont Bridge, Penrith Conditions Mr Ray King 5 Planning Application No: 17/0651 Recommended to:

Redevelopment of former nursery and REFUSE erection of 14 dwellings and access With Reasons 79 Land at Ashton Lea, Kirkby Thore

Rapcrest Ltd 6 Planning Application No: 17/1028 Recommended to: Proposed demolition of existing house and garage and erection of replacement house APPROVE and garage Subject to 99 Conditions Greenside, Moss Road, Cliburn CA10 3AL

Mr John Henshaw 7 Planning Application No: 18/0715 Recommended to:

Retention of hardstanding and alteration of APPROVE access Subject to 108 Webster House, Little Strickland Conditions

Mr & Mrs Langridge 8 Planning Application No: 18/0788 Recommended to:

Retrospective change of use of land to APPROVE domestic garden in association with Subject to number 4 Ullesby Gardens Conditions 115

4 Ullesby Gardens, Ousby

Willan Trading Ltd 9 Planning Application No: 18/0868 Recommended to: 122

Variation of condition 2 (Plans APPROVE Compliance) for plot 28 - Replacement of Subject to front elevation stone with render. Plots 16, Conditions 17 and 21 - replacement of stone and quoins with brick. Plot 13 - Addition of quoins and amendment of front door colour to mouse grey on the finishes schedule attached to approval 17/0660.

Field adjacent to Byrnes Close, Plumpton www.eden.gov.uk 3 Reiver Homes

10 Planning Application No: 18/0811 Recommended to:

Discharge of Condition 3 (Landscaping) APPROVE attached to approval 18/0488 for an Subject to extension to existing approved free range Conditions egg-laying unit with associated feed bins 137 and concrete aprons Land south of Coupland Beck Farm, Appleby

Mr W & W Patterson 7 Review of the Constitution (Pages 141 - 152)

To receive report G111/18 from the Deputy Chief Executive which is attached and which seek the views of the Planning Committee on the proposed amendments to be made in the Constitution relating to the delegations to the Deputy Director Technical Services and the questioning of members of the public speaking at Planning Committee.

RECOMMENDATIONS that:

1. Consideration be given to the recommended amendments to:

(1) the scheme of delegation to the Deputy Director Technical Services as set out in Appendix 1 to this report; and

(2) paragraph 13 of the Council’s Code of Planning Conduct and Practice.

2. It be noted that the views of Planning Committee will be presented to a meeting of the Accounts and Governance Committee, with the matter being the subject of a final decision by Council.

8 Confirmation of Site Visits (if any)

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

9 Any Other Items which the Chairman decides are urgent

10 Date of Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting be confirmed as 17 January 2018.

Yours faithfully

www.eden.gov.uk 4 M Neal Deputy Chief Executive (Monitoring Officer)

Democratic Services Contact: Claire Watters

Encs

For Attention All members of the Council

Chairman – Councillor J G Thompson (Conservative Group) Vice Chairman – Councillor W Patterson (Independent Group)

Councillors A Armstrong, Conservative Group V Kendall, Conservative Group I Chambers, Conservative Group J C Lynch, Conservative Group M Clark, Independent Group R Sealby, Conservative Group M Eyles, Liberal Democrat Group H Sawrey-Cookson, Independent Group D Holden, Liberal Democrat Group

Standing Deputies D Banks, Independent Group J Raine, Conservative Group A Hogg, Conservative Group V Taylor, Liberal Democrat Group M Smith, Independent Group M Rudhall, Liberal Democrat Group

Please Note: 1. Access to the internet in the Council Chamber and Committee room is available via the guest wi-fi – no password is required 2. Under the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 this meeting has been advertised as a public meeting (unless stated otherwise) and as such could be filmed or recorded by the media or members of the public

www.eden.gov.uk 5 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 4

Report No TES63/18

Eden District Council

Planning Committee 13 December 2018

Appeal Decision Letters

Report of the Deputy Director Technical Services

Attached for Members’ information is a list of Decision Letters received since the last meeting:

Application Applicant Appeal Decision Number(s)

17/0534 Mr Lewis Faith The appeal is The site is the first open and undeveloped field dismissed. on the East side of the Melmerby to Gamblesby road. It spans in an Easterly direction to the A686 Grid Ref (Easting): 361555 (Northing) 537616

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.

The development proposed is outline application for the development of 8 market lead homes based on traditional courtyard design.

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Page 7

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 July 2018

by Graeme Robbie BA(Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9 November 2018

Appeal Ref: APP/H0928/W/18/3201314 the site is the first open and undeveloped field on the East side of the Melmerby to Gamblesby road. it spans in an Easterly direction to the A686 Grid Ref (Easting): 361555 (Northing) 537616  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Lewis Faith against the decision of Eden District Council.  The application Ref 17/0534, dated 23 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 12 April 2018.  The development proposed is outline application for the development of 8 market lead homes based on traditional courtyard design.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural Matters

2. The application was submitted in outline form with access, layout and scale to be considered, and appearance and landscaping reserved for subsequent consideration. Drawings have been submitted with the application, comprising a site location plan, a proposed site layout showing the arrangement and positions of houses and flats within the site, access to the site and the roadway into, and within, the development and a site drainage layout. Any indication on those plans to appearance and landscaping I have treated as being indicative.

Background and Main Issue

3. The Council resolved to grant outline planning permission for the application the subject of the current appeal at its meeting on 16 November 2017. This was subject to an agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure a commuted sum for the provision of affordable housing. Agreement could not subsequently be reached regarding the level of commuted sum to be paid and the effect of this on the viability of the proposal.

4. Thus, the main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development is required to make a contribution towards the provision of affordable housing.

Reasons

Policy Context

5. The Eden Local Plan (ELP) is at an advanced stage of preparation. Although the Council have not advised that it has yet been formally adopted it is clear that they afforded it considerable weight in reaching their decision on the

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 8 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/18/3201314

proposal. This is evidenced by the Council’s reliance on ELP draft policy HS1 in its refusal reason, and an absence of reference to policies from the Eden District Council Core Strategy Development Plan Document (CS). As such, and in the absence of reference to any of the CS policies, so shall I.

6. Whilst not cited within the refusal reason, the provisions of ELP policy LS1 are also considered in some depth by the Council. ELP policy LS1 identifies Melmerby as a ‘Smaller village and Hamlet’ where development of an appropriate scale and form will be supported. It goes on to state that where development delivers new housing on greenfield sites, proposals will be permitted where they accord with local connection criteria, the details of which are set out in ELP policy HS1.

7. Whilst the Council acknowledge that the proposal would not satisfy the local connection criteria set out in draft policy HS1, the Council’s formally adopted policy on affordable housing contributions sets out its approach to securing financial contributions towards affordable housing provision elsewhere within the District. Although the approach sets out a commuted sum equivalent to 12% of the scheme’s Gross Development Value (GDV), where a reduced level of contribution is sought by the development the level of sum is ultimately subject to a viability assessment. Although the scheme’s viability remains a point of dispute in the current instance, the general approach set out by the affordable housing contribution policy is not directly challenged by the appellant.

8. I saw that the appeal site would round-off the settlement of Melmerby, adjoining existing dwellings to the south of the site, and located between the defensible boundaries of the roads to the east and west of the site. I am also advised that planning permission exists for development to the north of the appeal site. Whilst there has been a suggestion that the site may also constitute a form of infill development, being located between existing development to the south and consented development to the north, I have no details of that scheme and I give that matter limited weight. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that the site is well related to the existing settlement and it is common ground between the parties that the proposal would be acceptable in all other respects, subject to resolution of the matter of provision of affordable housing and the viability of the scheme.

Viability of the scheme

9. The application the subject of the current appeal has been described in submissions by both main parties as a resubmission of a previous application1, which was subsequently considered at appeal2. Extensive reference is made throughout both parties’ submissions to evidence submitted in respect of the previous appeal. In particular, the appellant refers to an updated financial viability assessment3 carried out on behalf of Eden District Council that was submitted during the course of the previous appeal, shortly before the matter was heard before an Inspector. The appellant’s further assessment of that updated document, and the Inspector’s subsequent decision, forms the basis of the appellant’s case in the current instance.

1 LPA reference: 14/0808 2 APP/H0928/W/16/3158080 3 Lambert Smith Hampton: ‘Financial Viability Assessment Review (Update) for Eden District Council in respect of Paddock to the north of Helm Bar, Melmerby CA10 1HF’, dated October 2016 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Page 9 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/18/3201314

10. Previously4, the two main disputed elements affecting the viability of the scheme were the site’s value and the proposal’s GDV. Through the myriad viability assessments submitted with the current appeal proposal, which include those previously considered and updates thereto, it appears to me that the Council’s assessment of GDV (at £1,780,000) now appears to have been adopted by the appellant5. Whilst the ‘Financial Viability Assessment – LSH Version’6 has upwardly revised the site’s GDV to £1,886,365, it appears that on the balance of the evidence both parties views on this matter have converged more towards the GDV previously accepted by the Inspector as being most robust in relation to this site.

11. It is unclear as to the extent to which the Council have assessed the appellant’s latest appeal submissions. The Council’s Statement of Case (SofC) appears to contradict itself, stating in turn that the Council’s external auditors have both considered the information, and not had sufficient time to do so. In turn, the appellant states that the evidence that underpins the appeal had been available to the Council for a significant period of time, which appears to me to have pre- dated the Council’s formal decision on the application. Both parties, however, remain committed to their site value figures of £200,000 (Council) and £275,000 (appellant) that were assessed previously at the appeal hearing.

12. To support the latter figure, the basis for which was initially derived in a 2015 site evaluation7, the appellant submitted additional and updated information in the form of a ‘Land Price Evidence’ document to support the contention that the higher of the two figures represents a more robust assessment of site value. However, whilst it is argued that this provides a more detailed basis upon which to derive a site value, it seems to me to merely rehearse information previously submitted, and subsequently discounted by the previous Inspector. Thus, for those reasons I do not find comparisons with single plot sites in Winskill and a site on Icold Road, Greystoke to be particularly useful for the reasons set out in respect of the previous appeal proposal.

13. Moreover, the examples quoted still appear to result in plot values similar to those that led the Council, and the Inspector, to arrive at conclusions that a site value of £200,000 for the appeal site was the more robust of the two figures. It may be that the appellant’s calculations of land value per m2 of property support the theory that the site value might exceed the Council’s figure, but the conclusions drawn in respect of these other proposals and their implications for the appeal site’s site value seem to be based on assumptions and unsubstantiated statements rather than substantive evidence. I am not therefore persuaded that the evidence is sufficiently compelling to allow me to reach a conclusion that deviates from that reached by the previous Inspector in this respect and that there would be sufficient residue within the scheme to make a commuted payment of the level sought by the Council.

14. However, even if I were to conclude that the site value was in the region of £275,000, the submitted viability assessment concludes that there would remain a residue within the proposal that would support the payment of a commuted sum towards affordable housing provision. The appellant argues

4 APP/H0928/W/16/3158080 5 ‘Viability – assessor accepted figures.pdf’ and ‘Viability – assessor accepted figures (275k site value).pdf’ – Planning Appeal Full Statement, 6. Conclusion on site value 6 LPA Statement of Case Appendix D Part 1a 7 Penrith Farmers’ & Kidds plc ‘Valuation of Land at Melmerby (North of Helm Bar)’ dated 4 June 2015

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Page 10 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/18/3201314

that this lower amount, in the region of £29,000, would be further eroded by the application of sensitivity testing and to cover the types of margins of error discussed at length in the transcripts of the previous appeal hearing.

15. The arguments for the margins of error and sensitivity testing advanced by the appellant again draw on extracts from the transcript of the previous appeal hearing. However, it seems to me from those transcripts that elements of both were implicit in the identification of values set out in the Council’s previous assessments and to apply them again at this stage would amount to double- counting.

16. Thus, for the reasons I have set out above, and acknowledging that there are a differing approaches to the assessment of viability, I am not persuaded that the scheme is unable to make appropriate contribution, in the form of a commuted payment, towards the provision of affordable housing. There is no mechanism before me with which to secure such a commuted payment, and for that reason the appeal cannot succeed. In the absence of a mechanism to secure commuted payment, the benefits that would arise from the contribution towards affordable housing, noted as a corporate District-wide priority, would not occur and would not, as a consequence, amount to a material consideration sufficient to justify a proposal contrary to emerging policy HS1.

17. The proposed flatted units (ground and first floor) would be significantly smaller than the houses within the development. They might be comparable in size with residential units provided on sites elsewhere within the District that are affordable houses but that does not make them affordable dwellings in the terms set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Similarly, stating that they are ‘likely to be very close to an affordable home in terms of value’, refers to only one factor amongst many in what would be construed as being an affordable home and does not make them affordable, or lead me to conclude that anything other than limited weight should be given to this matter.

Other Matters

18. It is noted that the Council do not object to the proposal in terms of its scale, design and layout, its impact on the character and appearance of Melmerby or the living conditions of occupiers of existing neighbouring properties. Nor are there objections to the proposal, subject to the conditions, in terms of archaeology, ground conditions, flood risk, highways or drainage. These, however, are neutral factors and are not sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified above.

Conclusion

19. For the reasons set out, and having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed. Graeme Robbie

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Page 11 This page is intentionally left blank PLANNING COMMITTEE Agenda Item No. APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER OFFICER DELEGATED POWERS FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2018

App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

18/0392 Full Application Dacre Change of use from touring caravan pitches to static FLUSCO WOOD, FLUSCO, Mr C Chamberlain APPROVED caravan / lodge pitches. PENRITH, CA11 0JB

18/0525 Full Application Hesket Siting of 7 holiday accommodation pods. COOMBS VIEW, ARMATHWAITE, Mr N Ricketts APPROVED CARLISLE, CA4 9TJ

18/0588 Full Application Culgaith Removal of condition 6 (roof materials) and LAND ADJACENT IVY HOUSE, Mr G Percival APPROVED discharge of conditions; 3 (boundaries) 4 (drainage) CULGAITH, PENRITH, CA10 1QW and 5 (external surfaces) attached to approval 09/0446.

18/0607 Full Application Temple Sowerby Proposed vehicle and implement store. THE SPINNEY, TEMPLE SOWERBY, Mr Stephenson APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 1RZ

18/0672 Advertisement Alston Erection of a non-illuminated notice board. GARRIGILL VILLAGE GREEN, Alston Moor Parish APPROVED GARRIGILL, ALSTON, CA9 3DS Council

18/0714 Notice of Intention Great Strickland Proposed roofing over a farm midden. MIDDEN TO WEST OF MIDTOWN Mr M Burne APPROVED BARN, GREAT STRICKLAND, PENRITH, CA10 3DF

18/0719 Notice of Intention Kirkoswald Roof over existing yard. HARESCEUGH CASTLE, RENWICK, CW & Y Dixon & Sons - APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 1JZ Mr C Dixon

18/0720 Full Application Hesket Roof over existing livestock yard. PETTERIL BRIDGE END, Mr D Nelson APPROVED SOUTHWAITE, CARLISLE, CA4 0JJ

18/0729 Full Application Greystoke Alterations and refurbishment of swimming pool SWIMMING POOL, CHURCH ROAD, Mr S Nicol APPROVED facilities. GREYSTOKE, PENRITH, CA11 0TW

18/0736 Full Application Alston Proposed two storey extension. 2 AIMSHAUGH ROAD, LEADGATE, Mr & Mrs D Wilkin APPROVED ALSTON, CA9 3EN Agenda Item 5

18/0739 Full Application Culgaith Variation of condition 2 (plans compliance) to amend LAND ADJACENT IVY HOUSE, Mr & Mrs Percival APPROVED the position of the dwelling attached to approval CULGAITH, PENRITH, CA10 1QW 09/0446.

18/0740 Non-Material Penrith Non material amendment comprising of addition of 1 CEDAR CLOSE, PENRITH, CA11 Mr C Hodgson APPROVED Amend render to upper floor of extension attached to 8TJ approval 18/0084.

Page 13 Page 18/0742 Full Application Alston Demolition of garage and replacement store, window THE OLD POLICE STATION, Mr & Mrs Johnson APPROVED and door alterations and replacements. TOWNHEAD, ALSTON, CA9 3SL

29 November 2018 Page 1 of 5 Page 14 Page App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

18/0743 Full Application Hunsonby Variation of condition 2 (plans compliance) for the ROAD HEAD FARM, WINSKILL, Messrs Awde APPROVED addition of integral garage attached to approval PENRITH, CA10 1PB 17/0560.

18/0744 Listed Building Penrith Listed Building Consent for roof repairs. 31 ST ANDREWS VIEW, PENRITH, Ms C M Barr APPROVED CA11 7YF

18/0746 Listed Building Warcop Listed Building consent for proposed conversion of WARCOP HOUSE, WARCOP, Mr M Dean-Netshcer APPROVED redundant barns to provide a 4 bed unit and a 4/5 APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND, bed unit with new access onto B6259. CA16 6NX

18/0750 Listed Building Hesket Listed Building consent for change of window BLOSSOM BARN, PLUMPTON, Mr T Hutcheon APPROVED surrounds to UPVC from timber attached to approval PENRITH, CA11 0JD 17/0500.

18/0753 Listed Building Skelton Listed Building consent for alterations to barn BARN ADJ. RUSHGILL HOUSE, Mr P Donoghue APPROVED pursuant conversion to two market dwellings. SKELTON WOOD END, SKELTON, PENRITH, CA11 9UB

18/0755 Full Application Morland Removal of condition 3 (holiday accommodation) and JUBILEE COTTAGE, GREENGILL, Mr F Markham APPROVED condition 4 (class of residence) attached to approval MORLAND, PENRITH, CA10 3AX 06/0808.

18/0760 Outline Tebay Outline application for residential development with LAND ADJOINING CHURCH RISE, Mr H Lowis - Lowis APPROVED Application all matters reserved. TEBAY, PENRITH, Brothers

18/0764 Full Application Nateby Single storey kitchen extension. LOCKTHWAITE, NATEBY, KIRKBY Mr J A Davis APPROVED STEPHEN, CA17 4JR

18/0766 Full Application Brough Proposed side extension and minor alterations to BARN AT MILL HOUSE, BROUGH, Mr T Sowerby APPROVED plans and elevations approved under application KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 4DU 17/0943.

18/0776 Full Application Clifton Construction of a concrete pad and the siting of a WHITE HOUSE GUEST HOUSE, Ms H Coulthard APPROVED camping pod. CLIFTON, PENRITH, CA10 2EL

18/0778 Full Application Great Strickland Proposed covered yard steel portal building. MIDTOWN FARM, GREAT W E Strong & Partners APPROVED STRICKLAND, PENRITH, CA10 3DF

18/0780 Full Application Shap Change of use from hairdressers to residential ELM GARTH COTTAGE, SHAP, Mrs G Woof APPROVED dwelling. PENRITH, CA10 3NH

18/0781 Outline Morland Outline application for residential development with LAND WEST OF THE COBBLES, Mrs J Savage REFUSED Application all matters reserved. WATER STREET, MORLAND, PENRITH, CA10 3AY

18/0783 Change of Use Skelton Conversion of Dutch Barn into two residential THE STACKYARD ADJACENT ROE Mr J Willows APPROVED PD/PN dwellings. HILL, ROE HILL, HIGHBRIDGE, DALSTON, CA5 7DR

29 November 2018 Page 2 of 5 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

18/0784 Full Application Penrith Addition of conservatory to rear and creation of 40 CASTLE HILL ROAD, PENRITH, Mr J Rutter APPROVED driveway to front part retrospective. CA11 7HA

18/0787 Notice of Intention Kirkoswald Roof over existing silage pit. DOLLY TARN, KIRKOSWALD, Mr R Blenkharn - APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 1EZ Messrs Blenkharn

18/0792 Full Application Great Strickland Covered yard steel portal building. MIDTOWN FARM, GREAT W E Strong & Partners APPROVED STRICKLAND, PENRITH, CA10 3DF

18/0796 Listed Building Greystoke Listed building consent for replacement of No. 5 WEST THORPE, THE THORPE, Mr G Ross REFUSED windows at front of the property. GREYSTOKE, PENRITH, CA11 0TJ

18/0797 Full Application Penrith Demolition of flat roofed utility, erection of 2 storey 74 MILNER MOUNT, PENRITH, Mr M Fleming APPROVED side extension and porch. CA11 8HA

18/0803 Full Application Langwathby Increasing width of existing access to A686. ROBINSFIELD, EDENHALL, Mr S. Burne APPROVED PENRITH, CA11 8SR

18/0810 Full Application Long Marton Raise existing silage store roof height by 2.4m. BRAMPTON HALL, BRAMPTON, Mr R Bellas APPROVED APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND, CA16 6JS

18/0812 Full Application Great Strickland Proposed roof over existing manure store building. MIDTOWN FARM, GREAT W.E Strong & Partners APPROVED STRICKLAND, PENRITH, CA10 3DF

18/0820 Full Application Culgaith Extension and alterations, replacement double MALLARD HOUSE, CULGAITH, Mr M Smith APPROVED garage with loft store. PENRITH, CA10 1QE

18/0825 Tree Works (CA) Penrith T1, T2: Fell 2 Laburnum trees; T3 Copper Beech: BURLISH, BEACON EDGE, Miss Julie Birkett APPROVED Reduce crown as indicated on attached photos PENRITH, CA11 7PE provided; Penrith New Streets Conservation Area.

18/0830 Tree Works (CA) Alston G1 Cypress x 2: Remove trees (outgrown location DORVILLE, FRONT STREET, Mr T A Thompson APPROVED and dominating the view); G2 Cypress x 14: Remove ALSTON, CA9 3SG overgrown hedge / screen; T1 Willow: Reduce crown to side of house to create 2m clearance, crown raise over drive to 3m, prune 1m 'window' around telephone wires; Alston Conservation Area.

18/0831 Non-Material Lazonby Non Material Amendment comprising of FAIRFIELD, LAZONBY, PENRITH, Mr & Mrs B Speirs APPROVED Amend amendments to windows, moving garage and wider CA10 1BX garage door opening, attached to approval 18/0537.

18/0838 Notice of Intention Culgaith Slurry Storage Unit. MOORSIDE FARM, CULGAITH, Mr J Findlay APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 1QU Page 15 Page

29 November 2018 Page 3 of 5 Page 16 Page App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

18/0840 Tree Works (CA) Temple Sowerby Fell x 2 mature Silver Birch trees (both in poor shape PADDOCK END, TEMPLE Mr Brian Atkinson APPROVED and storm damaged and have looked sick all SOWERBY, PENRITH, CA10 1SB summer); A replacement tree has been planted and requires room to grow; Temple Sowerby Conservation Area.

18/0842 Tree Works (CA) Appleby Remove 8m Cypress tree; Appleby Conservation BEECH WOOD, BONGATE, Mr D L Robinson APPROVED Area. APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND, CA16 6UN

18/0865 Tree Works Penrith Group of 3 Ash trees: Remove trees and replace with LAND BEHIND 13-14 CYPRESS Mr Ryan Inglis - APPROVED (TPO) new suitable trees (Alder or Birch); Tree Preservation WAY, PENRITH, CA11 8UN Persimmon Homes Order No 125, 2006, Carleton Heights, Penrith Lancashire (Group 2). Reasons: Trees are remnant hedgerow trees and display a number of structural defects; stem bifurcation being the most significant. The presence of the three Trees is not suitable with the new housing in the longer term.

18/0871 Tree Works (CA) Appleby Yew T2: Prune side closest to North Lodge to create NORTH LODGE, BOROUGHGATE, Mr G Middleton APPROVED 2m clearance; Willow T3: Remove tree; Cypress T4 APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND, and T5: Remove trees; Appleby Conservation Area. CA16 6XH

18/0873 Tree Works (CA) Penrith Remove T1 Birch and T2 Cherry; Penrith New 29 WORDSWORTH STREET, Mr C Ryder APPROVED Streets Conservation Area. PENRITH, CA11 7QY

18/0881 Tree Works (CA) Penrith 1) Pruning all trees as necessary to provide 2.5m BRUNSWICK SQUARE GARDEN Mr Paul Riley APPROVED clearance over paths and up to 5m over road; 2) AREA, PENRITH, CA11 7LL Prune Beech and Lime to clear street lamp; 3) Remove shoot growth from 2 Lime trees; 4) Annual shaping of Hollies, Cypress and Yew; 5) Remove Laburnum with split stem; Penrith Conservation Area.

18/0883 Tree Works Skelton T1: Fell Ash tree and replant with 2 Ash trees; Tree LAND ADJACENT 1 PENNINE Asbridge Building APPROVED (TPO) Preservation Order No 178, 2016, Braisgate / VIEW, SKELTON, PENRITH, CA11 Contractors Pennine View, Skelton; Reasons: Extensive cavity at 9SG base which appears to extend upwardsfor 75cm; Deadwood present and an inpsection camera showed advanced decay within the stem; The close proximity of the road to the tree and its elevated position means there is little choice but to fell tree and remove future risk of complete failure.

18/0886 Tree Works (CA) Appleby T1 Cotoneaster: Remove; T2 Cherry: Remove; T3 EDENDALE, GARTH HEADS ROAD, Mr Nathan Dewis APPROVED Pine: Prune to clear telephone wire by 1m; T4 APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND, Sycamore: Remove: Appleby Conservation Area. CA16 6TW

29 November 2018 Page 4 of 5 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

In relation to each application it was considered whether the proposal was appropriate having regard to the Development Plan, the representations which were received including those from consultees and all other material considerations. In cases where the application was approved the proposal was considered to be acceptable in planning terms having regard to the material considerations. In cases where the application was refused the proposal was not considered to be acceptable having regard to the material and relevant considerations. In all cases it was considered whether the application should be approved or refused and what conditions, if any, should be imposed to secure an acceptable form of development. Page 17 Page

29 November 2018 Page 5 of 5 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Agenda Index REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Eden District Council Planning Committee Agenda Committee Date: 13 December 2018 INDEX

Item Officer Application Details No Recommendation

1 Planning Application No: 18/0822 Recommended to: Proposed erection of dwelling REFUSE Land adj to Ivy Cottage, Aiketgate, Armathwaite With Reasons Miss K Spooner and Mr J Robley 2 Planning Application No: 18/0564 Recommended to: Reserved Matters application for access, appearance, APPROVE landscaping, layout and scale attached to approval 17/0095 Subject to Conditions Land adjacent to Walmar, Croft Head, Sockbridge Mr Wilkinson - JIW Properties 3 Planning Application No: 18/0775 Recommended to: Outline application for residential development with approval APPROVE sought for access Subject to Conditions Land at Eden View, Langwathby JIW Properties Ltd 4 Planning Application No: 18/0829 Recommended to: Proposed Single Dwelling APPROVE Skirsgill Lane, Eamont Bridge, Penrith Subject to Conditions Mr Ray King 5 Planning Application No: 17/0651 Recommended to: Redevelopment of former nursery and erection of 14 REFUSE dwellings and access With Reasons Land at Ashton Lea, Kirkby Thore Rapcrest Ltd 6 Planning Application No: 17/1028 Recommended to: Proposed demolition of existing house and garage and APPROVE erection of replacement house and garage Subject to Conditions Greenside, Moss Road, Cliburn CA10 3AL Mr John Henshaw

Page 19 Agenda Index REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Item Officer Application Details No Recommendation

7 Planning Application No: 18/0715 Recommended to: Retention of hardstanding and alteration of access APPROVE Webster House, Little Strickland Subject to Conditions Mr & Mrs Langridge 8 Planning Application No: 18/0788 Recommended to: Retrospective change of use of land to domestic garden in APPROVE association with number 4 Ullesby Gardens Subject to Conditions 4 Ullesby Gardens, Ousby Willan Trading Ltd 9 Planning Application No: 18/0868 Recommended to: Variation of condition 2 (Plans Compliance) for plot 28 - APPROVE Replacement of front elevation stone with render. Plots 16, Subject to Conditions 17 and 21 - replacement of stone and quoins with brick. Plot 13 - Addition of quoins and amendment of front door colour to mouse grey on the finishes schedule attached to approval 17/0660. Field adjacent to Byrnes Close, Plumpton Reiver Homes 10 Planning Application No: 18/0811 Recommended to: Discharge of Condition 3 (Landscaping) attached to approval APPROVE 18/0488 for an extension to existing approved free range Subject to Conditions egg-laying unit with associated feed bins and concrete aprons Land south of Coupland Beck Farm, Appleby Mr W & W Patterson

Page 20 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 13 December 2018

Planning Application No: 18/0822 Date Received: 5 October 2018

OS Grid Ref: 348148 546510 Expiry Date: 6 December 2018

Parish: Hesket Ward: Hesket

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Proposed erection of dwelling

Location: Land adj to Ivy Cottage, Aiketgate, Armathwaite

Applicant: Miss K Spooner and Mr J Robley

Agent: Mr Ian Carrick (Designs)

Case Officer: Karen Thompson

Reason for Referral: This application is before Members as the recommendation to Refuse is contrary to that of the Parish Council

Page 21 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:  The proposed development would have an unacceptable harm on the character of the local landscape and the village in that it cannot be construed as an infill development site, contrary to Policy LS1 and HS2 of the Eden Local Plan 2014 - 2032.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The application seeks full planning permission for a detached single three bedroom dwelling house. 2.1.2 The dwelling would be two storey and would have rendered walls with ‘sandstone’ quoins; an external brick chimney stack on the gable end; and slate effect grey/blue tiles. 2.1.3 The property would benefit from a driveway, leading to 2 car parking spaces which would have a permeable surface and have gardens on all sides of the property. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application site relates to part of paddock and is accessed through the existing field entrance. The size of the application site is approximately 20 metres x 15 metres and is set back from the highway (unclassified U3046) by 29 metres. 2.2.2 To the north is Ivy Cottage which faces towards the front of the application site. Immediately to the south are some agricultural buildings which as used to store grain and straw. These buildings are associated with a farm outside of the village. 2.2.3 The application site is not within a conservation area and there are no listed buildings in the vicinity. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority The parking requirements for a development of this nature have been substantially met. No objection to the proposal from a Highway perspective. Lead Local Flood Authority Surface water maps show that there is no flooding and/or surface water issue in the locale. No objections from a LLFA perspective.

Page 22 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Parish Council Would like to offer their full support to this application. Environmental Health Concerns regarding the proximity of large agricultural buildings on the neighbouring farm in terms of the potential for noise disturbance. To assess the likely impact of activities at the farm on future residents request that an assessment of noise from the farm is carried out. United Utilities Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems Planning Policy The site does not extend between two dwellings so cannot be considered infill due to the space to the northern boundary. The site is not modest infill or modest rounding off within the terms of the policy within the recently adopted local plan. The site set remotely back from the road is out of context with the character and appearance of that part of the village and the existing developed frontage and should be refused on those grounds. 4. Parish Council Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Council No View Object Support No Response Expressed Hesket  4.1 “Hesket Parish Council would like to offer their full support to this application” 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 18 October 2018. No of Neighbours Consulted 3 No of letters of support 2 No of Representations Received 1 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 0 5.2 Letters of support were also received which provided the following comments:  (Councillor Martin) This is for a young couple who would like to live in a community where they grew up. I believe this to be an infill site and does not extend the hamlet of Aiketgate.  (Local resident) I do not have a problem with the planning application.

Page 23 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 6. Relevant Planning History Application No Description Outcome 15/0481 Erection of 100% affordable 3 bedroom Full approval on detached house (across the lane from the 28 October 2016 application property) 17/0953 Erection of 3 bedroomed detached house Full approval on – revision of permission re 15/0481 22 December 2017 (across the lane from the application property) 18/0679 Detached dwelling (across the lane from Withdrawn the application property) 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan 2014 - 2032:  LS1 Locational Strategy  LS2 Housing Targets and Distribution  DEV5 Design of New Development  HS2 Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets Supplementary Planning Documents:  Housing (2010) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes  Requiring good design National Planning Practice Guidance 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle and acceptability of development in this location.  Character and appearance of the development. 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The Eden Local Plan 2014 - 2032 was accepted by the Government's Planning Inspectorate in September 2018 and was adopted at the full Council meeting on 11 October 2018. The plan replaces the previous Development Plan documents, these being the saved policies from the Eden Local Plan (1996) and the Core Strategy (2010) and is now the formal Development Plan for Eden District Council. This means that the Eden Local Plan 2014 - 2032 now carries full weight in the planning decision process and that the Council is now able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.

Page 24 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2.2 Aiketgate is listed as a Smaller Villages and Hamlets within Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan 2014 - 2032, where development of an appropriate scale, which reflects the existing built form of the settlement, adjoining and neighbouring development to the site, and the service function of the settlement, will be permitted within Smaller Villages and Hamlets, to support the development of diverse and sustainable communities. Development in these locations will be permitted in the following circumstances:  Where it reuses previously-developed land (PDL) defined in Appendix 2.  Where it delivers new housing on greenfield sites only, in accordance with the local connection criteria defined in Appendix 6. 8.2.3 Within Smaller Villages and Hamlets all development must be of a high quality design and will be restricted to infill sites, which fill a modest gap between existing buildings within the settlement; or rounding off, which provides a modest extension beyond the limit of the settlement to a logical, defensible boundary; and the re-use of traditional rural buildings and structures, subject to the criteria set out in RUR3. Villages have been identified on the basis that they contain a coherent and close knit group of ten or more dwellings, which are well related and in close proximity to each other, or clustered around a central element or feature, as opposed to area of scattered and poorly related development. 8.2.4 Policy HS2 - Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets supports housing of an appropriate scale, which reflects the built form of adjoining and neighbouring development to the site and the service function of the settlement (including sub- division of existing housing) where it meets all of the following criteria:  Where development is restricted to infilling and rounding off of the current village settlement pattern, in accordance with Policy LS1.  The building does not have more than 150 sqm internal floorspace (gross).  In the case of greenfield sites a condition or legal agreement restricting occupancy to only those meeting local connection criteria. 8.2.5 Although new dwellings within the village of Aiketgate are considered acceptable providing they comply with the above policies. However, in this particular case, it is considered that the application site does not satisfy the definition of an infill site - this issue is expanded on below. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 Within Smaller Villages and Hamlets, development is to be ‘restricted to infill and rounding off of the current village’. The application site is not considered as a ‘rounding off’ as it is not located at the edge or end of a village, and instead, an assessment is required as to whether it can be defined as an infill site. 8.3.2 The application site relates to a small part (approximately 15 metres x 20 metres) of a paddock which extends between the unclassified roads U3046 and U3034 at Aiketgate. The submitted plans show that the site would be accessed off the U3046 and is set back from that highway by approximately 29 metres. 8.3.3 At the point of where the proposed dwelling would be located, the paddock measures 25 metres wide, whereas the application site is 15 metres wide, leaving an undeveloped gap of 10 metres between the application site and the northern boundary of the site.

Page 25 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.3.4 Immediately to the north of the paddock is Ivy Cottage, a detached property with a driveway at the front, in which its front elevation would face south in the direction of, but to the front of the application site. Immediately to the south of the application site is a range of agricultural buildings which are currently used to store hay/straw bales and grain. 8.3.5 By reason of the positioning of the proposed dwelling, being set back from the highway and physically separated from neighbouring properties to the north and south, the plot of land cannot be considered to be one that “…fills a modest gap between existing buildings”. 8.3.6 The proposed development therefore conflicts with Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan because the site cannot be construed to be an infill development as the application site would not have neither a strong defensible boundary nor fill a modest gap within the settlement of Aiketgate. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 The application property would be positioned to the south but to the side of the nearest residential property - Ivy Cottage. It is considered that a dwelling in the proposed location would not have an adverse impact on the amenity or privacy of the occupiers of the neighbouring property. 8.4.2 The Council’s Environmental Health section have raised concerns regarding the location of the proposed dwelling being adjacent to agricultural buildings and have advised that there is the potential for noise disturbance. They have recommended a condition that a noise assessment from the farm (both day and night time) is carried out. 8.4.3 The views of Environmental Health have been fully considered however on the basis that the buildings are used for storage only it is considered that it would be unreasonable to impose such a condition in this case. 8.5 Infrastructure 8.5.1 The Highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authorities have raised no objections to the scheme. 8.5.2 United Utilities have advised that should the application be submitted then a condition is recommended that the foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems. 8.6 Design and appearance 8.6.1 Policy HS2 requires that proposed dwellings on greenfield sites do not contain more than 150 sqm internal floorspace. The proposed dwelling would measure approximately 132 sqm and therefore complies with that criteria of the policy. 8.6.2 Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan 2014 - 2032 supports high quality design which reflects local distinctiveness. The design of the dwelling has been amended since first submission - the overall size and scale of the dwelling has remained the same - but the pitch/steepness of the roof has been amended; alterations to the overall fenestration detailing; and the location of the rainwater pipes. It is considered that the design of the dwelling has improved and is now considered to comply with Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan.

Page 26 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal does not accord with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: The proposal for a new dwelling house would not comply with Policies LS1 and HS2 of the Eden Local Plan by reason that it cannot be construed to be an infill development site, on the basis that it does not fill a modest gap between buildings.

Page 27 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

Page 28 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 13 December 2018

Planning Application No: 18/0564 Date Received: 6 July 2018

OS Grid Ref: NY 350335, Expiry Date: 1 September 2018 526794 (time ext agreed to 14 December 2018)

Parish: Sockbridge & Tirril Ward: Eamont

Application Type: Reserved Matters

Proposal: Reserved Matters application for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale attached to approval 17/0095

Location: Land adjacent to Walmar, Croft Head, Sockbridge

Applicant: Mr Wilkinson - JIW Properties

Agent: Graham K Norman (Architect) Ltd

Case Officer: Caroline Brier

Reason for Referral: Recommendation contrary to that of the Parish Council and member of the public has requested to speak

Page 29 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: Time Limit for Commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved: i) Location Plan (115-167A-01B) received 26 September 2018 ii) As Proposed Site Plan (115-167A-02G) received 30 October 2018 iii) As Proposed Plans and Elevations (115-167A-03A) received 30 October 2018 iv) As Proposed Plans and Elevations (115-167A-03B) received 21 November 2018 v) Unit 3 as Proposed Plans and Elevations (115-167A-04A received 30 October 2018 vi) Units 4 as Proposed Plans and Elevations (115-167A-05A) received 30 October 2018 vii) Unit 5 as Proposed Plans and Elevations (115-167A-06A) received 30 October 2018 viii) Archaeological Evaluation received 10 August 2018 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Before the Development is Commenced 3. No development shall commence within the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This written scheme will include the following components: i) An archaeological recording programme the scope of which will be dependent upon the results of the evaluation; ii) Where significant archaeological remains are revealed by the programme of archaeological work, a post-excavation assessment and analysis, preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store approved by the Local Planning Authority, completion of an archive report, and submission of the results for publication in a suitable journal.

Page 30 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Development to be undertaken in accordance with approved scheme thereafter. Reason: To afford reasonable opportunity for an examination to be made to determine the existence of any remains of archaeological interest within the site and for the preservation, examination or recording of such remains. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time would result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 4. The development shall not commence until visibility splays as Drawing No 115-167A-02G are in place. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grow within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time would result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 5. The carriageway, footways, footpaths, cycleways etc shall be designed, constructed, drained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is complete. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time would result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 6. Development shall not be begun until a Construction Phase Traffic Management Plan has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The CTMP shall include details of: • details of proposed crossings of the highway verge; • retained areas for vehicle parking, manoeuvring, loading and unloading for their specific purpose during the development; • cleaning of site entrances and the adjacent public highway; • details of proposed wheel washing facilities; • the sheeting of all HGVs taking spoil to/from the site to prevent spillage or deposit of any materials on the highway;

Page 31 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE • construction vehicle routing. Development to be undertaken in accordance with approved scheme thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time would result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 7. Prior to the commencement of any development, a surface water drainage scheme, based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions (inclusive of how the scheme shall be managed after completion) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage scheme must be in accordance with the Non- Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards and unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, no surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly. Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. This condition is imposed in light of policies within the NPPF and NPPG. Pre-Occupancy or Other Stage Conditions 8. The surfacing of the access road shall extend for at least 10m inside the site, as measured from the highway boundary prior to the buildings being occupied and shall be carried out in accordance with details of construction which have been approved by the Local Planning Authority as shown on Drawing No 115-167A-02G. The access road shall be constructed in accordance with a specification approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 9. Any existing highway fence/wall boundary shall be reduced to a height not exceeding 1.05m above the carriageway level of the adjacent highway in accordance with details submitted to the Local Planning Authority and which have subsequently been approved before the development is brought into use and shall not be raised to a height exceeding 1.05m thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 10. The dwellings shall not be occupied until a means of vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with the approved plan 115-167A-02G. Reason: To ensure a suitable standard of vehicular access in the interests of highway safety. Ongoing Conditions 11. The approved landscaping scheme (shown on plan 115-167A-02G) shall be carried out within 6 months of the date of the first occupation of any building or completion of the development whichever is the sooner; any trees or plants/grassed areas which within a period of 5 years from the date of planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced

Page 32 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE in the next planting season with others of similar size and species and quality. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the site in the interests of visual amenity.

Note to Developer  This decision notice does not amend or overwrite the served Hedgerow Replacement Notice which is a legal document that must be adhered to.  This decision notice grants planning permission only. It does not override any existing legal agreement, covenant or ownership arrangement.  It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure all necessary agreements are in place prior to the commencement of development.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 This proposal is a reserved matters application relating to access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale following the approval of outline application 17/0095 for a residential development. 2.1.2 The outline planning permission 17/0095 was approved by Members of the Planning Committee at the meeting on 20 April 2017. The outline application granted permission for access and layout for five single storey dwellings. 2.1.3 The current application proposes two single storey dwellings and three two-storey dwellings. The proposed single storey dwellings are of the same design and the two- storey dwellings each have slightly different designs. 2.1.4 Amended plans have been received and the application as amended can be summarised as follows:  Unit 1 measures approximately 21.5 metres in width, 15.5 metres in depth and 5.6 metres in height. Unit 2 mirrors this size and design. Both Units would have an approximate floorspace of 187m2.  Unit 3 measures approximately 13.5 metres in width, 12.3 metres in depth and 8.2 metres in height. This Unit would have an approximate floorspace of 205m2.  Unit 4 measures approximately 14.2 metres in width, 12.3 metres in depth and 7.1 metres in height. This Unit would have an approximate floorspace of 207m2.  Unit 5 measures approximately 15 metres in width, 12.5 metres in depth and 7.1 metres in height. This Unit would have an approximate floorspace of 214m2. 2.1.5 The materials for all dwellings include facing brickwork to the elevations in a red/brown/buff colour. There is natural slate in a blue/grey colour to the roofs. UPVC windows, glazed/boarded screens and doors are to be grey in colour. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site, comprising of 0.74 hectares, is within the settlement of Sockbridge and Tirril which is defined as ‘Smaller Village and Hamlet’ within the Eden Local Plan. 2.2.2 The application site relates to a field which is approximately 82 metres wide and 90 metres long. It is bounded by a stone wall to the west and adjoins the garden area of Burnrill, Tirril, a field and Mardale, Sockbridge. A post and rail fence bounds the

Page 33 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE north and east of the site which sees the access road into Sockbridge to the north and a field to the east with a property, Greenacre, adjoining the site in the south east corner. A post and wire fence runs along the south of the site and abuts the rear of the properties whose frontage faces the main road through Tirril. 2.2.3 In terms of land form, the land rises slightly from the north to the south. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority No objection - Request conditions be attached to any approval granted. Lead Local Flood Authority No objection - Request conditions be attached to any approval granted. 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Environmental Health No objection - No comments or recommendations to make. United Utilities No objection - The proposal for surface water to be discharged into soakaways are acceptable in principle. County Archaeologist No objection – ‘The applicant has commissioned an archaeological evaluation of the site, as required by part (i) of condition 3 attached to approval 17/0095. A draft uncompleted evaluation report has been submitted with this reserved matters application which shows that archaeological assets of the medieval village of Tirril survive on part of the site and will be disturbed by the construction of the proposed development. These assets will need to be the subject of some further archaeological recording in advance of development. I have no objection to the proposed reserved matters application, but consider that the recording of the archaeological assets required by parts (ii) and (iii) of condition 3 attached to approval 17/0095 is undertaken and is secured in any new consent that may be granted’. (See recommendation) Arboriculturist No objection – ‘The revised plan has the appropriate detail now so can be one of the approved plans if planning consent is to be granted. In respect of the Hedgerow Replacement Notice, as we discussed, it is appropriate that this remains in place and is complied with by the due date. If it is withdrawn and the Council relies on a condition to obtain a replacement, that may actually take years or

Page 34 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE never happen at all if any future consent is not enacted. Once the Hedgerow Replacement Notice has been complied with, if planning consent is then granted the Council can agree to removal of the sections necessary to access the site and condition protection for the remainder’. Conservation Officer No objection - ‘the proposed development has potential to impact on the setting of the historic and listed buildings to the south of the development site. This harm is considered to be less than substantial harm to the significance of the listed buildings and as such the proposal needs to be weighed against the public benefit of the proposed development. The overall proposed development is considered to be in accordance with conservation policies outlined within the Planning Act 1990, NPPF 2018 and Eden Local Plan’. 4. Parish Council Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Council No View Object Support No Response Expressed Sockbridge & Tirril  4.1 The following response was received on 21 August 2018 relating to the first proposed plans received: 1. The proposal is not in accordance with the outline permission (17/0095), which was for five bungalows, but instead is for three large, two-storey houses and two bungalows. The conditions on 17/0095 state that the development granted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings, which refer specifically to single storey dwellings. The applicant’s statement describing 17/0095 clearly proposed bungalows: The development will comprise 5 bungalows, which is regarded as in-keeping with more recent neighbouring residential development, as well as addressing the widely acknowledged deficiency of this house design considered effective in addressing the poorly-served ageing population – a phenomena more acute in Eden than most places elsewhere. 2. Furthermore, the outline approval was for a specific layout, as shown in the approved drawings. The condition to the approval states that the development must be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings. Access and layout were clearly not reserved matters. The approved access and layout should be reinstated. 3. Two-storey houses are not acceptable because they overlook the private gardens of the adjacent properties. They would be more intrusive when seen from the road approaching Tirril from the east. 4. The design of the development is suburban in character and does not respect the sensitive nature of the rural setting in a small village. There are traditional

Page 35 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE buildings (several listed) close to the site, and the form and character of the development is not sensitive to the setting of these historic buildings. The proposed materials are not sympathetic. The relationship of the garage and carport results in a building form which is awkward and unsightly and does not reflect the traditional nature of the nearby buildings. The roofs of the houses are a dominant feature which is not in keeping with the traditional style and form of the existing dwellings. The latest version of the NPPF now places more emphasis on good design, stating: Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area. 5. The proposed access would conflict with the Hedgerow Replacement Order served on the landowner, after the illegal removal of the ancient hedgerow and trees along the northern boundary of the site. The landowner should not be allowed to profit from an illegal act. 6. Government regulations state that the details of a reserved matters application must be in line with the outline approval. The Parish Council questions whether this application should be accepted as a reserved matters application, since it departs so significantly from the outline permission. If it were treated as a full application, it would be considered under the current planning context, in which the emerging Local Plan now carries substantial weight; the application would not be permitted under policies LS1 and HS2 of the Local Plan. 4.2 Following the submission of the amended plans, the Parish Council commented ‘In light of the amendments, STPC wish to reinforce the objections submitted to the original Planning Application, and that these objections still stand’. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 18 July 2018. No of Neighbours Consulted 16 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 19 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 19 5.2 The following are objections received to the original plans. 5.3 Letters of objection raised the following material considerations to the application:  Outline application was for five bungalows, this proposal is for three two storey houses and two bungalows.  The outline application sought approval for access and layout, this reserved matters proposal is different and not in accordance with the approved plans on the outline.  This application should be treated as a new full application due to the significant departure from the outline.  These significant changes would mean the houses would be distinctly more visible in the landscape.  Negative impact on the Listed Buildings in Tirril.

Page 36 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Not in-keeping with other surrounding houses.  Outline application was significantly more sympathetic to the aesthetic and history of the village.  The archaeological report does not show what was found in the trenches. Unit 4 would irrevocably damage what’s there.  This application must take into account the new local plan and fails to accord with policy LS1 & HS2.  The road serving this part of the village is single width with sharp bends, not suitable for expanded traffic use.  A previous inspector said this field was ‘a useful separation between the two villages of Sockbridge and Tirril’.  The sentiment to provide in-keeping development and safeguarding the amenity of neighbouring occupiers has been abandoned.  The proposal is overbearing, out of character and overlooks the listed buildings behind the site.  The proposal will create unreasonable overshadowing.  Concerns regarding the Roman Fort, including, what made them (surveyors) dig up an ancient wall and then cover the spoil over so quickly? Why was the most obvious area of the field untouched? Objector’s photographs showing the remains of the Roman Fort far surpass any on the resultant survey.  The infrastructure is not sufficient to cope with this development.  Road safety will be impacted upon, 15 additional cars out spilling onto a road where there has been a fatality and 12 other accidents reported in the last few years.  Increased traffic will result in noise and disturbance which will lead a reduction in the quality of life of existing residents.  The outline application supported the Older Persons Housing Strategy; this reserved matters application does not.  The style and layout of the proposed development is suburban in character. 5.4 Letters of objection raised the following non-material considerations:  Properties adjoining the site have a legal right of way to access their drainage which is within the field.  Owners of the existing dwellings adjoining the site will have to go through their houses to do any maintenance/garden works at the rear of their property without access through the field.  When the houses on the adjacent cul-de-sac were built, they were only allowed to build single storey buildings.  Appears to be a selfish money making scheme with no regard for local needs or feelings.  Sockbridge and Tirril is not a key hub in the new local plan and this application would not be approved under the new plan.

Page 37 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  EDC decided that this field should not be included as a possible housing site in their Land Availability assessment in 2015.  The Land Registry entries for this land records that it was subject to a restrictive covenant which prohibited any building development on the land in question (see Eden Land Availability Assessment October 2015 p89 LTi1) – since learnt that the owner of the field paid a sizeable amount of money to have this covenant removed.  The site cannot be regarded as a modest gap between existing buildings, nor is it a rounding off site and there is no mention of the local occupancy restriction.  The hedge was removed without planning permission which has caused biodiversity issues and is incompatible with the Hedgerow Replacement Notice.  The Old Post Office will still have a Right to Access if this development goes ahead.  Views will be blocked. 5.5 Letters of objection received after the final revision and in relation to the plans received on 30 October 2018 raised the following material considerations to the application:  The new Planning Advice document is incorrect with regards to the decision notice granting permission for ‘residential development’ with a limit of no more than five houses, however the decision notice actually states that the Council ‘hereby grant outline planning permission for the development described in your application and on the plans and drawings attached thereto’. All of which referred to five single storey dwellings.  The decision notice requires the development to be carried out in accordance with drawing 115-167-01C which clearly states and shows 5 single storey dwellings.  The Planning Advice document advises (pg 8) there are no restraints placed on scale and later (pg 11) that the height (storeys) are not fettered by condition. This is incorrect as the approved plans related to single storey dwellings.  The adoption of the local plan should mean the end of inappropriate building.  The very important roman and pre roman remains known to exist at the end of High Street in Post Office field are unique and should not be destroyed.  Privacy of immediate properties/gardens will be overlooked.  Impact on the landscape.  The revised plans still ignore the ‘Older Persons Housing Strategy’. The outline approval didn’t.  Significant amendments should not be approved under the disguise of ‘reserved matters’.  The style and layout is suburban in character. 5.6 Letters of objection received after the final revision and in relation to the plans received on 30 October 2018 raised the following non-material considerations:  The ecological vandalism through the destruction of the habitat of an endangered species that was in the removed hedge.

Page 38 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Views will be destroyed from the rear windows of nearby houses along the B5320. 6. Relevant Planning History Application No Description Outcome 89/0232 Residential development with Play Area, FR 18/05/89 Bowling Green and Related Pavilion 17/0095 Outline planning permission for FA 20/04/17 residential development 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan 2014-2032  LS1 Locational Strategy  DEV1 General Approach to New Development  DEV5 Design of New Development  HS2 Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets Supplementary Planning Documents:  Housing (2010) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes  Requiring good design National Planning Practice Guidance 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Scale and Design  Residential Amenity  Impact on Historic Environment  Impact on Archaeology 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The principle of developing this site has already been established by the granting of outline planning permission ref 17/0095. This application seeks to deal with the ‘reserved matters’ associated with that permission. 8.2.2 The Parish Council and several objectors have queried why this application is being considered as reserved matters, due to the variation from five bungalows to two bungalows and three two storey dwellings. Whilst the outline application did refer to single storey dwellings, the plans approved on the decision notice show access and layout only without any elevation detail. The outline application did not include size, scale or appearance of the dwellings, all of which are reserved matters being considered under this application for the first time. The decision notice does not restrict

Page 39 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE height, floorspace or occupancy restrictions. The originally submitted plans for this application were considered to vary too significantly from the outline due to the alteration in accesses and footprint of dwellings being larger. Discussions with the Applicant and Agent resulted in the scheme being amended so that the access returned to the original approval and the footprints reduced. The Council consider these amendments to meet the remits of the reserved matters specification in that the proposal is not materially different from the outline approval, which is why it has been able to proceed as such. 8.2.3 When the outline approval was granted, Sockbridge and Tirril were classed as Local Service Centre within the Core Strategy. At that time the Council was unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) the development plan policies which related to the supply housing were considered out-of-date and were afforded less weight in the planning assessment. 8.2.4 In the new Eden Local Plan which is now fully adopted, the Locational Strategy is set within Policy LS1 in which Sockbridge and Tirril is designated as a ‘Smaller Village and Hamlet’. 8.2.5 Policy LS1 and HS2 sets out specific requirements relating to floorspace and occupancy restrictions for new housing developments in ‘Smaller Village and Hamlets’. However, as conditions were not attached to the outline approval in this regard they cannot be imposed at this reserved matters stage. 8.2.6 Policy DEV5 sets out specific criteria to be met, including that developments are to reflect the existing street scene through appropriate scale, mass, form, layout, high quality architectural design and use of materials. Also that developments protect the amenity of existing residents and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. 8.2.7 Whilst the Older Persons’ Housing Strategy is acknowledged, it does not form part of the development plan for consideration in determining planning applications. Policy HS1 advises on the requirements for affordable housing and states that a commuted sum would be required from sites with six to ten units. As this proposal is for five units no affordable element is required. 8.2.8 Following the outline approval, the principle of residential development at this site is considered acceptable. 8.3 Scale and Design 8.3.1 The outline application did not include size, scale or appearance of the dwellings, all of which are reserved matters being considered under this application for the first time. 8.3.2 This proposal is greater in scale than the indicative plans and details suggested might be the case in the outline approval due to three of the dwellings now proposed being two-storey along the southern boundary of the site. The footprints of all proposed dwellings are slightly different to the outline application which displayed each dwelling at 200m2; the differences are shown on site plan 115-167A-02G. This proposal totals 1214m2 of floorspace to be created by the five dwellings, which is 214m2 more than the outline application. Given that three of the proposed dwellings are two storeys, the additional floorspace is seen through the first floors rather than larger footprints. 8.3.3 The design of the properties is considered to be contemporary with traditional features. Each of the two-storey dwellings has different designs. The use of cat slide roofs on

Page 40 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE the two-storey dwellings provides an appearance of being lower which is considered to create less of a visual impact. 8.3.4 The materials for all dwellings include facing brickwork to the elevations in a red/brown/buff colour. Natural slate in a blue/grey colour to the roofs. UPVC windows, glazed/boarded screens and doors to be grey in colour. These are considered to be respectful to the area which sees a variety of different materials. Even in the immediate vicinity, the dwellings to the adjacent south differ to those adjacent to the north west. 8.3.5 The vernacular character of the historic buildings to the south is noted, as is the wider mix of housing type close to the proposal site. It is considered that the orientation and distances of the proposed dwellings to any neighbouring properties is sufficient as to not create an unacceptable impact upon them. This is discussed in more detail within 8.5 - Residential Amenity. 8.3.6 The scale, design and use of materials are considered to be complimentary and acceptable to the area which sees a variety of different styles of dwellinghouse. 8.4 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.4.1 The site would be visible on the approach to Sockbridge and Tirril from the B5320 road which continues through Tirril and also the U3184 road into Sockbridge. 8.4.2 The site is considered well related to Sockbridge and Tirril. From the U3184 (Sockbridge side) the development would be prominent as the first dwellings seen on the approach to this part of the village, however it would be viewed against existing dwellings of various heights and materials and would be seen within the context of the village. 8.4.3 The proposed landscaping scheme is considered acceptable and would help to soften the visual impacts. 8.4.4 From the Tirril side, the development would be fleetingly visible through a break in the buildings. 8.4.5 Whilst visible, it is not considered that the proposal would create a detrimental harm to the amenity or landscape of the area, due to the appropriateness of the design of the dwellings, the use of suitable construction materials and acceptable landscape planting. 8.5 Residential Amenity 8.5.1 There are eight properties which front the Tirril road and their rear gardens abut the proposal site, two of these properties are Grade II Listed Buildings. 8.5.2 To the south of Unit 3 is garden area, with no existing buildings. It would be sited approximately 25 to 30 metres from properties known as Burnrill and Smithy Cottage which are located to the south west and south east of the plot respectively. The garden area of Burnrill is approximately 10 metres to the west of this unit. 8.5.3 Unit 4 is sited approximately 29 metres to the north Smith Cottage and The Old Post Office. 8.5.4 Unit 5 is sited approximately 30 metres from Talbot Cottage and Glendale and 15 metres from Greenacre which is located on the eastern boundary in the southern corner. Due to Greenacre’s orientation, there would be no direct window to window overlooking.

Page 41 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.5.5 The closest existing bungalow to Unit 2 is named as Walmar on the location plan, however is confirmed to be known as Mardale by its owner. It is approximately 15 metres side elevation to side elevation. The side elevation that would face the neighbour has a door to the utility room and a small window to the kitchen. 8.5.6 The Housing SPD provides guidance that principal windows on new properties should not be less than 21 metres from any directly facing windows in another property, in order to ensure reasonable privacy is provided for both the new house and neighbours. 8.5.7 The distances of the proposed dwellings to any neighbouring properties exceed the minimum separation distances within the Housing SPD guidance. They are not considered to cause any unacceptable overlooking, nor is it considered that the proposed properties would be overbearing creating a loss of privacy, light or over shadowing to any existing neighbouring property due to the above mentioned distances. 8.5.8 Objectors living in the properties to the south of the site have raised concern that they access their rear gardens through the site and claim to have acquired access rights due to the number of years they have done this. This is a civil matter and is not a material planning consideration for this application. 8.5.9 The concerns from objectors are appreciated and have been taken into consideration in the assessment of this application, however for the reasons detailed above, on balance the impact on the residential amenity is not considered to be significantly adverse, nor warrant the refusal of this application. 8.6 Infrastructure 8.6.1 The access details were approved at the outline stage. The Local Highway Authority considers the final design details to be acceptable and do not alter the acceptability of the previously approved access. They have requested standard pre-commencement conditions be attached to any approval granted. 8.6.2 The Lead Local Flood Authority raise no objection to the proposal and request a pre- commencement condition be attached to any approval granted regarding the surface water drainage scheme. 8.6.3 The access details are considered to be acceptable despite the objections received from members of the public and Highways have raised no highway safety concerns. 8.7 Natural Environment 8.7.1 A Hedgerow Replacement Notice has been served at this site following the unauthorised removal of the hedge which ran along the roadside. The Legal Notice requires the hedgerow to be replaced in the same location as the hedgerow removed by 31 January 2019. This matter is being dealt with separately to this reserved matters application and the exact requirements of the Legal Notice are expected to be carried out. Should the Legal Notice not be complied with the Council would look to pursue further Legal action in this regard. 8.7.2 The Council’s Arboriculturist has agreed with Officers that it is appropriate for the Hedgerow Removal Notice to remain in place and be complied with by the due date. If it was to be withdrawn and the Council were to rely on a condition to obtain the replacement hedgerow, it may take years or never actually happen. Once the Hedgerow Replacement Notice has been complied with, if planning consent was granted for this application the Council could look to agree for a section to be removed to access Unit 1.

Page 42 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.7.3 For clarity, should reserved matters approval be granted for this application, the live Hedgerow Replacement Notice would take precedent and should still be carried out accordingly. Any amendment to the Notice to allow access to Unit 1 would be a legal matter to be agreed separately from this application. 8.7.4 The landscaping scheme that has been submitted with the application is considered to be acceptable and a condition has been included in the recommendation to ensure it is carried out accordingly. 8.8 Historic Environment 8.8.1 The Conservation Officer’s impact assessment advises ‘the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 s 66(1) requires a decision-maker, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Paragraph 196 of the NPPF states ‘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, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.’ Policy ENV10 of the Eden Local Plan also says development proposals that would result in substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset or its setting will only be permitted where it can be clearly demonstrated that the harm or loss is necessary to achieve public benefits. The proposal to construct five new dwellings within the field to the north of the listed buildings, ‘The Green’ and ‘The Old Post Office’, is considered to have potential to lead to a minor impact on their setting, by introducing a small modern infill development into the historic strip field and landscape. The proposed scale and footprint of the new dwellings also has the potential to restrict views to the north but the proposed layout and landscaping (vegetation screening) of the development site is considered to be appropriate so that the new dwellings will not be dominant over the historic buildings. The proposed design of the new dwellings (particularly plot 4 &5) are not considered to be wholly sympathetic to the vernacular character of the historic buildings but are consistent with modern developments to the NW of the proposed development. It is suggested that the design of the new dwellings may incorporate materials such as painted roughcast or smooth render to compliment the material palette of the historic buildings. In summary the proposed development has potential to impact on the setting of the historic and listed buildings to the south of the development site. This harm is considered to be less than substantial harm to the significance of the listed buildings and as such the proposal needs to be weighed against the public benefit of the proposed development. The overall proposed development is considered to be in accordance with conservation policies outlined within the Planning Act 1990, NPPF 2018 and Eden Local Plan’. 8.8.2 Given the Conservation Officer’s overall comments, concluding that whilst there is a potential of a minor impact on the setting of the listed buildings resulting from the reserved matters being considered, this harm is considered to be less than substantial. On balance and given the existing outline approval, the public benefit of providing housing is considered to outweigh the potential minor impact on the setting of the listed buildings.

Page 43 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.9 Archaeology 8.9.1 The County Council’s Historic Environment Officer previously confirmed that there is the potential for buried archaeological assets to be distributed by the construction of the proposed development. As such, it was recommended that a scheme of archaeological recording of the site be undertaken in advance of the development. The County Council’s Historic Environment Officer has request that parts (ii) and (iii) of condition 3 attached to 17/0095 be re-attached should planning approval be granted. Notwithstanding the comments made by objectors on this matter, it is considered that this matter can be controlled through the suggested condition and does not represent sufficient justification for the refusal of this planning application. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998.

Page 44 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: 11.2 The proposed reserved matters scheme is considered to meet the requirements of policies DEV1 & DEV5 of the development plan, providing five dwellinghouses approximately in accordance with the approved outline application. 11.3 The contemporary design with traditional features has been created in a manner that is respectful of the other dwellinghouses close by. The size and scale of the properties is not considered to adversely impact upon the local amenity or landscape of the area and on balance the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: 18/0564

Page 45 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 13 December 2018

Planning Application No: 18/0775 Date Received: 18 September 2018

OS Grid Ref: 356871 533975 Expiry Date: 22 December 2018

Parish: Langwathby Ward: Langwathby

Application Type: Outline

Proposal: Outline application for residential development with approval sought for access

Location: Land at Eden View, Langwathby

Applicant: JIW Properties Ltd

Agent: Mr Daniel Addis

Case Officer: Mr Nick Atkinson

Reason for Referral: This is a major planning application

Page 46 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that delegated power be given to the Deputy Director Technical Services to grant planning permission subject to a Section106 Agreement being entered into to the absolute satisfaction of the Deputy Chief Executive and the Deputy Director Technical Services requiring the provision of 30% affordable Houses and the Council’s reasonable costs being paid in relation to that Section 106 Agreement. Planning permission is also granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. The approval of the details of the scale, layout, external appearance of the buildings, drainage and the landscaping/boundary treatments of the site (called “the reserved matters”) shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: The application is in outline form only and is not accompanied by full detailed plans. 3. An application for approval of all reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Approved Plans 4. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the application form dated 17 September 2018 and the following details and plans hereby approved:  Design and Access Statement, dated September 2018;  Drainage strategy report, ref C-0854 Issue 1, dated 14 September 2018;  Heritage Statement, dated September 2018;  Location Plan, ref 118-144-01 rev. C, dated 3 September 2018;  Assessment of Noise Levels and Noise Amelioration Measures, ref ATP/EV/001, dated 10 September 2018;  Planning Statement, dated September 2018;  Tree Survey, ref LSF/366-04/BK, dated August 2018. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Prior to Commencement 5. No development shall commence until a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include the following details:

Page 47 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Hours of construction;  Measures to control noise and dust;  Details and specification of any external lighting;  Details of pre-construction road conditions established by a detailed survey for accommodation works within the highway boundary conducted with a Highway Authority representative; with all post repairs carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Highway Authority at the applicants expense;  Details of proposed crossings of the highway verge;  Retained areas for vehicle parking, maneuvering, loading and unloading for their specific purpose during the development;  Cleaning of site entrances and the adjacent public highway;  Details of proposed wheel washing facilities;  The sheeting of all HGVs taking spoil to/from the site to prevent spillage or deposit of any materials on the highway;  Construction vehicle routing;  The management of junctions to and crossings of the public highway/footpath;  Surface water management details during the construction phase. Reason: In the interest of protecting local residential amenity and in the interest of highway safety. 6. The development shall not commence until visibility splays providing clear visibility of 60 metres (South East) and 45 metres (North West) measured 2.4metres down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the major road have been provided at the junction of the access road with the county highway. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grown within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: In the interest of highway safety 7. The carriageway, footways and footpaths shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to a standard suitable for adoption. In this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. These details shall be in accordance with the standards laid down in the current Cumbria Design Guide. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is complete. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety.

Page 48 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8. The vehicular crossing over the footway, including the lowering of kerbs, shall be carried out to the specification of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a suitable standard of crossing for pedestrian safety. 9. The gradient of the access drive shall be no steeper than 1 in 20 for a distance not less than 15m as measured from the carriageway edge of the adjacent highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety 10. No development shall commence until a plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority reserving adequate land for the parking of vehicles engaged in construction operations associated with the development hereby approved, and that land, including vehicular access thereto, shall be used for or be kept available for these purposes at all times until completion of the construction works. Reason: To reduce the risk of inconvenience and danger to road users resulting from the Construction works. 11. No development shall commence until surface and foul water drainage schemes and management plan, based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions (inclusive of how the scheme shall be managed after completion) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage scheme must be in accordance with the Non- Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards. No surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly. The scheme will include details of the design of the surface water drainage system to mitigate any negative impacts of surface water from the development on flood risk outside the development boundary, and include details of the future maintenance and operation of the surface water system. Thereafter, the development shall be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and air pollution. 12. No development shall commence until details of tree protection measures to protect the TPO protected trees along the southern and south eastern boundary of the site, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details. The approved measures shall remain in place throughout the duration of the construction works. Reason: To maintain the contribution of the trees to the landscape character of the area. 13. No development shall commence until details showing the provision within the site for the parking, turning and loading and unloading of vehicles visiting the site, including the provision of parking spaces for staff and visitors, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The

Page 49 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE development shall not be brought into use until any such details have been approved and the parking, loading, unloading and manoeuvring facilities constructed. The approved parking, loading, unloading and manoeuvring areas shall be kept available for those purposes at all times and shall not be used for any other purpose. Reason: To ensure that vehicles can be properly and safely accommodated clear of the highway in the interests of highway safety. Prior to Occupation 14. The whole of the access area bounded by the carriageway edge, entrance gates and the splays shall be constructed and drained to the specification of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The application seeks outline planning permission for up to 13 residential dwellings with associated infrastructure on land at Eden View, Langwathby. The applicant confirms that permission is also sought for access as part of this proposal. Other matters such as layout, scale, external appearance and landscaping are reserved matters and would be considered at a later date were this proposal granted planning permission. As such, only the principle of residential development and access are considered under this proposal. 2.1.2 The applicant has provided indicative plans which demonstrate that up to 13 residential dwellings could be accommodated at the site. In accordance with the Council’s Affordable Housing requirements, 30% of the final number of dwellings developed at the site would be affordable units. If 13 dwellings were proposed at a Reserved Matters stage, this would equate to 3 affordable dwellings. 2.1.3 The application site would be accessed via a new, single access point which would be created off Salkeld Road which runs through the main part of the village. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site is considered to be within the settlement of Langwathby and occupies a fairly central location within the village. To the north of the site is agricultural land whilst to the east, the site is bordered by the Settle to Carlisle railway line and a residential property known as ‘Eden View’, at a distance of approximately 30 metres to the nearest indicative property. To the south of the site are further residential properties which form part of a development known as ‘Low Farm’. Further residential development is located to the west off Salkeld Road at a distance of approximately 25-30 metres from the application site. 2.2.2 The application site is generally rectangular in shape with the topography rising gently upwards in a north easterly direction towards the Carlisle to Settle Railway Line and embankment. The site comprises a total site area of 0.85 hectares. 2.2.3 The aforementioned Settle to Carlisle railway line is designated as a Conservation Area. The Conservation Area extends to not only the rail track itself but also the railway embankment, which is elevated above the application site. The site is not located near to or within the setting of any Listed Buildings.

Page 50 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2.2.4 The site is noted to be located within land designated as Flood Zone 1. In addition, it is also noted that the site does have trees located upon it that are subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO 157, 2013) These trees are a grouping located upon the southern and eastern boundaries of the site and encroach slightly into the proposal boundary. 2.2.5 There are no other constraints applicable to the determination of this planning application. 3. Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response

Highway Authority - Responded on 31 October 2018 and confirmed that the proposal Cumbria County Council was satisfactory from a highways perspective. It was confirmed that accordingly the Highway Authority had no objection to the proposal. It was requested that conditions be attached to any subsequent approval. Their comments were, ‘Cumbria County Council as Local Highway Authority has assessed the information provided and the layout details shown on the submitted plan are considered satisfactory from a highway perspective. The visibility splays indicated should be 60m in both directions, CCC as highway authority would be confident that this can be achieved and therefore we would seek the inclusion of condition to demonstrate the visibility splays of 60m. I can therefore confirm that the Highway Authority has no objection to the proposed development and would seek the inclusion of the following conditions in relation to the interest of the highway Authority. These conditions have been requested so that the developer/applicant can demonstrate that the development proposal can be built with a minimal impact on the existing highway and exiting development. The Design and Access statement indicates that the developer will incorporate the required levels of parking indicated within the Cumbria Development Design guide this is particularly important as there are known parking issues on Salkeld Road in relation to school drop off and collection times. The parking at school drop off and pick up times often leads to parking along the west side of the highway restricting Salkeld Road to one lane with this in mind CCC would need to see a detail Construction Phase Traffic Management Plan which indicates traffic routes, operating times, also as the site is situated close to Langwathby school we would need to see that there are no deliveries to site in School muster times (8:30 to 9:30am and 2:45 till 3:30pm)’. Following the submission of a speed survey by the applicant, a lower visibility of 45 metres was agreed by the Highway Authority to be acceptable to the north west of the proposed access.

Page 51 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response

Lead Local Flood Authority Responded on 31 October 2018 and confirmed that the Lead - Local Flood Authority (LLFA) had assessed the drainage Cumbria County Council strategy report submitted in support of the application. Whilst the LLFA had noted that the strategy was based upon infiltration zones and permeability coefficients, more detailed information would be required at the reserved matters stage to ensure that the techniques proposed would achieve desired outcomes. Accordingly, the LLFA confirmed that were outline planning permission to be granted, conditions in relation to drainage would need to be attached to any permission so further details are submitted at a reserved matters stage.

Housing Development Responded on 28 September 2018 and confirmed that Officer - Langwathby is designated as a key hub. Accordingly, based on Eden District Council the potential for 13 dwellings to be approved for the site, three would be expected to be affordable homes. In addition, the housing officer stated that, ‘what I would point out, is that the affordable houses on the indicative plan are clearly a terrace of 3 small dwellings; whilst the open market dwellings look to be large, detached and with separate garages on large plots. If outline permission is granted, the applicant needs to be aware that the eventual housing mix (in terms of dwelling size, type, tenure, etc) will have to be discussed and agreed with Housing Services prior to submitting an application for reserved matters. It is important that affordable housing is integrated into the design of developments and, depending upon the housing needs identified at the point of reserved matters, it may be that larger dwellings will be required in order to meet local needs’.

United Utilities Responded on 15 October 2018. The response confirmed that United Utilities has no objection to the proposed development provided that conditions related to both foul and surface water were attached to any subsequent grant of planning permission.

Arboricultural Officer - Responded on 11 October 2018 and confirmed that the tree Eden District Council assessment completed and submitted in support of the proposal was an accurate assessment of the trees and their suitability for retention. It was also noted that in relation to the indicative layout, consideration would need to be given at the reserved matters stage (if outline was approved) to the tree protection measures necessary when creating site access.

Environmental Health Responded on 2 October 2018 confirming that having examined Officer - the plans and noise assessment provided by the applicant, they Eden District Council wish to make no comments or observations on the proposal.

Environment Agency Responded on 28 September 2018 and confirmed that they had no comments to make upon the proposal.

Page 52 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response

Conservation Officer Responded on the 10 October 2018 and confirmed that the site is bordered to the north-east by the Settle to Carlisle railway line (a designated conservation area). It was confirmed that the development site ‘amidst an area of late 20th / early 21st century development holds no heritage value but is located within the immediate setting of the Settle-Carlisle railway conservation area’. The Conservation Officer concluded that, ‘the site is located within an area of late 20th and early 21st century residential development that has a negligible contribution to the setting of the conservation area. Thus the proposal in principle for a residential development is considered would lead to a negligible impact on the setting of the Langwathby section of the conservation area’.

Local Education Authority - Responded on the 31 October 2018 and confirmed that no Cumbria County Council contributions in support of school place provision was required for primary or secondary school children was required. In terms of school transport provision, the response also confirmed that no contributions were necessary in this instance.

Planning Policy - Responded on the 26 November 2018 noting that the Eden Eden District Council Local Plan Inspector did not require any allocated sites within Langwathby on the basis that a Neighbourhood Plan is being produced. It was agreed that the Neighbourhood Plan would provide for the requirement for housing allocations within this document.

Public Rights of Way Responded on the 31 October 2018 and confirmed no public (PROW) - rights of way would be affected by the proposed development. Cumbria County Council

4. Parish Council Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Council No View Object Support No Response Expressed Langwathby 

4.1 Langwathby Parish Council responded on the 18 October 2018 and confirmed their support for the proposed development.

Page 53 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 5. Representations 5.1 The application was advertised by means of a site notice posted on 28 September 2018, a press notice advertised in the Cumberland and Westmorland Herald on 6 October 2017 and the following neighbour notifications: No of Neighbours Consulted 16 No of letters of support 0 No of objection letters 1 No of letters with comments 1 5.2 The following summarises the basis of the objection received;  There is not sufficient room for access of the site;  Any access to the site would be negatively affected by trees;  The area is very busy because of the school and this development will increase traffic, thereby increasing the risk to pedestrians walking from or to the school;  Hard surfaces on the site would increase existing flooding issues on the site. 6. Relevant Planning History 6.1 There is no relevant planning history relevant to the determination of this application. 7.0 Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan (2014-2032)  LS1 - Locational Strategy  LS2 - Housing Targets and Distribution  DEV1 - General Approach to New Development  DEV3 - Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way  DEV5 - Design of New Development  ENV10 - The Historic Environment  HS1 - Affordable Housing  HS4 - Housing Type and Mix  HS5 - Accessible and Adaptable Homes  COM3 - Provision of New Open Space 7.1.1 In the applicant’s submission it is stated that Eden District Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. This was true as of the date of the submission of this planning application. However, on 11 October 2018, the Eden Local Plan was adopted by Eden District Council. This means that the Eden Local Plan now carries full weight in the determination of planning applications and that the Council is now able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.

Page 54 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 7.1.2 Therefore, the comments made by the applicant in regards to this matter are no longer accurate and as such, are given no further weight or consideration in the determination of this application Supplementary Planning Documents:  Housing (2010) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Achieving sustainable development  Decision-making  Delivering a sufficient supply of homes  Making effective use of land  Achieving well-designed places  Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Design and Scale  Landscape and Visual Impact  Protected Trees  Housing Density  Affordable Housing Contribution  Housing Mix & Provision of Open Space  Amenity Impacts  Flooding and Environmental Impacts  Ecology  Infrastructure  Historic Environment 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 In terms of the principle of housing development, consideration is given to the development plan. This consists of the very recently adopted Eden Local Plan. 8.2.2 Within the Eden Local Plan, the Locational Strategy is detailed within Policy LS1 which sets out the hierarchy of settlements where development should be focused in the most sustainable locations. The most sustainable being Penrith, the Market Towns and Key Hubs. Langwathby is designated as a ‘Key Hub’ within the plan. In relation to ‘Key Hubs’ Policy LS1 states that ‘Key Hubs will be the focus for development to sustain local services appropriate to the scale of the village and its hinterland, including new housing, the provision of employment and improvements to accessibility. Unless

Page 55 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE proposed in this plan, new housing developments which would increase the size of a village by more than 10% on a single site will not normally be supported. Proposals will only be acceptable where they respect the historic character and form of the village’. 8.2.3 Whilst the application site is an agricultural field, it is considered that this parcel of land is located on the edge of but within the village itself. This site is not allocated within the local plan and so this development would, accordingly, represent a ‘windfall’ which the Planning Portal defines as ‘sites which have not specifically identified as available in the Local Plan process. They normally comprise previously developed sites that have unexpectedly become available’. It is important to note that there are no housing land allocations in the village of Langwathby within the Eden Local Plan. The allocation of land within the parish for housing is to be developed through the Langwathby Neighbourhood Plan. 8.2.4 The proposal, whilst only at outline, indicates that up to 13 dwellings could be accommodated and developed at the site. If this higher number were achieved, the development would fall well below the 10% threshold for increases in the size of Key Hubs as required through Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan. As such, the size and scale of the proposal is considered to be acceptable. 8.2.5 Therefore, in this instance, is it considered that the principal of development on this site is considered to be acceptable subject to all other relevant material considerations, in line with Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.3 Design and Scale 8.3.1 As the current proposal is at an outline stage only, it is not possible to fully assess the design and appearance of the proposed dwellings as such matters are not proposed at this stage. This is due to the proposal being outline consent, and therefore, looking solely at the principle of the development. 8.3.2 Notwithstanding the outline nature of this application, should planning permission be granted then an appropriate and high quality design would be required at a Reserved Matters Stage. This would be required in order to ensure the proposal remained ‘in- keeping’ with and reflective of the character of the local built environment. The requirements for a high quality design which reflects the local distinctiveness of the area is required both through Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan and reinforced through Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 8.3.3 It is considered that there is every reason to suggest that the applicant could provide and achieve a layout, design and palate of materials that would be considered acceptable and of suitably high quality at the reserved matters stage if this outline application is approved. 8.4 Landscape and Visual Impact 8.4.1 A significant consideration in the determination of this planning application is the extent of the impact of the proposed development upon both the character of the area and local landscape. 8.4.2 Policy DEV5 of the Local Plan requires development to demonstrate a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment. It states that the Council will support proposals that ‘protects and where possible enhances the district’s distinctive rural landscape’. 8.4.3 The NPPF also incorporates Section 12 entitled, ‘Achieving well-designed places’. Paragraph 124 confirms the importance of the design of the built environment, it states,

Page 56 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE ‘the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning development process should achieve’. 8.4.4 Paragraph 127 of the NPPF confirms that, ‘Planning Policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience’. 8.4.5 Although a greenfield piece of agricultural land, the application site has no local or national landscape character designation or protection. Furthermore, due to the partial back land position of the application site, it is not located in an overly prominent location within the overall context and setting of Langwathby. 8.4.6 The application site does form part of a larger field. However the site is not significantly open and unrestricted due to the nature of distinct field boundaries forming the boundary treatment consisting of existing residential dwellings to the south west and south east, and the rising topography of the site to the Settle to Carlisle Railway Line to the north east of the site. It is acknowledged that there is no strong or defensible boundary to the North West where the site extends into the wider agricultural field in which it is located. In light of this, it is considered that the application site makes a limited contribution to the character and value of the surrounding landscape by virtue of the limited inter-visibility between it and the surrounding countryside. In a similar manner, the site does not form any significant public realm of viewpoint for the settlement, nor would the development restrict any views from Langwathby to the surrounding landscape. 8.4.7 In terms of the application sites relationship with the existing village, whilst the site is predominantly a back land development, it is noted that the development of the site partially follows the form of the existing built environment to the south east. This means that although the application does not follow the linear form of the settlement in the immediate locality along Salkeld Road, it would be sequentially acceptable when looking at the settlement pattern to the south east. This means that the site would not be viewed as a poorly-related spur, nor would it appear as an incongruous development visually.

Page 57 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.4.8 Therefore, whilst the development would result in the loss of an area of agricultural land and as such would result in a degree of harm, the extent is not considered to be significantly adverse. Furthermore, the proposed development would not have a significantly adverse impact upon the character of the local landscape due to the nature of the proposed development and due to the relatively limited significance or importance that the site makes to the wider landscape or its setting. 8.4.9 Notwithstanding the above, in order to provide further mitigation to soften the visual impact of the proposed development, it is considered prudent and reasonable to secure a scheme of landscape planting through the imposition of a planning condition should permission be granted. 8.5 Protected Trees 8.5.1 A group of trees are located on the southern boundary of the site, with further trees located close to the south eastern boundary of the site. These trees are protected by a Tree Preservation Order (ref: TPO. 157, 2013). The indicative plans have been amended by the applicant to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in an adverse impact upon the health and well-being of these trees due to the separation between the trees and any built development that could be achieved. The applicant has been made aware that this separation distance will need to be maintained when the final design and layout of the site is developed at the Reserved Matters stage if the current application is approved. 8.5.2 In relation to the protected trees to the south of the site, there is the potential for some impact resulting from the proposed new access point. The Arboricultural Officer has confirmed that he is satisfied with the proposal having assessed the tree survey submitted by the applicant. Whilst further detailed information in relation to tree protection measures for the site access will be required, the Arboricultural Officer has not raised any concerns with the principle of developing this site relative to the protected trees. 8.5.3 It is therefore considered that whilst it is accepted that the proposed development may result in a slight impact upon the Protected Trees, that the impact would not be significantly or demonstrably adverse, nor lead to the loss of or harm to the health and well-being of the trees. Therefore, from the aspect of the Protected Trees the proposal is considered acceptable and can be supported. 8.6 Housing Density 8.6.1 Policy DEV5 entitled ‘Design of New Development’; seeks that proposals ‘reflect the existing street scene through the use of appropriate scale, mass, form, layout, high quality architectural design and use of materials’. 8.6.2 In this instance, the proposal is for up to 13 dwellings on a site noted to be 0.85 hectares in size. The density of this proposal is therefore approximately 15 per hectare. This is considered in accordance with Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local in that an appropriate and suitable layout could be achieved which maximises the potential of the site, preserves local amenity, achieves separation distances from protected trees and which would also be respectful of the character of the area in its form. 8.7 Affordable Housing Contribution 8.7.1 The Eden Local Plan confirms the requirements for affordable housing contributions. Policy HS1, entitled, ‘Affordable Housing’ confirms that ‘the council will seek to secure the provision of 30% of all new housing as affordable homes on schemes with 11 or

Page 58 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE more units where the on-site contribution does not equate precisely to a whole number of units, the contribution will be rounded down to the nearest unit’. 8.7.2 In this instance the applicant has confirmed that they seek to achieve up to 13 dwellings as part of this proposal. One matter that needs to be resolved is the type of housing to be provided in relation to the affordable housing requirement. The Council’s Housing Officer has stated that ‘‘…the affordable houses on the indicative plan are clearly a terrace of 3 small dwellings; whilst the open market dwellings look to be large, detached and with separate garages on large plots. If outline permission is granted, the applicant needs to be aware that the eventual housing mix (in terms of dwelling size, type, tenure, etc) will have to be discussed and agreed with Housing Services prior to submitting an application for reserved matters. It is important that affordable housing is integrated into the design of developments and, depending upon the housing needs identified at the point of reserved matters, it may be that larger dwellings will be required in order to meet local needs’. 8.7.3 Whilst this detail would be dealt with at a reserved matters stage it is noted that the indicative plans would need to be re-considered to be acceptable to the authority. However, due to the outline nature of this application, which does not include details pertaining to site layout, or the size or building type, only the principle of residential development at the site can be considered. Therefore, whilst the applicant is aware of these requirements, the Housing Officer’s concerns about the applicant’s indicative location of the affordable housing does not represent a valid reason to refuse this planning application. 8.8 Housing Mix and Provision of Open Space 8.8.1 Policy HS5 entitled ‘Accessible and Adaptable Homes’ requires applicants who submit proposals for housing schemes of 10 or more homes to require 20% of new housing to meet the building regulations requirement M4(2): Category 2 - Accessible and Adaptable dwellings. It is further confirmed that the policy would not be applied where it a not financially viable to comply with these requirements. 8.8.2 At this stage, given that the proposal is at outline, there is sound reason to believe that this Policy could be complied with. Accordingly, such detail is saved for the Reserved Matters stage, were the application to be approved. 8.8.3 In addition, all new major housing developments are required to provide sufficient open space provision in any new development. Policy COM3 of the Eden Local Plan entitled ‘Provision of New Open Space’, would require the provision of appropriate levels of open space for future residents to enjoy were the site developed. Due to the size of the site and available space, there is good reason to suggest that this can be achieved, in this instance. However, as the current proposal is for outline permission, the applicant would need to factor the requirements of this policy into any formally submitted layout at Reserved Matters if this application was approved. 8.9 Amenity Impacts 8.9.1 Due to the outline nature of the proposal and the limited details that are under consideration, it is not possible to fully assess the impact of the proposed development upon residential amenity. The full impacts would be assessed at a Reserved Matter stage once final details were submitted. Notwithstanding, the impact of the proposed development upon local amenity is still considered to represent a material consideration in the determination of this planning application when considering the principle of residential development.

Page 59 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.9.2 Policy DEV5 of the Local Plan requires that development protects the amenity of existing residents and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers of any potential development. 8.9.3 In relation to the consideration of amenity impacts upon future residents, the site is located near to an existing railway line, but there are no concerns with regard to the impact of noise or vibration upon the future residents of any of the dwellings, in accordance with paragraph 180 of the NPPF. The Environmental Health Officer has raised no objection or comments in relation to the proposal. 8.9.4 The applicant has submitted a noise assessment in support of the proposal which has been assessed by the Environmental Health Officer who raises no comments or concerns with its content or conclusions. As such, it is considered that there is no reason to suggest that a development could not be constructed upon this site which ensure appropriate amenity levels are achieved for any occupants. 8.9.5 In relation to the impact of the development upon existing residential properties, this is the more important consideration, particularly for those properties located to the south west of the site on Salkeld Road located approximately 25-30 metres from the application site, with the property ‘Eden View’ located approximately 30 metres to the south east. Whilst the plans provided are indicative only, they are able to demonstrate that appropriate separation distances can be achieved in the layout of the site, to ensure that the development would not lead to any adverse impacts upon local amenity caused through a loss of light, privacy, nor appear over-bearing or result in overlooking. 8.9.6 In relation to existing residents of the area, it is acknowledged that during any building out of a development amenity can be affected. Such construction works can result in noise and emissions which can impact upon local residents, however this is to be expected for a temporary period. The inclusion of appropriate controls and mitigation secured through the imposition of conditions, deal with such matters satisfactorily. 8.9.7 It is considered that this proposal would not have significant and demonstrably harmful impacts in terms amenity of any potential and existing residents contrary to policy DEV5 of the Local Plan and the NPPF. 8.10 Flooding and Environmental Impacts 8.10.1 The site is located within a Flood Zone 1 which is a location that has a low probability of flooding (less than 1 in 1000 chance annually). As the proposal is at the outline stage, no specific flood risk assessment has been provided by the applicant. However, a drainage strategy was produced and submitted in support of the proposal. 8.10.2 Policy DEV2 of the Eden Local Plan, entitled ‘Water Management and Flood Risk’ confirms that ‘new development’ should ‘meet the sequential approach to development in flood risk areas’. 8.10.3 Section 14 of the NPPF entitled ‘Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change’ confirms the role of planning in dealing with these issues. Paragraph 150 confirms that ‘new development should be planned for in ways that: a) avoid increased vulnerability to the range of impacts arising from climate change. When new development is brought forward in areas which are vulnerable, care should be taken to ensure that risks can be managed through suitable adaption measures, including through the planning of green infrastructure; and

Page 60 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE b) can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as through its location, orientation and design. Any local requirements for the sustainability of buildings should reflect the Government’s policy for national technical standards’. 8.10.4 Paragraph 155 of the NPPF states that ‘inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing the risk elsewhere’. 8.10.5 Paragraph 162 of the NPPF states that, ‘where planning applications come forward on sites allocated in the development plan through the sequential test, applicants need not apply the sequential test again. However, the exception test may need to be reapplied if relevant aspects of the proposal had not been considered when the test was applied at the plan making stage, or if more recent information about existing or potential flood risk should be taken into account’. 8.10.6 Cumbria County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority has been consulted upon this application and confirmed that ‘there is no drainage information contained within the outline application, the applicant would need to demonstrate how they propose to deal with surface water and roof water in a manner which will not increase the risk of flooding to properties both on and off site’. It has been confirmed that such matters can be considered at a Reserved Matters Stage if the application is approved. Accordingly, the County Council has requested that conditions be attached to any subsequent grant of planning permission. The inclusion of this condition is considered to be reasonable. 8.10.7 United Utilities were also consulted upon the proposal. They confirmed that were the proposal to be approved, the decision should include conditions in relation to foul and surface water. Furthermore, they confirmed that a public sewer crosses the site and building would not be permitted over it. If the proposal were approved, the layout of the site would need to take account of this. The applicant has been made aware of this matter and the comments provided by United Utilities. 8.10.8 In this instance it is therefore considered that the development could proceed without undue or significant harm relative to flood risk and is unlikely to result in flood events on site or elsewhere in accordance with the Development Plan and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. 8.11 Ecology 8.11.1 Policy ENV1 entitled ‘Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Geodiversity seeks to ensure that protection is afforded to areas designated with international, national or local importance. The policy confirms that ‘new development will be required to avoid any net loss of biodiversity, and where possible enhance existing assets. Should emerging proposals identify potential impacts upon designated sites, regard should be given to the objectives for each of the hierarchy of sites’. 8.11.2 In this instance the application site is not afforded any landscape designation nor is it subject to any special ecological designation. The site is currently used for the grazing of horses and as such is considered unlikely to be species or habitat rich and therefore, of limited ecological value. On this basis, whilst the loss of an area of greenfield land is regrettable, it is therefore considered that this proposal would not have any significant and demonstrable harm in ecological terms were it to be approved and subsequently implemented.

Page 61 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.12 Infrastructure 8.12.1 The application also includes access as well as the outline principle of a residential development on this site. Policy DEV3 of the Eden Local Plan confirms that ‘development will be refused if it will result in severe impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion. Development should provide safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people’. 8.12.2 An objector has raised concerns regarding the ability of the site to provide a safe access and that school children are present in the area when walking to and from the nearby school. 8.12.3 8.12.3 Paragraph 109 of the NPPF confirms that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. 8.12.4 The direction of paragraph 109 is explicit in that in order to refuse a proposal on the basis of Highways grounds, the development would have to be based on an ‘unacceptable impact on highway safety’ or ‘the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. The Highway Authority does not object to the proposal, or raise any concerns on the impacts of Highway Safety having assessed the application. As such, it would be unreasonable to refuse the proposal on such grounds. 8.12.5 The Highway Authority response confirms that the proposal is acceptable from their perspective. Their comments confirmed that ‘The visibility splays indicated should be 60m in both directions, CCC as highway authority would be confident that this can be achieved and therefore we would seek the inclusion of condition to demonstrate the visibility splays of 60m’. 8.12.6 Furthermore, the Highway response echoed the objectors concerns regarding school drop off and pick up times by stating that, ‘The parking at school drop off and pick up times often leads to parking along the west side of the highway restricting Salkeld Road to one lane with this in mind CCC would need to see a detail Construction Phase Traffic Management Plan which indicates traffic routes, operating times, also as the site is situated close to Langwathby school we would need to see that there are no deliveries to site in School muster times (8:30 to 9:30am and 2:45 till 3:30pm)’. 8.12.7 The highway response indicates that a safe access can be provided in association with any development, notwithstanding the concerns that have been raised by objectors. Furthermore, the Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposal subject to appropriate conditions being attached to any subsequent approval. On this basis, it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on grounds of highway safety, contrary to Policy DEV3 of the Local Plan and paragraph 109 of the NPPF. 8.12.8 For the reasons detailed above, in terms of the local infrastructure required to service the site, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and would not result in any detrimental impacts upon the settlement. 8.13 Historic Environment 8.13.1 An important consideration in the determination of this application is the extent of the impact of the proposed development upon the setting and character of the Settle to Carlisle Railway Line Conservation Area, which is located to the immediate north east of the site, running along the entire length of its boundary.

Page 62 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.13.2 Policy ENV10 of the Local Plan confirms that “Development proposals will be expected to avoid harm to the historic environment wherever possible, and should aim to positively enhance Eden’s historic environment”. 8.13.3 Paragraph 192 of the NPPF seeks that Local Planning Authorities 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’. 8.13.4 Paragraph 196 of the NPPF advises that where a proposal would 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, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use’. 8.13.5 As a consequence of the proximity of the site to the designated Conservation Area, the council’s Conservation Officer was consulted with in relation to the application. They confirmed that the proposal would have a likely ‘negligible’ impact upon the designated Conservation Area and on that basis it would clearly be unreasonable to refuse the application on such grounds. The Conservation Area is elevated topographically higher than the application site, and as such the development would not dominate or have any discernible impact upon its character or setting. 8.13.6 Accordingly, there are no concerns regarding the historic environment and the approval of this application and it is therefore considered to merit support. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Equality and Diversity 10.1.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.2 Environment 10.2.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

Page 63 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.3 Crime and Disorder 10.3.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.4 Children 10.4.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.5 Human Rights 10.5.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 The site is located within a location designated as a key hub within the Eden Local Plan. Such locations are considered appropriate for residential development of an appropriate scale, generally limited to no more than 10% of the number of existing dwellings in the settlement. The principle of the development is in accordance with the Eden Local Plan, and not outweighed by any material considerations. 11.2 The application site is not allocated within the Local Plan. This means that the site is considered a ‘windfall’ site and it has been considered on that basis. 11.3 The development proposal would see up to 13 houses constructed on the site. If the Reserved Matters application proposed thirteen houses, three would be affordable units. The application has been the subject of a consultation process which has resulted in no objections being raised against it by any Statutory Consultee. 11.4 It is considered that there would be no clear significant and demonstrable harm as a consequence of the development being approved and subsequently implemented. Accordingly, the benefits of the windfall housing are considered sufficient enough to outweigh any limited harm that may be caused and as such the planning balance is considered to be significantly tilted in favour of the proposed development. 11.5 Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File 18/0775

Page 64 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 13 December 2018

Planning Application No: 18/0829 Date Received: 9 October 2018

OS Grid Ref: NY 352070, Expiry Date: 5 December 2018 528761

Parish: Penrith Ward: Penrith South

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Proposed Single Dwelling

Location: Skirsgill Lane, Eamont Bridge, Penrith

Applicant: Mr Ray King

Agent: Mr Mark Wilson

Case Officer: Nicholas Unwin

Reason for Referral: Recommendation contrary to that of the Parish Council

Page 65 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: Time Limit for Commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved: i. Application Form. Dated 3 October 2018. ii. Visibility Splays (1811/B/102), dated 20 September 2018. iii. Design & Access Statement (1811/B/001), dated 2 October 2018. iv. Flood Risk Assessment (18-272r001), dated 7 September 2018. v. Location Plan (1811/B/101), dated 20 September 2018. vi. Proposed Elevations (1811/B/104), dated 20 September 2018. vii. Proposed Floor Plan (1811/B/103), dated 20 September 2018. viii. Site Plan (1811/B/102), dated 20 September 2018. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Prior to Commencement 3. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, prior to the commencement of any development, a surface water drainage scheme informed by evidence of an assessment of the site conditions shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage scheme must be in accordance with the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards. No surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly. The development shall then be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. The condition is considered necessary to be complied with pre-commencement as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 4. Prior to the commencement of development a full Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP should incorporate appropriate pollution prevention guideline measures such as materials and machinery storage, biosecurity, and the control and management of noise, fugitive dust, surface

Page 66 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE water runoff and waste to protect any nearby surface water drains and the River Eden Special Area of Conservation (SAC) from sediment, and pollutants such as fuel and cement. Reason: To ensure the development does not adversely affect River Eden SAC. Ongoing Conditions 5. The hereby approved development shall only be constructed during the following times - Monday to Friday - 08.00 - 17.00 Saturday - 08.30 - 12.00 No construction works are permitted during Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays Reason: In the interests of the general amenity of the area. 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by Part 1 Classes A, C, D, E and F and Part 2 Class A of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be carried out. Reason: In order to prevent the alteration of flood flows and flood routing. 7. The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person with a local connection to the locality, or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants. Locality refers to the parish and surrounding parishes in the first instance. In terms of marketing a local occupancy property, if after six months of active marketing an occupier cannot be found the definition would cascade out to include the County of Cumbria. A person with a local connection means a person who meets one of the following criteria:  The person lives in the locality and has done for a continuous period of at least three years.  The person works permanently in the locality for a minimum of 16 hours per week. Where a person is employed in an established business that operates in multiple locations, their employment activities should take place predominantly inside the locality.  The person has a firm offer of permanent employment, for a minimum of 16 hours per week in an already established business within the locality.  The person has moved away but has a strong established and continuous links with the locality by reason of birth or long term immediate family connections.  The person needs to live in the locality because they need substantial care from a relative who has lived in the locality for at least three years, or needs to provide substantial care to a relative who has lived in the locality least three years. Substantial care means that identified as required by a

Page 67 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE medical doctor or relevant statutory support agency. Reason: To provide housing to meet local needs. 8. Access gates, if provided, shall be hung to open inwards only away from the highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD7, LD8 9. The access drive shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or otherwise bound and shall be constructed and completed before the development is occupied/brought into use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD5, LD7, LD8

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 This proposal seeks to erect a two storey four bedroom dwelling on greenfield land adjacent to Skirsgill Lane, Eamont Bridge, Penrith. 2.1.2 The proposed development is a two storey dwelling with the South curtilage of the site adjacent to Skirsgill Lane. The proposed dwelling is set back to the North if Skirsgill Lane by approximately five metres. The front (South) elevation contains a dark grey glazed UPVC front door with a natural slate roof and four Velux rooflights. There is additionally a forward facing gable on the right of the front elevation containing four windows with block cills and a red brick chimney stack. 2.1.3 The South (rear) elevation has a South facing gable to the left containing three windows and a double glazed door. The right section of the South elevation contains four windows, a single glazed door, two openings to the undercroft parking, a covered porch and single Velux window in the roof. There is a raised garden area to the rear surrounded by a local reclaimed stone wall containing a small patio. 2.1.4 The West elevation is blank apart from the large opening for the undercroft parking as is the East elevation apart from two narrow windows with block cills. The walls of the proposed dwelling are brickwork on the lower portion and render on the upper. All window and door surrounds are to be grey UPVC. Adjacent to the West elevation is a parking area connecting to a new access onto Skirsgill Lane to the South. There is additionally a pedestrian stepped access from the front door onto Skirsgill Lane. 2.1.5 The proposed dwelling has a footprint of approximately 106sqm and a gross internal floor space of approximately 147sqm. The design of the development has been informed by the findings of the flood risk assessment submitted with the application such as the living accommodation being 0.8 metres above a 1 in 100 flood event (plus 20% for climate change), foul drainage is to be connected to the existing foul sewer with one way valves to prevent back up and open undercroft parking to allow water to flow through the site. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The proposed site is located adjacent to the Northern edge of Skirsgill Lane, an unclassified single lane road providing access for residential dwellings to the A6 to the East. The site is located between ‘Eamont Lodge’ to the East and ‘Speedwell’ to the West. The site is located within flood zone 2.

Page 68 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2.2.2 Speedwell is a large two storey dwelling gaining planning permission under approval 00/0717. The dwelling is comprised of red brick and white painted render, light brown UPVC windows and doors, a grey tiled roof and red brick chimney stack. There is a low red sandstone wall along the Western curtilage boundary adjacent to Skirsgill Lane. There is a six foot wooden fence along the North, East and West curtilage boundaries. ‘Eamont Lodge’ is a grade two listed building, three storeys, Lime-washed stone rubble, late Georgian style, canted bay window with small-paned sashes divided by Tuscan columns and a sash window on each upper floor. A gravel parking area separates ‘Eamont Lodge’ from its Western curtilage boundary. 2.2.3 ‘Ashbank’ and ‘Iona’ are located opposite the site. Both are modern two storey dwellings comprised of red brick, dark brown UPVC windows and doors, red brick chimneys and grey tiled roofs. The rear (North) of the site is adjacent to open agricultural land currently used for grazing. The site is comprised of grassland and is not separated from the grazing land to the North and is therefore classified as greenfield. The Southern boundary of the site adjacent to Skirsgill lane is boarder by a traditional red brick sandstone wall comprised of varying sized blocks. The proposal would involve the demolition of part of the traditional sandstone wall to create an access onto Skirsgill Lane to the South. 2.2.4 There was originally planning granted on the site and the site of ‘Speedwell’ to the West for two dwellings and access on the 24 June 1999 under approval 99/0335, however this has since lapsed. Approximately 25 metres to the South-East of the site approval 18/0188 was granted on 19 July 2018 for a single dwelling with a garage. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority No objection, response received 29 November 2018 Lead Local Flood Authority No objection, response received 29 November 2018 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Housing No objection, response received 11 October 2018 United Utilities No objection, response received 5 November 2018 Natural England No objection, response received 26 October 2018 Environmental Health No objection, response received 16 October 2018 Minerals and Waste No objection, response received 12 October 2018 Environment Agency Responded 7 November 2018: “If the Local Planning Authority determines that the Sequential Test has not been met then this application will not be in compliance with the NPPF and the Environment Agency would not support it. We have considered whether or not the proposals satisfy the requirements of the second part of the Exception Test and paragraph 103 of the NPPF.

Page 69 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE We have reviewed the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) referenced 18-272r001 Land Adjacent to Eamont Lodge, Skirsgill Lane, Penrith, Cumbria, produced by Kingmoor Consulting, dated 7 September 2018, submitted with the application and we are satisfied that the FRA demonstrates that the proposed development will not be at an unacceptable risk of flooding or exacerbate flood risk elsewhere. We would however wish to provide the following comments on the FRA: The FRA indicates that finished habitable floor levels will be set at 120.3 mAOD. With reference to the Product 4 information provided by the Environment Agency, the modelled 0.1% Fluvial AEP Event, representing the Flood Zone 2 extent as shown on Flood Map for Planning levels are 119.7mAOD at Node 7 and 119.66mAOD at Node 8 respectively. The proposed finished habitable floor levels are therefore considered suitably precautionary. It should be noted, as per the Pre-Application letter dated 5 February 2018 sent to Mr Ian Carrick of Ian Carrick Designs, the Environment Agency are currently reviewing the hydraulic modelling for the River Eamont and it is highly likely that on completion of the work, the proposed development site will be re-classified as Flood Zone 3 (high probability of flooding), which is classified as land having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding. In addition to modelled data, the FRA references information from the 2005 and 2015 historic flood events. No information is provided for the 2009 event; however the flood levels recorded following the 5th and 6th December 2015 flood event (known as Storm Desmond) are the highest on record and therefore suitable in consideration for the design flood event. In terms of flood flow routes during flood events, it should also be noted that the Cumbria County Council Flood Investigation Report for the 2005 flood event did not identify any flow routes, and after the 2015 flood event the flow route was primarily identified as being Skirsgill Lane, which is at a lower level than the proposed site. On this basis, the proposed development should not have a detrimental effect on the flow route of flood water. The FRA describes localised and temporary measures erected by homeowners that may alter flood routes. Such activities may include temporary or permanent structures, eg walls less than 1m high and used for enclosure and for which no planning approval is

Page 70 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE required. Please note our hydraulic models only include structures which have been identified as formal flood defences. Therefore at a local level your LPA should be aware the activities undertaken under permitted development rights can have an unregulated impact on flood flows, flood routing and drain down of flooded areas. In terms of access and egress, the FRA covers access and egress during a flood event, including a link to the local flood action plan. The site benefits from the EA’s Flood Warnings service, more information is available here: www.gov.uk/sign-up-for-flood-warnings” The proposed development must proceed in strict accordance with this FRA and the mitigation measures identified as it will form part of any subsequent planning approval. Any proposed changes to the approved FRA and/or the mitigation measures identified will require the submission of a revised FRA as part of an amended planning application.” 4. Parish Council Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Council No View Object Support No Response Expressed Penrith Town  Council 4.1 The following reasons for objection were given by the Town Council: “1. The application does not accord to Policy DEV2 in the newly adopted Eden Local Plan 2014-2032 which states that inappropriate development will not be permitted in flood zones 2 and 3, areas at risk of surface water flooding or areas with a history of groundwater flooding…’”. Policy DEV2 goes on to say that “unless there is an overriding need and a clear absence of a suitable alternative site”. “This application would amount to inappropriate development in an area which flooded badly in 2005, 2009 and 2015 and when the proposed site is covered in flood water it is much higher than the lane. With development on this site more water would be displaced onto the lane and so affect more properties. 2. Application No 17/0792 relating to 11/0446 for the same site was refused on 18 January 2018 on the grounds that the development could increase the risk of flooding on the site and surrounding land and the benefits of the development do not sufficiently outweigh the likely flood risk. Nothing has changed with regard to this application”. Application 17/0792 is not within the application site and is located approximately 45 metres to the North. Application 17/0792 was a variation of condition relating to the flood plain storage scheme and surface water regulation scheme of a development of 22 dwellings. Therefore a variation of condition application for 22 dwellings on a different site is not comparable to the proposed development.

Page 71 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE “3. There are highway safety issues as the entrance to the lane is a poor junction to a very busy road. This very narrow lane carries a large volume of traffic to other properties and to the riding stables. There is currently only one light on the lane which is on the proposed development site” 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 18 October 2018. No of Neighbours Consulted 6 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 5 No of neutral representations 3 No of objection letters 2 5.2. The following material planning considerations were raised:  Flooding  Overlooking 6. Relevant Planning History Application No Description Outcome 99/0335 Two dwellings and access Full approval 24 June 1999 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan 2014-2032:  LS1 Locational Strategy  DEV1 General Approach to New Development  DEV2 Water Management and Flood Risk  DEV5 Design of New Development 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Chapter 2 Achieving sustainable development  Chapter 12 Achieving well-designed places  Chapter 14 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 7.3 Technical Guidance to the NPPF (2012) 7.4 Flood risk and coastal change guidance (2014) 7.5 Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2010) 7.6 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application.

Page 72 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Landscape and Visual Impacts  Amenity  Flooding and Environmental Impacts 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The proposed development is located within the settlement of Eamont Bridge, classified within Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-32 under ‘Smaller Villages and Hamlets’. 8.2.2 Policy LS1 states that “development of an appropriate scale, which reflects: the existing built form of the settlement, adjoining and neighbouring development to the site, and the service function of the settlement, will be permitted within Smaller Villages and Hamlets, to support the development of diverse and sustainable communities. Development in these locations will be permitted in the following circumstances:  Where it reuses previously-developed land (PDL) defined in Appendix 2.  Where it delivers new housing on greenfield sites only, in accordance with the local connection criteria defined in Appendix 6". 8.2.3 Policy LS1 goes on to say that “all development must be of a high quality design and will be restricted to infill sites, which fill a modest gap between existing buildings within the settlement; rounding off, which provides a modest extension beyond the limit of the settlement to a logical, defensible boundary”. 8.2.4 Policy HS2 states that “within the Smaller Villages and Hamlets listed in Policy LS1, permission will be given for housing of an appropriate scale, which reflects the built form of adjoining and neighbouring development to the site and the service function of the settlement, (including sub-division of existing housing) where it meets all of the following criteria:  Where development is restricted to infilling and rounding off of the current village settlement pattern, in accordance with Policy LS1.  The resultant dwelling does not contain more than 150m2 gross internal floorspace.  In the case of Greenfield sites a condition or legal agreement restricting occupancy to only those meeting local connection criteria, defined in Appendix 6, will be applied”. 8.2.5 The proposed site is located in a plot of greenfield land between the curtilage of ‘Eamont Lodge’ (listed) and Eastern Elevation of ‘Speedwell’, a gap of approximately 29 metres. This distance between the curtilage of both properties is 25 metres, similar to that of the surrounding dwellings curtilages adjacent to Skirsgill Lane (‘Speedwell’ 21 metres and ‘Mayburgh View’ 29 metres) and therefore considered to be a modest infill as stipulated in Policy LS1 and HS2. 8.2.6 The proposed dwelling has a gross internal floor space of approximately 147sqm and is located on greenfield land and is therefore to be local occupancy restricted to comply with Policy LS1 and HS2.

Page 73 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2.7 Based on the above, the principle of the proposed development is considered acceptable. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 Chapter 12 Achieving well-designed places of the NPPF states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development going on to say that new development should be sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting. This is supported by Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan which states that new development should show a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built environment. 8.3.2 Although the proposed site is currently open greenfield land with further open greenfield land to the North, the majority of Skirsgill Lane is characterised by two story dwellings adjacent to, but set back from Skirsgill Lane. The proposed development would therefore be in-keeping with the character and layout of the surrounding built environment. 8.3.3 Chapter 12 Achieving well-designed places of the NPPF states that new developments should be visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping. It goes on to say that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area. 8.3.4 The proposed development utilises a design similar to that of the adjacent dwellings of ‘Speedwell’ and ‘Mayburgh View’ to the West, with brickwork on the lower section of the walls and render on the upper sections, block cills and a grey slate roof. Although not of the highest architectural merit, the design cannot be considered poor and reflects that of other developments within the vicinity. Therefore the scale, design and materials of the proposed development are considered appropriate for its location. 8.4 Amenity 8.4.1 Chapter 12 Achieving well-designed places of the NPPF states that new development should achieve a “high standard of amenity for existing and future users”. This is supported by Policy DEV 5 of the Eden Local Plan which state that new development should protect the amenity of existing residents and business occupiers and provide an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. 8.4.2 There are three windows in the first floor of ‘Speedwell’ in the Eastern elevation with the two windows on the first floor screened by an existing wooden fence. The Western elevation of the proposed development is approximately 11 metres from the Eastern elevation of ‘Speedwell’ however it is left blank, containing a single opening to the undercroft parking so as not to result in overlooking. 8.4.3 The Eastern elevation of the proposed development is approximately 22 metres from the Western elevation of ‘East Lodge’. The front (South) elevation of the proposal is approximately 26 metres North of the front elevation of ‘Iona’ and 22 metres North of the front elevation of ‘Ashbank’. These distances comply with the minimum 21 metre separation distance from directly facing windows stipulated in Appendix H not the Housing Supplementary Housing Document (2010). 8.4.4 Based on the above the effect of the proposed development on amenity is considered to be limited.

Page 74 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.5 Flooding and Environmental Impacts 8.5.1 The proposed site is currently located within flood zone 2 (medium risk of flooding), however the Environment Agency have stated that following the completion of further hydraulic modelling of the River Eamont the proposed site is highly likely to be re- classified as flood zone 3 (high risk of flooding). 8.5.2 Paragraph 155 of the NPPF states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere. 8.5.3 The Environment Agency were consulted on the application and state that they “are satisfied that the FRA demonstrates that the proposed development will not be at an unacceptable risk of flooding or exacerbate flood risk elsewhere”. This is further supported by the finished floor level being approximately 0.8 metres above that of the expected 1 in 100 year flood level and approximately 0.48 metres above the wrack line surveyed following Storm Desmond which was a 1 in 1000 year flood event. 8.5.4 With regard to the proposal’s effect on the flow rout of flood water the Environment Agency state that “Cumbria County Council Flood Investigation Report for the 2005 flood event did not identify any flow routes, and after the 2015 flood event the flow route was primarily identified as being Skirsgill Lane, which is at a lower level than the proposed site”. They conclude that “the proposed development should not have a detrimental effect on the flow route of flood water”. 8.5.5 The FRA submitted with the application acknowledges temporary measures erected by homeowners that may alter flood routes such as walls. The Environment Agency additionally state that their hydraulic models only include structures which have been identified as formal flood defences and that the LPA should be aware of the impact on flood flows from activities carried out under permitted development rights. 8.5.6 As previously stated the design of the proposed development has been informed by the findings of the FRA such as keeping the footprint of the building to a minimum, keeping the undercroft open to permit the flow of water from the rear garden and keeping the boundary treatment for the Western section of the North curtilage boundary permeable to allow water to flow through the site. Additionally the removal of permitted development rights for the proposal can secure this in perpetuity. 8.5.7 Application 18/0188 is adjacent to the South of Skirsgill Lane approximately 25 metres South-East of the proposed site within flood zone 3 for the erection of a single dwelling with garage and was approved under delegated powers on 19 July 2018. The application received no objections from statutory or discretionary consultees. The Sequential Test 8.5.8 The proposed site is designated as flood zone 2 (medium probability of flooding). The site’s proposed use as residential classifies it as ‘more vulnerable’ under Table 2: Flood risk vulnerability classification of Technical Guidance to the NPPF (2012). Table 1: Flood zones of the same document states that more vulnerable uses, as set out in table 2, are considered appropriate within flood zone 2. 8.5.9 Paragraph 001 of Flood risk and coastal change guidance (2014) states that in decision-taking, where necessary, local planning authorities also apply the ‘sequential approach’ which involves applying the Sequential Test for specific development

Page 75 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE proposals. Flood risk assessment: the sequential test for applicants (2012) states that the Sequential Test is to be applied if the development is within flood zone 2 (medium probability of flooding) or 3 (high probability of flooding). 8.5.10 Paragraph 158 of the NPPF states that the aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding. 8.5.11 Paragraph 033 of Flood risk and coastal change guidance states that in applying the Sequential Test, a pragmatic approach on the availability of alternatives should be taken. It goes on to say that for individual applications the area to apply the Sequential Test across will be defined by local circumstances relating to the catchment area for the type of development proposed. 8.5.12 In this particular circumstance the catchment area of the proposed development is considered to be the settlement of Eamont Bridge. As previously stated new residential development within Eamont Bridge will be limited to infill and rounding off which severely restricts the number of potential sites available for development in this area. Development is further restricted by the amount of land within Eamont Bridge being located within flood zone 3, a higher risk flood zone. 8.5.13 There are no sites allocated for housing within Eamont Bridge in the Eden Local Plan Policies Map. There are additionally two sites with planning approval within Eamont Bridge in the Eden Five-Year Housing Land Supply Report (2017-2022), neither of which are for open market or local occupancy dwellings (15/0095 - reserved matters approval for 22 affordable dwellings which lapsed in February 2018 and 14/0151 - full approval for 24 extra care homes for the over 55s) and therefore not deemed to be comparable to the proposed development. This places further importance on sites such as the one proposed in this area coming forward. 8.5.14 Based on the lack of available sites within Eamont Bridge within flood zone 1 that are able to meet the infill and rounding off criteria stipulated within Policy LS1 and HS2 of the Eden Local Plan and absence of any allocated sites within Eamont Bridge, the proposed site is considered to pass the Sequential Test. The Exception Test 8.5.15 Table 3: Flood risk vulnerability and flood zone ‘compatibility’ of Technical Guidance to the NPPF (2012) states that the Exception Test is required for more vulnerable developments located within flood zone 3. 8.5.16 Paragraph 160 of the NPPF states that for the exception test to be passed it should be demonstrated that: “a) the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk; and b) the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.” 8.5.17 The Environment Agency states that “the proposed development will not be at an unacceptable risk of flooding or exacerbate flood risk elsewhere”. Therefore the proposed development is considered to pass section (b) of the exception test set out within Paragraph 160 of the NPPF.

Page 76 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.5.18 The proposal would contribute a single local occupancy dwelling in an area with a severely limited number of available sites based on the criteria set out in Policy LS1 and HS2. This is considered to outweigh the proposal’s flood risk considering the Environment Agency do not believe the proposal will be at an unacceptable risk of flooding or exacerbate flood risk elsewhere. Therefore the proposed development is considered to pass section (a) of the exception test set out within Paragraph 160 of the NPPF. 8.5.19 Despite the Environment Agency’s comments stating that hydraulic modelling for the River Eamont is currently being conducted and it is “highly likely that on completion of the work, the proposed development site will be re-classified as Flood Zone 3”, this is by no means definitive. Therefore although this information is taken into consideration, the proposed development must be judged on its current classification. 8.5.20 Policy DEV2 of the Eden Local Plan States that “inappropriate development will not be permitted in flood zones 2 and 3, critical drainage areas or areas which have a history of groundwater flooding, or where it would increase flood risk elsewhere unless there is an overriding need and a clear absence of a suitable alternative site”. 8.5.21 The proposed development is not considered to be at an unacceptable risk of flooding or to exacerbate flood risk elsewhere by the Environment Agency. The proposed development is additionally considered capable of passing both the Sequential Test and the Exception Test. Therefore the proposed development cannot be considered inappropriate and conforms with Policy DEV2 of the Eden Local Plan. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Human Rights 9.5.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 9.6 New Homes Bonus 9.6.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example,

Page 77 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Conclusion 10.1 The proposed development complies with the Eden Local Plan Locational Strategy set out in Policy LS1 and HS2 (referring specifically to development within ‘Smaller Villages and Hamlets’). The scale and design of the proposed development is considered appropriate based on the surrounding built environment and the impact on amenity is limited. The development is considered to pass both the Sequential Test and Exception Test due to the lack of available sites with a lower flood risk within Eamont Bridge and the Environment Agency’s satisfaction that the proposed development would not be at an unacceptable risk of flooding or exacerbate flood risk elsewhere. The proposed development is considered to be appropriate and in accordance with both National and Local Policy and therefore recommended for approval.

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File 18/0829

Page 78 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 13 December 2018

Planning Application No: 17/0651 Date Received: 28 July 2017

OS Grid Ref: 363932 525789 Expiry Date: 26 October 2017 Extension of time agreed until 14 December 2018

Parish: Kirkby Thore Ward: Kirkby Thore

Application Type: Outline

Proposal: Redevelopment of former nursery and erection of 14 dwellings and access

Location: Land at Ashton Lea, Kirkby Thore

Applicant: Rapcrest Ltd

Agent: Mr Paul Tunstall

Case Officer: Mr Ian Irwin

Reason for Referral: This is a major planning application

Page 79 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that the application be refused for the following reasons;  The proposed development would result in a significantly harmful impact in terms of the amenity of any future occupants of the proposed dwellings contrary to Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan and the NPPF;  The applicant has failed to demonstrate how the proposed development would integrate with an existing business adjacent to the proposal site contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and in particular paragraph 182;  The proposal is considered contrary to Policy DEV5 in that it would result, as proposed, in a significantly harmful landscape impact;  The application, as proposed, is considered contrary to Policy DEV5 in that it would result in a significant and detrimental impact on the amenity of the area as trees, subject of a tree preservation order would be adversely affected.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The application seeks outline planning permission for 14 residential dwellings, improvements to the existing vehicular access and associated landscaping. Of the 14 dwellings, 4 would need to be affordable in line with council policy on such matters. 2.1.2 Other matters such as layout, scale, external appearance and landscaping are reserved matters and would be dealt with at a later date were this proposal granted planning permission. 2.1.3 The applicant has submitted acoustic and odour assessments, an arboricultural assessment, a preliminary environmental risk assessment and some indicative plans in support of this proposal. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site is located within Kirkby Thore and is a former garden centre/nursery located on the northern side of Main Street. The site is in a relatively central location within the village. The site is considered by the applicant to constitute ‘brownfield’ land and given it has been vacant for a significant period of time, it is noted to also be subject to varying species of trees, shrubs and other plants that have colonised the site. A number of the trees (20) located upon the site are protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) which the arboricultural officer has confirmed was applied to them on the basis of their contribution to the visual amenity and character of the area. 2.2.2 The sites topography is relatively flat and rectangular in shape. The site comprises a total area of 0.79 hectares and due to its position is located adjacent to Crossfell House Farm. This working dairy farm is located to the west-north-west of the site. 2.2.3 The site is bound by residential properties to the south-south-west (Thornycroft, Foresters Hall, Tansley Croft and Clifton Lodge). To the east are further residential properties, comprising an area of housing known as Millerstone Rise with several of those properties backing onto the proposal site. Ashton Lea is located to the north-

Page 80 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE north-east and a further grouping of housing to the north-east located off Town Head Rise with the nearest of these properties approximately 28 metres from the site. 2.2.4 The site is not subject to any further constraints relevant to the determination of this application. 3. Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response

Highway Authority Responded on the 8 September 2017 and confirmed that the proposal was below thresholds for both education and school transport contributions. The Highway Authority response concludes that they had no objection to the proposal on the basis that conditions related to visibility splays, surface water, site compound and boundary walls were requested to be included in any subsequent grant of planning permission.

Lead Local Flood Authority Responded on the 8 September 2017 and confirmed that as the application contained no drainage information (as it is an outline proposal) were the proposal to be approved for development conditions related to surface water drainage and drainage maintenance should be attached to any subsequent grant of planning permission.

Housing Development Responded on the 14 August 2017 initially to confirm that it was Officer noted that the applicant intended to provide 100% market housing on the basis that the viability of the site otherwise would make the development unviable. The applicant’s viability assessment was therefore provided to the council’s independent viability assessor who concluded that the site was, in their opinion, capable of providing a policy compliant affordable housing contribution. The Housing Officer accordingly updated their response on the 10 November 2017 to confirm that four x 2 bedroom dwellings (30% of the proposed number of units rounded down to the nearest whole unit) could be provided at 60% of market value. Accordingly, it was requested that a Section 106 agreement was secured to ensure this affordable housing contribution was made by the developer.

United Utilities Responded on the 21 August 2017. The response confirmed that United Utilities had no objection to the proposed development provided that conditions related to both foul and surface water were attached to any subsequent grant of planning permission.

Arboricultural Officer Responded on the 7 September 2018 and confirmed that the proposals as shown would result in the loss of currently protected trees. The arboricultural officer concluded that these issues ‘cannot be satisfactorily addressed and realistically see the trees retained for the longer term’.

Page 81 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response

Environmental Health Responded on the 12 September 2017 and confirmed that the Officer/Contaminated Land noise assessment produced in support of the proposal was Officer considered inadequate. Further concerns related to odour were also raised. The applicant produced further, detailed assessments in relation to noise and odour for the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) to consider. The EHO subsequently responded with further comments on the 23 October 2018. The EHO confirmed that, 'with regard to odour from the adjacent farm, the applicant has not demonstrated that for the most odorous activity on this farm which happens every 5-6 weeks will not cause nuisance and dis-amenity to future residents of the proposed development, mainly because the consultants have neither witnessed not modelled it at its worst. Assessments have been carried out 24 hours after slurry handling and this was identified to be a problem for the proposed development (moderate adverse effect), but the consultants then risk assessed the significance of this down to ‘not significant’. I do not agree with their published justifications to do this. Two planning inspectors assessing applications for housing on this site and adjacent to the farm have witnessed odour from the farm and it was sufficient for them to remark upon it and use it in dismissing the previous applications for housing. The most recent inspector in 2014 witnessed odour at some 125m away and stated that odours arising from Crossfell House Farm would be likely to have a notable adverse effect upon the living conditions of future residents of the appeal development. This housing on this site is only 25 metres from one of the main odour sources. It is my view, and I have witnessed the odour, that future residents of this site would expect a level of odour that this farm, which houses cattle in open sided sheds all year round, has an open-sided silage clamp and handles slurry, is simply unable to achieve. The consultants have attempted to deal with the problem of odour from an intensive farm by averaging out the occasions when they smelt odour, but unfortunately this is not how neighbours will experience the problem, nor how they would expect the Council to address their complaints’.

Page 82 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response

Environmental Health ‘The NPPF is clear (paragraph 182) that existing businesses Officer/Contaminated Land should not have unreasonable restrictions played upon them as Officer a result of development permitted after they were established. With regard to Noise, the consultant has taken consideration of many of the matters which were discussed at our last meeting, I do think that the sheer variety of noise from this farm means that obtaining an average day and night-time figure based on measurements that have not captured all of the likely activities, is very difficult, particularly as the consultants have not sought or had co-operation from the farm. However I remain concerned about the results of the BS4142 assessment which provides a method of determining whether complaints are likely; ie where the calculated rating level is 10dB or more than the background noise level. For every fixed noise source (moving sources were not assessed), the daytime rating level difference at the proposed properties varies between 20 and 44, depending upon the activity, and for the night-time period, between 30 and 48. The British Standard states that the greater the difference, the greater the magnitude of the impact; thus a difference of around +5dB is indicative of an adverse effect, depending upon context and a difference of +10dB is likely to be an indication of an a significant adverse impact, depending upon context. Whilst I have seriously considered the matters of context that the consultants have identified, I cannot accept that the sheer magnitude of the differences that they have modelled will be acceptable to future residents, particularly when some of the noise sources are expected to continue over the day and night- time periods. I appreciate that the consultants have made recommendations for enhanced double glazing and ventilation to be finalised at the detailed stage, but the sound insulation recommendations given in BS8233 are based on noise without character or not irregular enough to attract attention, which is clearly not the case here. I think that it is highly likely that people who move into this houses will expect the noise environment to be typical of a small Cumbrian village and whilst this site is next to a farm, it is an intensive farm that produces noises that are well above any level that we as a Council can reasonably accept as acceptable in terms of the Planning Practice Guidance and NPPF. My comments earlier about section 182 of the NPPF are relevant also in terms of noise’.

Page 83 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response

Environmental Health The Contaminated Land Officer responded on the 7 September Officer/Contaminated Land 2017 and stated that ‘Do you know whether the applicant has Officer undertaken a Phase 1 land contamination assessment? I haven’t found one within the supporting information? I am mindful that Storey homes undertook one for the proposed development site at Carleton which also had a nursery on it previously. That ground investigation did identify some elevated levels of contaminants within the surface soils of the nursery area such that remediation will be required in the garden areas, consequently nurseries do have the potential to contaminate land’. The applicant confirmed that no Contaminated Land Survey had been undertaken on the basis that the proposal was only for outline planning permission

Historic Environment Responded on the 14 August 2018 and confirmed that the site is Officer located within an area of archaeological potential. The Scheduled Ancient Monument of Kirkby Thore Roman Fort and Roman settlement was confirmed to be located 50 metres from the site. The Historic Environment Officer confirmed ‘Two archaeological investigations undertaken in advance of housing developments at nearby Centurion Park and Chapel Lane have revealed and recorded remains of the Roman settlement below ground. It is therefore considered likely that archaeological assets survive buried on the site and that these would be disturbed by the construction of the proposed development’. The Historic Environment Officer concluded that, ‘Consequently, I recommend that, in the event planning consent is granted, an archaeological evaluation and, where necessary, a scheme of archaeological recording of the site be undertaken in advance of development. I advise that this work should be commissioned and undertaken at the expense of the developer and can be secured through the inclusion of two conditions in any planning consent that may be granted’.

Public Rights of Way Responded on the 8 September 2018 and confirmed no public (PROW) rights of way would be affected by the proposed development.

Page 84 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

4. Parish Council Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Council No View Object Support No Response Expressed Kirkby Thore 

4.1 The Parish Council qualified their objection with the following comments;  The proposal was in conflict with Eden District Council policies in relation to affordable homes as the applicant is proposing 100% market led development and no affordable home contributions;  The site is not brownfield as the applicant asserts but greenfield;  The proposal would result in many trees currently protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) being felled resulting in a loss of amenity to the area;  The Odour Impact Assessment produced by the applicant is not considered to be representative of the reality on site as the baseline met office wind data does not represent the specific circumstances in Kirkby Thore. In addition, the mitigation suggested by the applicants (30 metre stand-off and fencing) is not sufficient to mitigate odour;  The acoustic assessment is also not considered to represent day to day farm operations and there are concerns that the assessment ‘potentially underplays’ the all year round impact of the farming operations;  The Parish Council say that the owners of the neighbouring farm have expressed concerns that the proposal would seriously impair the ability of the farm to operate in a manner that is commercially viable;  The site is not an allocated site in the emerging Local Plan. 5. Representations 5.1 The application was advertised by means of a site notice posted on the 17 August 2017; a press notice advertised in the Herald on the 19 August 2017 and the following neighbour notifications: No of Neighbours Consulted 18 No of letters of support 0 No of objection letters 4 No of neutral representations 0 5.2 It is not possible to convey, ‘word for word’ each of the objectors concerns, but the following confirms the basis of the objections received;  The proposed buildings will be too close to properties on Millerstone Rise and will significantly reduce the natural light received by them;  There is a tree preservation order (TPO) located upon the site;  The loss of any trees on the site would adversely affect the character and appearance of the site;

Page 85 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  The site contributes to the amenity of the area;  The entrance and exit to the site is restrictive;  The school bus picks children up close to the proposed entrance/exit;  The proposed development will be in close proximity to an active farm which will impact the amenity of any potential occupants (noise and odour in particular);  If houses were built and occupied the established farm business will be subject of complaints potentially preventing the business operating;  The proposal site is a natural wildlife sanctuary;  The proposed development would lead to a loss in privacy; 6. Relevant Planning History 6.1 The following applications are considered relevant to the determination of this planning application:  95/0746 - Amendments to standard conditions attached to planning permission  92/0842 to extend the period in condition 1b to 6 years and condition 2a to 8 years;  99/0020 - Residential development comprising no. 20 two storey detached houses and associated works;  99/0303 - Application to amend conditions attached to Planning Permission 92/0842 to extend the period in condition 1b to 7 years and condition 2a to 9 years;  99/0480 - Agricultural building machinery store also tree planting both to separate farming and housing;  00/0071 - Reserved matters application for 18 houses at site adjoining Crossfell House Farm to south east. Refused and appeal dismissed on grounds associated with the inhibition of the use on the adjoining farm, relating to close association with milking cubicles and slurry lagoon. Appeal ref. (APP/H0928/A/00/1047599).  This planning application relates to land near the application site - 10/1067- Proposed residential development for 13 dwellings. Refused and appeal dismissed on grounds related to the potential living conditions of any potential occupants may suffer in relation to noise, odour and disturbance. The decision also referred to the neighbouring business, Crossfell House Farm was a significant employer in Kirkby Thore and therefore made a valuable contribution to the local economy and a precautionary approach was justified in considering the case. Appeal ref (APP/H0928/A/13/2198085)

Page 86 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

7.0 Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan (2014-2032)  LS1 - Locational Strategy  LS2 - Housing Targets and Distribution  DEV1 - General Approach to New Development  DEV3 - Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way  DEV5 - Design of New Development  ENV10 - The Historic Environment  HS1 - Affordable Housing  HS4 - Housing Type and Mix Supplementary Planning Documents:  Housing (2010)

7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Achieving sustainable development  Decision-making  Delivering a sufficient supply of homes  Making effective use of land  Achieving well-designed places  Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

National Planning Practice Guidance 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Landscape and Visual Impact  Housing Density  Affordable Housing Contribution  Amenity Impacts  Flooding and Environmental Impacts

Page 87 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Ecology  Infrastructure  Historic Environment 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 In terms of the principle of housing development, consideration is given to the development plan. This consists of the now adopted Eden Local Plan. 8.2.2 Within the Eden Local Plan, the Locational Strategy is set within Policy LS1 which sets out the hierarchy of settlements where development should be focused in the most sustainable locations, the most sustainable being Penrith, the Market Towns and Key Hubs. Kirkby Thore is designated as a ‘Key Hub’ within the plan. In relation to ‘Key Hubs’ Policy LS1 states that ‘Key Hubs will be the focus for development to sustain local services appropriate to the scale of the village and its hinterland, including new housing, the provision of employment and improvements to accessibility. Unless proposed in this plan, new housing developments which would increase the size of a village by more than 10% on a single site will not normally be supported. Proposals will only be acceptable where they respect the historic character and form of the village’. 8.2.3 This site was assessed as part of the ‘call for sites’ and was not allocated. The site failed to achieve an appropriate ‘score’ and was discounted by the Policy team. 8.2.4 Accordingly, the site would represent a ‘windfall’ which the Planning Portal defines as ‘sites which have not specifically identified as available in the Local Plan process. They normally comprise previously developed sites that have unexpectedly become available’. 8.2.5 In this instance, is it considered that the principal of development on this site could be considered acceptable subject to all other relevant material considerations. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impact 8.3.1 A significant consideration in the determination of this planning application is the extent of the impact of the proposed development upon both the character of the area and local landscape. 8.3.2 Policy DEV5 of the Local Plan requires development to demonstrate a clear understanding of the form and character of the districts built and natural environment. It states that the Council will support proposals that ‘protects and where possible enhances the district’s distinctive rural landscape’. 8.3.3 The NPPF also incorporates Section 12 entitled, ‘Achieving well-designed places’. Paragraph 124 confirms the importance of the design of the built environment, it states, ‘the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning development process should achieve’. 8.3.4 Paragraph 127 confirms that, ‘Planning Policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping;

Page 88 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience’. 8.3.5 In this instance, the proposal is an outline one and accordingly we cannot assess specific materials to be utilised in the scheme. However, it is unlikely that the applicant couldn’t produce a design and layout that would be acceptable – notwithstanding this, it would need to complement the existing tree preservation order. 8.3.6 Furthermore, the current appearance of the site is noted. Whilst screened from clear views off the nearest public highway by existing, adjacent residential properties, the site is acknowledged to be a vacant and overgrown site and could be perceived of little visual benefit. However, it is noted that the existing tree preservation order which includes individual trees located upon the site as well as clusters, was granted because of the amenity value these trees added to the area. 8.3.7 As part of this planning application, the TPO has been reviewed by the council Arboricultural Officer and he considers that the TPO remains valid and should be retained. Furthermore, the Arboricultural Officer has raised concerns as to how as many as 14 units could be constructed upon the site without compromising these trees. Therefore, whilst it is considered that it would be possible to develop the site officers have concerns that the number of units proposed would conflict with the trees located upon the site in a significant and detrimental way. 8.3.8 Accordingly, on the basis of the intention and proposal to construct 14 units on the site, the proposed development is considered contrary to Policy DEV5 which seeks to protect and enhance the visual amenity of a site and its area. As has been noted, a number of the trees (20) located upon the site are subject of a TPO. This designation was afforded them because of their amenity value and contribution to the local landscape. 8.3.9 The applicant remains convinced that a layout can be achieved to maintain and protect these trees in the construction of 14 units on the site. Whilst they are quite correct in their view that such matters would be dealt with in detail at reserved matters, the principle of how the development would relate to the trees subject of the TPO and any potential landscape impact would relate to the site and the wider area is considered appropriate and relevant to consider in the determination of this application. 8.3.10 It is therefore considered that this proposal has been unable to demonstrate how it would achieve an appropriate balance between the development proposal and the protected trees without significantly impacting the landscape of the area to its detriment, contrary to Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan.

Page 89 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.4 Housing Density 8.4.1 Policy DEV5 entitled ‘Design of New Development’; seek proposals to ‘reflect the existing street scene through the use of appropriate scale, mass, form, layout, high quality architectural design and use of materials’. 8.4.2 In this instance, the proposal is for 14 dwellings on a site noted to be 0.79 hectares in size. The density of this proposal is therefore approximately 17 per hectare. This is considered in accordance with Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local and suitable for the site and is therefore suitable for officer support. 8.5 Affordable Housing Contribution 8.5.1 The Districts Local Plan confirms the requirements for affordable housing contributions. Policy HS1 of the Local Plan, entitled, ‘Affordable Housing’ further confirms that ‘the council will seek to secure the provision of 30% of all new housing as affordable homes on schemes with 11 or more units where the on-site contribution does not equate precisely to a whole number of units, the contribution will be rounded down to the nearest unit’. 8.5.2 In this instance the applicant has confirmed that they seek to achieve 14 dwellings as part of this proposal. However, they also confirmed that given the needs of the specific site, delivery of any affordable housing would make the scheme unviable. This formal assessment was put to the Council’s own independent assessor who disagreed and considered that x4 (four) two bedroom affordable homes could be provided by this proposal. 8.5.3 On the basis of this assessment the Housing Officer confirmed that a requirement for 4 affordable units would be required as part of a Section 106 legal agreement were this proposal approved. The applicant is aware of this and on the basis that the legal agreement was entered into by the applicant, the proposal can be considered acceptable in affordable housing contribution terms and compliant with Policy HS1 of the Eden Local Plan. 8.6 Housing Mix 8.6.1 Policy HS5 entitled ‘Accessible and Adaptable Homes’ requires applicants who submit proposals for housing schemes of 10 or more homes will require 20% of new housing to meet the building regulations requirement M4(2): Category 2 - Accessible and Adaptable dwellings. It is further confirmed that the policy would not be applied where it a not financially viable to comply with these requirements. 8.6.2 At this stage, given the proposal is at outline, there is no reason to believe that this Policy could not be complied with. Accordingly, such detail is saved for the reserved matters stage, were the application to be approved. 8.7 Amenity Impacts 8.7.1 Policy DEV5 of the Local Plan requires that development protects the amenity of existing residents and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers of any potential development. 8.7.2 The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) assessed the original noise and odour assessment completed in support of the proposal. The EHO concluded that there were ‘significant deficiencies in the application and the adverse potential impact upon the existing farm’s activities and future residents, I am recommending refusal of this planning application’.

Page 90 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.7.3 The applicant undertook further noise and odour studies to demonstrate to the EHO that mitigation and appropriate assessment could demonstrate that the amenity of future occupants of any constructed dwelling would not be significantly affected. 8.7.4 The EHO assessed this further information and confirmed that in relation to odour, ‘the applicant has not demonstrated that for the most odorous activity on this farm which happens every 5-6 weeks will not cause nuisance and dis-amenity to future residents of the proposed development, mainly because the consultants have neither witnessed not modelled it at its worst. Assessments have been carried out 24 hours after slurry handling and this was identified to be a problem for the proposed development (moderate adverse effect), but the consultants then risk assessed the significance of this down to ‘not significant’. I do not agree with their published justifications to do this’. 8.7.5 In relation to noise, the EHO confirmed that, ‘the consultant has taken consideration of many of the matters which were discussed at our last meeting, I do think that the sheer variety of noise from this farm means that obtaining an average day and night-time figure based on measurements that have not captured all of the likely activities, is very difficult, particularly as the consultants have not sought or had co-operation from the farm. However I remain concerned about the results of the BS4142 assessment which provides a method of determining whether complaints are likely; i.e. where the calculated rating level is 10dB or more than the background noise level. For every fixed noise source (moving sources were not assessed), the daytime rating level difference at the proposed properties varies between 20 and 44, depending upon the activity, and for the night-time period, between 30 and 48. The British Standard states that the greater the difference, the greater the magnitude of the impact; thus a difference of around +5dB is indicative of an adverse effect, depending upon context and a difference of +10dB is likely to be an indication of an a significant adverse impact, depending upon context. Whilst I have seriously considered the matters of context that the consultants have identified, I cannot accept that the sheer magnitude of the differences that they have modelled will be acceptable to future residents, particularly when some of the noise sources are expected to continue over the day and night-time periods. I appreciate that the consultants have made recommendations for enhanced double glazing and ventilation to be finalised at the detailed stage, but the sound insulation recommendations given in BS8233 are based on noise without character or not irregular enough to attract attention, which is clearly not the case here’. 8.7.6 The EHO concluded that, ‘I think that it is highly likely that people who move into this houses will expect the noise environment to be typical of a small Cumbrian village and whilst this site is next to a farm, it is an intensive farm that produces noises that are well above any level that we as a Council can reasonably accept as acceptable in terms of the Planning Practice Guidance and NPPF…… On the basis of the noise and odour information that we currently have, the Inspectors’ decisions and the relevant guidance, I do not think that this site can be developed as proposed in this application, without giving rise to a significant adverse effect on the future residents of the properties’. 8.7.7 The EHO has also made reference to both appeals referred to in the planning history section of this report although it should be noted that the most recent appeal relates to land to the west of Crossfell Farm rather than the specific site subject of this proposal.

Page 91 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE The reference notes that on both appeals, inspectors made reference to amenity as concerns related to the proposal which formed reasons to refuse the appeals. 8.7.8 It should be noted however, that the first appeal related to a reserved matters application – the outline principal of development had therefore been approved at the time. 8.7.9 In the second appeal, which was made against a decision to refuse outline planning permission in 2013, the inspector confirmed that the ‘main issues’ related to whether or not the scheme would provide acceptable living conditions for future residents of the site. Noise, disturbance and odour were cited specifically. These were then connected to the operation and viability of Crossfell House Farm. The EHO considers that whilst this appeal relates to a portion of land which is different to this application, the conclusions would be the same in relation to this site given the similar proximity of it to the neighbouring farm. 8.7.10 The inspector noted that the applicant asserted that mitigation measures could ensure that amenity was maintained to appropriate levels. However, the inspector concluded that the ‘likely external conditions and the restrictions necessary to provide a satisfactory internal environment indicate that the proposed residential development would fall short of providing the good level of amenity for future residents with the framework indicates planning should secure. Whilst similarly poor conditions may already be experienced by residents of existing dwellings neighbouring the farm, in my view, this would not justify harmful development of the appeal site’. 8.7.11 In relation to odour, the inspector noted ‘odours noticeable within the appeal site during the accompanied site visit appeared to arise from the farm. ………in my judgement, odours arising from Crossfell House Farm would be likely to have a notable adverse effect on the living conditions of future residents of the appeal development’. 8.7.12 In conclusion, the inspector confirmed that, ‘I conclude overall that, having regard to the potential for odour and noise to arise from Crossfell House Farm, the proposal would be likely to provide unacceptable living conditions for future residents of the appeal site with particular reference to noise and disturbance as well as odour’. The appeal was therefore dismissed. 8.7.13 Paragraph 180 of the NPPF confirms that ‘planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location, taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so they should consider other criteria’, the most relevant of which in relation to this application is considered; ‘a) mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life.’ 8.7.14 As has been confirmed, Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan makes it clear that the amenity of existing and any potential future occupants of any development should be acceptable. Paragraph 182 states that, ‘planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated with existing businesses and community facilities (such as places of worship, pubs, music venues and sports clubs). Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on

Page 92 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE new development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’ should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed’. 8.7.15 Some objectors have raised concerns related to how the proposed dwellings would be located too close to their existing homes. This would lead, in their opinion, to a loss in amenity due to a loss of natural light and privacy. However, there are no formal plans to consider as part of this application. The proposal is for outline planning permission and the site plan will not be an ‘approved’ plan with details for layout, scale and external appearance to be dealt with at a reserved matters stage. 8.7.16 Therefore, basing comments on such a document cannot be considered material considerations. The District Council also has a Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) states the distances the planning authority seeks to see achieved between neighbouring properties. The SPD states, ‘as a general guide, principal windows on a new or extended property should not be less than 21 metres from any directly facing windows in another property in order to ensure reasonable privacy is provided for both the new house or extended house and neighbours’. 8.6.17 It is considered that there is no reason why, at the reserved matters stage, the applicant could not produce a formal plan that ensured relevant Housing SPD guidance was met to achieve appropriate and acceptable protection of existing residential amenity. 8.7.18 However, it is not considered that there is any significant material change in the site circumstances now as there was when the application site was considered for development. The inspector’s comments in relation to that appeal are still considered relevant. Therefore the proposal is considered contrary to Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan in that the proposed development could not provide an appropriate level of amenity for any future occupants. 8.7.19 The Environmental Health Officer continues to object to the proposal despite the applicant producing further information in relation to the proposal. It is not considered that the benefits of the application, which in this case would be up to 4 affordable homes is enough to outweigh the potential amenity harm potential future occupants would be subjected to. 8.7.20 It is acknowledged that the odour and noise are already existing issues in the locality. However, the inspector did consider this in the appeal. They confirmed that ‘Whilst similarly poor conditions may already be experienced by residents of existing dwellings neighbouring the farm, in my view, this would not justify harmful development of the appeal site’. It is not considered that this has been sufficiently demonstrated in this instance and accordingly it is considered that the application should be refused. 8.7.21 It is also noted that Policy COM3, entitled ‘Provision of New Open Space’ would require the provision of appropriate levels of open space for future residents to enjoy were the site developed. Whilst there is no reason to believe why this could not be achieved, in this instance, as the proposal is for outline permission, it is noted that the applicant would need to factor the requirements of this policy into any formally submitted layout at reserved matters if this application was supported. It is, however, difficult to see how residents could enjoy this open amenity space provision given the amenity concerns of the Environmental Health Officer.

Page 93 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.7.22 Accordingly, it is considered that this proposal would have significant and demonstrably harmful impacts in terms amenity (noise and odour) of potential occupants contrary to policy DEV5 of the Local Plan and the NPPF. 8.8 Flooding and Environmental Impacts 8.8.1 The site is located within a Flood Zone 1 which is a location that has a low probability of flooding (less than 1 in 1000 chance annually). As the proposal is at the outline stage, no specific flood risk assessment has been provided by the applicant. 8.8.2 Policy DEV2 entitled ‘Water Management and Flood Risk’ confirms that ‘new development’ should ‘meet the sequential approach to development in flood risk areas’. 8.8.3 Section 14 of the NPPF entitled ‘Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change’ confirms the role of planning in dealing with these issues. Paragraph 150 confirms that ‘new development should be planned for in ways that: a) avoid increased vulnerability to the range of impacts arising from climate change. When new development is brought forward in areas which are vulnerable, care should be taken to ensure that risks can be managed through suitable adaption measures, including through the planning of green infrastructure; and b) can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as through its location, orientation and design. Any local requirements for the sustainability of buildings should reflect the Government’s policy for national technical standards’. 8.8.4 Paragraph 155 states that ‘inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing the risk elsewhere’. 8.8.5 Paragraph 162 states that, ‘where planning applications come forward on sites allocated in the development plan through the sequential test, applicants need not apply the sequential test again. However, the exception test may need to be reapplied if relevant aspects of the proposal had not been considered when the test was applied at the plan making stage, or if more recent information about existing or potential flood risk should be taken into account’. 8.8.6 The Lead Local Flood Authority have been consulted upon this application and confirmed that ‘there is no drainage information contained within the outline application, the applicant would need to demonstrate how they propose to deal with surface water and roof water in a manner which will not increase the risk of flooding to properties both on and off site’. Accordingly, the Lead Local Flood Authority requested that conditions be attached to any subsequent grant of planning permission. 8.8.7 United Utilities were also consulted upon the proposal. They confirmed that were the proposal to be approved, the decision should include conditions in relation to foul and surface water. Furthermore, they confirmed that a public sewer crosses the site and building would not be permitted over it. If the proposal were approved, the layout of the site would need to take account of this. 8.8.8 In this instance it is therefore considered that the development could proceed without undue or significant harm relative to flood risk and is unlikely to result in flood events on site or elsewhere and could be supported.

Page 94 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.9 Ecology 8.9.1 Policy ENV1 entitled ‘Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Geodiversity seeks to ensure that protection is afforded to designated with international, national or local importance. The policy confirmed that ‘new development will be required to avoid any net loss of biodiversity, and where possible enhance existing assets. Should emerging proposals identify potential impacts upon designated sites, regard should be given to the objectives for each of the hierarchy of sites’. 8.9.2 In this instance the site subject to this application is not afforded any landscape designation nor is it subject to any special ecological designation. However, the site is confirmed to have a number of trees within it. The tree survey confirms a total of 86 trees on site with 20 subject of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Of the 86 trees the report indicates approximately 45 would be felled to allow the development to be implemented. 8.9.3 The proposal has been considered by the councils own arboricultural officer. Concerns were raised in relation to how the development could relate to trees on site and it is noted the tree officer concluded ‘my conclusion remains that all these issues cannot be satisfactorily addressed and realistically see the trees retained for the longer term’. 8.9.4 It is clear that were the proposal to proceed there would be the acceptance of nearly half the trees on site would be lost. The applicant’s tree survey concludes that the trees highlighted for removal are considered of low quality and their loss would not be significantly harmful. 8.9.5 On balance it is considered that the proposal could progress if the design ensured as many of the trees could be retained on site that were more worthy of retention. It is noted that whilst the loss of any tree is regrettable, if they are not worthy of retention, the planning balance (in this instance affordable homes) is considered by officers to tilt in favour of the proposal. However, these details would need to be discussed and finalised at the reserved matters stage. It is accepted by officers that this could result in the applicant having to provide a plan for less than the 14 dwellings they seek outline permission for here. 8.9.6 It is also noted that some objectors have referred to the site as a ‘nature reserve’. Whilst this opinion is noted, it must be clarified that the site is not a designated nature reserve, nor does it benefit from any formal ecological designation relevant to the determination of this application. 8.9.7 It is therefore considered that this proposal would not have any significant and demonstrable harm in ecological terms were this proposal approved and subsequently implemented and from a natural environment perspective, the proposal can be supported. 8.10 Infrastructure 8.10.1 It is noted that the applicant has advised the intention to access the site from an existing access point, previously used for a garden nursery. The Highway Authority consultation response acknowledges this. However, they also acknowledge that this development would result in an intensification of the access and additional information would be required if planning permission was to be granted. Accordingly, conditions are recommended if the development is approved.

Page 95 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.10.2 It is also noted that some objectors have raised concerns regarding the ability of the site to receive numerous vehicles, especially service vehicles (such as refuse collection vehicles) and that school children wait for their bus near to the site entrance. These concerns are understood. 8.10.3 Paragraph 109 confirms that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. 8.10.4 The direction of paragraph 109 is explicit - in order to refuse a proposal on the basis of Highways grounds, the development would have to be based on an ‘unacceptable impact on highway safety’ or ‘the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. The Highway Authority do not object and on that basis it would be unreasonable to refuse the proposal on such grounds. 8.10.5 For the reasons detailed above, in terms of the local infrastructure it is considered that on the basis of the Highways Authority response, the applicant will be able to demonstrate an access that is capable of coping with the proposed development without any additional significant adverse effects. 8.11 Historic Environment 8.11.1 Policy ENV10 of the Local Plan confirms that “Development proposals will be expected to avoid harm to the historic environment wherever possible, and should aim to positively enhance Eden’s historic environment”. 8.11.2 Paragraph 192 of the NPPF seeks planning authorities to 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’. 8.11.3 Paragraph 196 of the NPPF advises that where a proposal would lead to ‘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, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use’. 8.11.4 The Historic Environment Officer confirmed that the site is located within an area of archaeological potential. The response also confirmed that the Scheduled Monument of Kirkby Thore Roman fort and Roman settlement lies 50 metres from the site. The Historic Environment Officer confirmed that ‘Two archaeological investigations undertaken in advance of housing developments at nearby Centurion Park and Chapel Lane have revealed and recorded remains of the Roman settlement below ground. It is therefore considered likely that archaeological assets survive buried on the site and that these would be disturbed by the construction of the proposed development’. 8.11.5 In conclusion the Historic Environment Officer confirmed that were planning permission to be granted, conditions should be attached to any subsequent decision to allow appropriate archaeological evaluation and recording to be undertaken. Officers therefore consider that there would be no significant impacts on any designated heritage assets and in this respect the proposal could be supported.

Page 96 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Equality and Diversity 10.1.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.2 Environment 10.2.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.3 Crime and Disorder 10.3.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.4 Children 10.4.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.5 Human Rights 10.5.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 The application site is noted to be located within a designated ‘key hub’, Kirkby Thore, as confirmed by Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan, entitled the ‘Locational Strategy’. Such locations are considered suitable for proposals such as this, a residential development. 11.2 This site was discounted by the Policy team during the site assessments and was not, therefore, nominated as an ‘allocated’ site. However, the site has come forward as a ‘windfall’ site and is considered on that basis. 11.3 The site has a planning history and in recent years attempts to achieve planning permission failed at appeal and land immediately adjacent to the western side of the farm also failed, again challenged by appeal and again the decision to refuse was upheld by the inspector. At each appeal, the amenity of future residents and how the development would relate and integrate with an existing neighbouring business was considered in detail. These were considered grounds for refusal.

Page 97 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 11.4 The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) initially raised significant concerns in response to the original consultation of this application. The applicant took significant time to prepare further, detailed reports, in relation to noise and odour in an effort to demonstrate that the proposed development could be located upon this site. These reports have been carefully considered by the EHO and the conclusion remains the same, being that the development would result in significantly unacceptable amenity impacts on any future applicants were this proposal granted permission and subsequently implemented. 11.5 Despite the additional information provided there appears little change in site circumstances. Indeed it was noted in the more recent appeal decision in paragraph 15 that the farm was likely to expand further in terms of livestock at some point in the future. Notwithstanding this, the appeal was dismissed anyway, based on the circumstances of the time. 11.6 Given the significant concerns raised by the EHO it is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate how amenity of any potential future residents can be protected to a level the Council can consider is appropriate. 11.7 Furthermore, consideration must be given to the existing farm business. As this report has referred to, paragraph 182 of the NPPF is clear. It states, ‘‘planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated with existing businesses’. The Policy further states, ‘Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established’. 11.8 On the basis of the views of the EHO it is not considered that the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated how the proposed development would integrate with the existing business. 11.9 It is noted that the applicant initially suggested that no affordable housing could be constructed on the site due to the brownfield nature of it. However, this has been assessed and the independent analysis completed by the Council’s own assessor suggests that four affordable units could comprise a development of 14 units. 11.10 However, this planning ‘gain’ is not considered sufficient to outweigh the harm the application could create were it implemented. 11.11 Given these circumstances, the views of the EHO are clear. On this basis the proposal is not considered to be compliant with Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan, nor the NPPF (specifically paragraph 182). Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File 17/0651

Page 98 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Date of Committee: 13 December 2018

Planning Application No: 17/1028 Date Received: 4 December 2017

OS Grid Ref: NY 357993, Expiry Date: 29 January 2018 525434

Parish: Cliburn Ward: Morland

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Proposed demolition of existing house and garage and erection of replacement house and garage

Location: Greenside, Moss Road, Cliburn CA10 3AL

Applicant: Mr John Henshaw

Agent: Mr Graham Norman

Case Officer: Nicholas Unwin

Reason for Referral: Recommendation contrary to that of the Parish Council

Page 99 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: Time Limit for Commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved: i. Application Form. Dated 1 December 2017. ii. D&A Statement. Dated 30 November 2017. iii. Proposed Elevations (117-122-08). Dated 22 September 2017. iv. Proposed Elevations (117-122-09). Dated 8 September 2017. v. Proposed FF Plan (117-122-07). Dated 22 September 2017. vi. Proposed Garage Elevations (117-122-10). Dated 8 September 2017. vii. Proposed GF Plan (117-122-06). Dated 22 September 2017. viii. Proposed Site Plan (117-122-05). Dated 22 September 2017. ix. Great Crested Newt Survey. Dated 2018. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Prior to Commencement 3. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, prior to the commencement of any development, a surface water drainage scheme informed by evidence of an assessment of the site conditions shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage scheme must be in accordance with the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards. No surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly. The development shall then be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. The condition is considered necessary to be complied with pre-commencement as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 4. Prior to the commencement of development a full Construction Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Construction Method Statement should contain appropriate

Page 100 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE pollution prevention guideline measures to include materials and machinery storage, biosecurity, and mitigation for the control and management of noise, fugitive dust, surface water runoff and waste. Reason: To ensure the development does not adversely affect the Cliburn Moss SSSI.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 This proposal seeks to demolish the existing dwelling and garage and erect a replacement house and garage at Greenside, Cliburn. 2.1.2 The proposed development can be separated into three main sections, the first central element is a two storey structure resembling a traditional farm house in design and materials, with the South (front) elevation constructed of sandstone walls from salvaged sandstone laid in a traditional manner and the North, East and West elevations white painted rough cast wet dashed render. There is additionally a small sandstone porch surrounding the door in the South (front) elevation. The central element contains three en-suite bedrooms, a bathroom, a study and a utility room. 2.1.3 The second section of the proposal is a one and a half storey structure adjoining the Western elevation of the central section, resembling a traditional barn. All walls are to be constructed of salvaged sandstone laid in a traditional manner. The Western element contains an open plan kitchen, dining and living room. 2.1.4 The third element is a one and a half storey structure to the East, detached from the main dwelling with an open link canopy constructed of oak providing a connection between the two. The Eastern element again resembles a traditional barn with the South and West elevations constructed of salvaged sandstone laid in a traditional manner and the East and North elevations to be white painted, rough cast wet-dash render. The roof is to contain velux grey framed roof lights with the ground floor providing parking for two cars and the roof space used as a hobby room. 2.1.5 All openings will have sandstone lintels, cills and thresholds with sandstone quoins in the corners of the structure. All roofs are to be of natural blue/grey slate laid in a traditional manner. All casement windows, glazed/boarded screens, panels and doors are to be aluminium or composite timber/aluminium units in a grey green. All glass is to be double glazed. The proposed development has a footprint of approximately 235sqm (including the garage) and a gross internal floorspace of approximately 220sqm (excluding the garage/hobby room). 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The existing dwelling is approximately 265 metres North of the C3047 road and accessed via Moss Road. The closest dwelling to the site is Chestnut house, approximately 130 metres to the South-East of the proposed site. 2.2.2 The proposed site is approximately 43 metres to the West of Waitings Ltd, a drainage and civil engineering business. Waitings Ltd has a site area of approximately 0.7ha and is comprised of modern industrial buildings constructed of grey corrugated metal walls and roof. 2.2.3 The proposed site is well screened, with mature trees and hedgerows surrounding the entire site. The site is adjacent to the South-East boundary of the Cliburn Moss Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Page 101 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2.2.4 The existing dwelling on the proposed site is a three bedroom, two storey rough cast render white painted walls with concrete render surrounds painted white on the North elevation and unpainted grey on the South elevation. The roof is natural grey/blue slate. There is a single storey extension to the South clad with sandstone and has a concrete tiled roof. There is a single storey flat roofed extension containing a store room and garage adjoining the Eastern elevation constructed of exposed grey breezeblocks and a corrugated metal roof. The footprint of the existing dwelling is approximately 90sqm with a gross internal floor space of approximately 105sqm. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority No objection, response received 13 December 2017 Lead Local Flood Authority No objection, response received 13 December 2017 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Housing No objection, response received 14 December 2017 United Utilities No objection, response received 12 December 2017 Natural England No objection, response received 9 October 2018 Contaminated Land No objection, response received 2 January 2018 Environmental Health Requested a noise survey, responded 15 December 2017 4. Parish Council Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Council No View Object Support No Response Expressed Cliburn Parish  Council 4.1 The following reasons for objection were given by the Parish Council:  The footprint exceeds that of the original  The size, layout and construction is not in keeping with the rural location 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 29 May 2018. No of Neighbours Consulted 1 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 0 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 0

Page 102 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

6. Relevant Planning History Application No Description Outcome NA NA NA 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan 2014-2032:  LS1 Locational Strategy  DEV1 General Approach to New Development  DEV5 Design of New Development  ENV1 Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Geodiversity  ENV2 Protection and Enhancement of Landscapes and Trees 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Chapter 2 Achieving sustainable development  Chapter 12 Achieving well-designed places  Chapter 15 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Landscape and Visual Impacts  Scale and Design  Environmental Impacts  Amenity 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The proposed development is for a replacement dwelling within the curtilage of the existing doweling and will not result in the creation of any additional residential units. The principle of a single residential dwelling within this location is established through the existing dwelling. There is no National or Local Policy which directly relates to replacement dwellings. Policy DEV1 of the Eden Local Plan states that “where there are no policies relevant to the application or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision then the Council will grant permissions unless material considerations indicate otherwise”. Therefore, the principle of the proposed development is considered acceptable, subject to further considerations on landscape and visual impacts, scale, design, environmental and amenity impacts. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 Chapter 15 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment of the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment, protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. This is supported by Policy

Page 103 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE ENV2 of the Local Development Plan 2014-32 which requires new development to conserve and enhance distinctive elements of landscape character and function. 8.3.2 The proposed site is located at the end of Moss Road which connects to the C3047 road approximately 260 metres to the South. Mature trees and hedgerows either side of Moss Road completely screen the proposed site from the road up until the existing driveway is reached. The only other public view point from which the proposed development can be seen is a brief section of the C3047 road. The view of the proposed site from the C3047 road is however partially screened by existing mature trees on the Southern boundary and with a lack of any pavements or public walkways, almost exclusively limited to passing motorists. 8.3.3 Chapter 12 Achieving well-designed places of the NPPF states that new developments should be sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting. 8.3.4 When entering Moss Road from the C3047 road, a joinery and manufacturing business is located adjacent to the West of Moss Road, approximately 145 metres to the South- East of the proposed site located adjacent to the North of Moss Road, approximately 43 metres to the East of the proposed site. Although existing vegetation provides screening for both of these developments, the proposed development will be viewed within the landscape in the context of these existing far larger and more prominent developments. 8.3.5 Based on the distance of the proposed site from the C3047 road, existing mature trees and hedgerows and the large scale industrial developments within the vicinity, the proposal is considered to have a limited landscape impact. 8.4 Scale and Design 8.4.1 The Parish Council’s objection states that the size, layout and construction of the proposal is not in keeping with its rural location. 8.4.2 Chapter 12 Achieving well-designed places of the NPPF states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development going on to say that new development should be sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment. This is supported by Policy DEV5 of the Local Development Plan 2014- 32 which states that new development should show a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built environment. 8.4.3 The proposal is designed to replicate a traditional farming unit which are seen in rural locations throughout Eden District. Its scale, materials (such as salvaged sandstone walls and slate roof) and architecture (such as stone lintels, cills, surrounds and quoins and ventilation slits used as windows) all contribute to its integration with the surrounding rural environment. 8.4.4 The scale of the proposal, although larger than that of the previous dwelling is viewed in the context of the much larger surrounding development such as Waitings Ltd and a joinery and manufacturing business, both far larger than the proposed development. 8.4.5 Chapter 12 Achieving well-designed places of the NPPF states that new developments should be visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping. It goes on to say that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area.

Page 104 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.4.6 The existing dwelling is of a fairly simplistic design with the South and particularly the East single storey extensions being of a poor design. The existing dwelling is currently unoccupied and in a state of disrepair. The design of the proposed dwelling is considered to be of high quality utilising architectural features observed in similar developments such as ventilation slits, stone quoins etc which are complemented by more modern elements such as bifold doors and grey/green aluminium or timber/aluminium window surrounds. The proposed materials are of a high quality utilising sandstone walls and slate roof, particularly when compared to that of the original dwelling with the Eastern extension constructed of exposed breezeblocks. 8.4.7 Therefore the scale, design and materials of the proposed development are considered appropriate for its location. 8.5 Environmental Impacts 8.5.1 Paragraph 175 of the NPPF states that development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. 8.5.2 The proposed site is adjacent to the South-East boundary of the Cliburn Moss SSSI. Natural England were consulted on the application and requested the submission of a great-crested newt survey which was submitted by the applicant to the satisfaction of Natural England. 8.5.3 A bat and barn owl survey was conducted on the site and found no sign of any barn owl, other bird or bat activity in the building. 8.5.4 Although the proposed development has a footprint over twice the size of the original dwelling, the additional land required is to use the grassed/scrub garden curtilage of the original dwelling with a low biodiversity, requiring the removal of only two small leylandiis. 8.5.5 Based on the above, the impact of the proposed development on the environment is considered to be limited. 8.6 Amenity 8.6.1 Chapter 12 Achieving well-designed places of the NPPF states that new development should achieve a “high standard of amenity for existing and future users”. This is supported by Policy DEV 5 of the Local Development Plan 2014-32 which state that new development should protect the amenity of existing residents and business occupiers and provide an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. 8.6.2 The Eastern boundary of the proposed site is approximately 43 metres to the West of Waitings Ltd. Environmental Health were consulted on the application and requested the submission of a noise assessment due to the site’s proximity to Waitings Ltd. The proposal is for a replacement dwelling with the Eastern elevation of the central section (containing the three bedrooms and study) a further 11 metres West than the Eastern elevation of the existing dwelling. Therefore the request for the submission of a noise survey is not considered to be reasonable.

Page 105 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.6.3 The proposal is for a replacement dwelling with the main living area a further 11 metres West of Waitings Ltd than the existing dwelling. Therefore noise levels experienced by future residents are likely to be below that experienced by residents of the existing dwelling. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Human Rights 9.5.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 9.6 New Homes Bonus 9.6.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Conclusion 10.1 The design and scale of the proposed development are considered acceptable with no adverse amenity, environmental or landscape and visual impacts. The principle of a single dwelling in this location has been established through the existing dwelling. The proposal is considered to conform with both National and Local Policy and therefore the application is recommended for approval.

Page 106 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File 17/1028

Page 107 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Date of Committee: 13 December 2018

Planning Application No: 18/0715 Date Received: 24 August 2018

OS Grid Ref: 3562 5198 Expiry Date: 28 December 2018

Parish: Little Strickland Ward: Morland

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Retention of hardstanding and alteration of access

Location: Webster House, Little Strickland

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Langridge

Agent: n/a

Case Officer: Mat Wilson

Reason for Referral: The recommendation is contrary to the response of a statutory consultee

Page 108 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby granted shall be retained strictly in accordance with the details and plans hereby approved (amended location plan dated 30 October 2018). 2) Notwithstanding the requirements of any other condition of this approval, within 3 months of the date of this decision all the hardstanding within the application site to the north of the altered access shall be returned to grassland, and shall be retained as such thereafter. Reasons 1) To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. 2) In the interests of the amenity and character of the countryside. Informative Planning permission is not required for the growing of vegetables in the field adjacent to Webster House. Any domestic use of the land will require a separate planning application for a change of use of land.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The application has been submitted in order to regularise development carried out without planning permission. An existing farm access into the field adjacent to the applicant’s property has been widened, leading onto a newly created area of hardstanding behind the access and extending into the field. The farm access has been converted to a residential access used in association with the applicant’s property. 2.1.2 The area of hardstanding is about 8m x 20m and is formed from crushed and rolled hardcore. New galvanised 7-bar gates have been installed across the access. 2.1.3 The application was initially submitted for change of use of land to garden, for the growing of vegetables on a plot behind the access in the field. This however would be consistent with the de facto agricultural use of the land, and permission is not required for this use. In the course of visiting the site Officers observed the unauthorised access and hardstanding, and a revised application was requested. That is the proposal now under consideration. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 Webster House is situated at the north fringe of Little Strickland. The dwelling faces the western road spur out of the village leading to the A6. The road is a classified C road. 2.2.2 The access is immediately to the north of the dwelling and leads into a field owned by the applicant. A dry stone wall forms the roadside field boundary.

Page 109 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2.2.3 The site is not within a Conservation Area or a vulnerable Flood Risk Area. No other planning constraints apply. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Cumbria County Council - The retention of hard standing we have no objection Highway Authority with. The alteration to the access details are very minimal, there is an existing field access, no details have been provided for the alteration of access. The maximum achievable visibility splays should be provided for 60mph speed road we would expect to see 215m and back by 2.4m and at a height of 1.05m above the carriageway, this doesn’t look achievable. Drivers need to be able to see obstructions 2m high down to a point 600mm above the carriageway. The latter dimension is used to ensure small children can be seen. Within the visibility splay or sight line envelope there should be no obstructions to vision such as walls or vegetation etc within the vertical profile. If any obstructions need to be reduced or removed within the visibility splay, it should be within the applicants’ ownership. If the required visibility splays cannot be achieved, we would strongly recommend they carry out a speed survey or show speeds reflect the required visibility splays. With the above in mind the Highway Authority therefore recommends refusal of the application for the following reason: Inadequate information has been submitted to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the proposal is acceptable in terms of: a) access b) visibility splays c) off-street parking d) on site turning facilities

3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Cumbria County Council - The Lead Local Flood Authority surface water map Local Lead Flood Authority show no flooding to the site and the Environment Agency surface water maps do not indicate that the site is in an area of risk.

Page 110 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish No View Object Support No Response Council/Meeting Expressed Little Strickland  Parish Council 4.1 Little Strickland Parish Council has written to say that it has no objections to this application. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 16 November 2018. No of Neighbours Consulted 2 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 0 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 0 6. Relevant Planning History 6.1 No relevant planning history. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Emerging Local Plan 2014-2032 The Eden Local Plan 2014 - 2032 was accepted by the Planning Inspectorate in September 2018 and was adopted at the full Council meeting on the 11 October 2018. The plan replaces the previous Development Plan documents, these being the saved policies from the Eden Local Plan (1996) and the Core Strategy (2010) and is now the formal Development Plan for Eden District Council. This means that the Eden Local Plan 2014 - 2032 now carries full weight in the planning decision process The following planning policies are relevant: DEV1 General Approach to New Development; and DEV3 Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Providing safe and suitable access (Para 108) National Planning Practice Guidance 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Highway safety

Page 111 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Landscape impact 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The proposal seeks the retention of alterations to a farm access for domestic use, and for an area of hardstanding created in connection with the adjacent dwelling. There are no objections in principle to such development providing that there are no highway impacts and no adverse impacts on the visual amenity of the area. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 The creation of the hardstanding for the parking and manoeuvring of the applicant’s recreational vehicle does constitute a harmful incursion into the countryside. It does also seem a little excessive in that it extends north of the access into the field by some 5m, without apparent justification. There ought to be sufficient manoeuvring space within the extent of the widened access itself without extending into the field. Should permission be granted, it is recommended that the area of hardstanding be reduced to the northern extent of the widened access, and the land beyond be returned to grass. Subject to this being implemented, it is considered that the creation of the hardstanding is acceptable in terms of its landscape and visual impact. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 No adverse impact arises in terms of residential amenity. 8.5 Infrastructure 8.5.1 The field access has been adapted for domestic use for Webster House. The alterations to the access have been carried out in order to improve entry and exit. The opening leads straight out onto a very narrow section of single track road. Prior to the works being carried out agricultural vehicles were unable to exit the access in a single manoeuvre due to having to adopt a 3-point turn due to the restricted width of the lane. 8.5.2 In widening the opening onto the road the development has therefore improved highway safety. Balanced against that however is the fact that this represents a change of use from agricultural to domestic, and therefore a likely intensification in its use. The Highway Authority recommends refusal due to the lack of information submitted with the application, the absence of visibility splays and the substandard nature of the access. It has suggested that the required visibility splays of 215m might be reduced if a speed survey demonstrates lower average vehicle speeds. 8.5.3 The plans are lacking in information and it is readily apparent that the access is substandard in terms of its visibility. To the north, which is the non-critical direction, the access allows visibility of just over 100m. To the south, vision is severely restricted by the boundary wall and lean-to barn at the end of Webster House. Should the proposal have been for a new access, rather than adapting an existing access, then the Highway Authority’s recommendation would be supported. 8.5.4 The fall-back position however is that farm traffic using this former agricultural access prior to its adoption and alteration by the applicant would have experienced impractical turning manoeuvres within the highway and a reduced line of sight when entering and exiting the field. A reasoned conclusion must therefore be drawn on whether the access improvements are sufficient to allow its continued use for domestic purposes. 8.5.5 Visibility from the access is limited by the road geometry and the proximity of the applicant’s own dwelling, so it is not practical to seek a further improvement in the line of sight from the access. A speed survey could be requested, and is highly likely to

Page 112 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE demonstrate a reduced average speed necessitating shorter visibility splays, but not to an extent where the line of sight beyond Webster House would meet any Cumbria Highways standard. It should also be noted that on exiting the village the 30mph speed limit ends just 50m south of the access. 8.5.6 The matter is finely balanced. It is considered however that a more proportional approach is to weigh up the potential harm to highway safety arising from the domestic use of the access against the previous situation of farm vehicles having to execute 3-point turns, within the highway itself, to negotiate passage into and out of the field. On this basis, it is considered that the potential dangers to highway safety arising from the more frequent, domestic use of the access are offset by the improvements carried out. The level of potential harm equates to the previous situation. It should be noted that the access is not new; it has been adapted and improved. The applicant could return the access to its previous use and width as a fall-back, bringing with it the highway safety concerns as previously detailed. 8.5.7 The relevant Policy requires that development be refused where it will result in a severe impact in terms of road safety (Local Plan Policy DEV3). Paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework stipulates that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. On balance it is considered that the proposal does not result in a severe impact relative to the previous situation, and that the retention of the access as altered and adopted for domestic use is therefore acceptable. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998.

Page 113 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10. Conclusion 10.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: The retention of the access as altered and used for domestic purposes is considered acceptable in terms of highway safety and landscape impact. In the absence of any significant or demonstrable material adverse impact the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the NPPF and the development plan.

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

Page 114 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Date of Committee: 13 December 2018

Planning Application No: 18/0788 Date Received: 21 September 2018

OS Grid Ref: 362005 534866 Expiry Date: 20 November 2018

Parish: Ousby Ward: Hartside

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Retrospective change of use of land to domestic garden in association with number 4 Ullesby Gardens

Location: 4 Ullesby Gardens, Ousby

Applicant: Willan Trading Ltd

Agent: Addis Town Planning Ltd

Case Officer: Karen Thompson

Reason for Referral: This application is before Members as the recommendation to approve is contrary to that of the Parish Council

Page 115 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the following condition: Approved Plans 1. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved: i) Site and location plan received 21 September 2018 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 This is a full planning application for the retrospective change of use of land to domestic garden in association with an existing dwelling house at No 4 Ullesby Gardens, Ousby. 2.1.2 The garden, measuring approximately 12m wide x 32 metres in length, has been turfed and a close boarded fence has been erected along the front and rear boundaries and a low post and rail fence along the side boundary. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application relates to land at the side of No 4 Ullesby Gardens, Ousby. The application site is located within a new housing development approved under planning permission 12/0345 and is adjacent to a new housing development which is currently under construction (18/0445). 2.2.2 The site is not within any designated area. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority It is considered that the proposal will not have a material affect on the existing highway conditions. Lead Local Flood Authority Surface water maps should that there is no flooding and/or surface water issue in the locale. As such it is believed that the risk of surface water flooding will not be increased and therefore no objections from a LLFA perspective. 4. Parish Council Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Council No View Object Support No Response Expressed Ousby 

Page 116 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

4.1 The Parish Council’s comments are as follows: 1. The retrospective application form confirms that while the applicant is the developer (Willan Trading Ltd), the new owners of the plot of land in question are the residents of 4 Ullesby Gardens. If this is the case, the retrospective proposal does not make sense because according to the accompanying site plan on the EDC website, the adjacent property to the plot of land in question is dwelling number 3, not number 4. The applicant, Willan Trading, needs to provide an accurate site plan to support this proposal. 2. On the site plan accompanying the application, the small print within the plot in question details "Soakaway areas for Hamara Ghar and The Hawthorns" together with "Soakaway area for adopted highway". It is concerning that soakaway systems for 2 existing private residences and the adopted highway are located within the land to be changed to domestic garden, especially as there are no details indicating that access has been and will continue to be retained for the owners of Hamara Ghar and The Hawthorns or indeed the highways department for maintenance and repairs. 3. When previous planning application 16/0014 (reserved matters for outline planning application 12/0345) was considered, it included complex drainage details for both the 6 proposed dwellings and the existing neighbouring properties. These drainage specifications were important because Ousby is one of the few Eden settlements that still lacks a public sewer and additionally relies on numerous individual surface water systems. The percolation tests repeated at that time enabled the developer's architect to calculate the capacity for the septic system for phase I of the estate, also incorporating the requirements of existing properties but worryingly, the test pits indicated that the water table in the area is close to the surface. Two years on, householders of existing neighbouring properties are still awaiting confirmation from the developer that the drainage changes agreed under 16/0014 for their properties have actually been implemented. 4. Current planning application 18/0788 heightens existing householders' on-going drainage concerns. While the recently acquired plot of land has not been yet been developed beyond boundary fencing and freshly laid turf, if as part of the change of use to a domestic garden, trees, shrubs or hedges are subsequently planted, as they mature their root systems are likely to interfere with the household and adopted highway soakaway systems notated within the area of land in question and flooding is possible. As confirmed by the Assistant Development Management Officer at Cumbria County Council when application 16/0014 incorporating this same plot of land was considered, tree roots have an adverse effect on drainage systems. 5. EDC adopted the Eden Local Plan 2014-32 on 11 October 2018. Policy DEV2 states that sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) must be incorporated to manage surface water run-off. Ousby does not have a public sewer as an alternative option to the soakaway systems anticipated under application 16/0014, therefore it is important that the previously specified infiltration systems for the existing properties and the adopted highway, as notated on site plans for 18/0788, are not compromised in any way.

Page 117 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 2 October 2018. No of Neighbours Consulted 4 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 1 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 1 5.2 The letter of objection raised the following material considerations to the application: If soakaways are in this land, any planting of trees, shrubs etc could have a detrimental affect on drains, also there would be concerns over any building of garages, outhouses etc. 5.3 The letter of objection raised the following non-material considerations: The plans submitted show the application property to be No 3 rather than No 4 Ullesby Gardens 6. Relevant Planning History Application No Description Outcome 12/0345 Erection of 6 No dwellings including 1 No Allowed on appeal affordable dwelling. 25 April 2013 16/0014 Reserved matters application for the 23 January 2017 creation of 6 No dwellings including 1 No affordable dwelling (outline planning reference 12/0345). 17/0059 Discharge of condition 2 (carriage way 23 March 2017 and footpaths) and condition 3 (external materials), attached to planning approval 16/0014 17/0432 Outline application for residential Allowed on appeal development with all matters reserved 12 January 2018 18/0445 Reserved matters application for access, 2 August 2018 appearance, landscaping, layout, scale attached to appeal approval APP/H0928/W/17/3183181 (17/0432).

Page 118 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan 2014 - 2032: DEV5 - Design of New Development 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework: Requiring good design National Planning Practice Guidance 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key Planning Issues 8.1.1 Appropriateness of the use in the locality 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The Eden Local Plan 2014 - 2032 was accepted by the Government's Planning Inspectorate in September 2018 and was adopted at the full Council meeting on the 11 October 2018. The plan replaces the previous Development Plan documents, these being the saved policies from the Eden Local Plan (1996) and the Core Strategy (2010) and is now the formal Development Plan for Eden District Council. This means that the Eden Local Plan 2014 - 2032 now carries full weight in the planning decision process and that the Council is now able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. 8.2.2 The application is for a retrospective change of use of land to domestic garden in association with No 4 Ullesby Garden. 8.2.3 Policy DEV5 - Design of New Development supports high quality design, which reflects local distinctiveness. All development proposals will be expected to perform highly when assessed against best practice guidance and standards for design, sustainability and place making. 8.2.4 The use of land as a domestic garden in this location which is part of a larger modern residential area is acceptable in principle. The new garden is not an incongruous or inappropriate development. 8.3 Residential Amenity 8.3.1 The new garden is at the side of no.4 Ullesby Gardens and alongside a new housing development which is currently under construction. It is considered that the domestic garden would not have an adverse impact on residential amenity. 8.3.2 The existing permissions for the existing properties have not restricted permitted development rights so therefore no such condition is recommended. 8.4 Parish Council Concerns 8.4.1 The first concern raised is regarding the address of the application site. The block plan that was submitted with the application indicated the plot number rather than the address of the property. This issue is not material to the consideration of this application.

Page 119 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.4.2 The second issue relates to the block plan that was submitted which was the same plan that had been used under a previous application for residential development. The intention of the block plan was to show the site in relation to the surrounding properties only. However, this block plan indicated that the site was where soakaways for two neighbouring properties and for the highway were to be located. The agent for the application has confirmed that the application site is not proposed to include any drainage from the estate road; the soakaway for the adjacent dwelling is along the boundary; and that the application will not affect the rights to access/maintenance/repair of the soakaway. Cumbria County Council as Highway Authority have not raised any objections and there is no risk of flooding. 8.4.3 The third issue relates to percolation test and drainage changes/agreements between the developers and the neighbouring residents. This issue is not material to the consideration of this application. 8.4.4 The fourth issue the Parish Council has raised is that any future hedge or tree planting could result in roots impacting on the soakaways and result in flooding. As confirmed above, there is only one soakaway within the application site (along the eastern boundary) and the owner of the land is fully aware of the line of the soakaway should they wish to plant any trees in the future. Individual soakaways are located within the individual property gardens. Again, no objections or concerns have been raised by Cumbria County Council. 8.4.5 The fifth issue raised relates to existing and proposed soakaways and the need for them not to be compromised. It is considered that the change of use of the land to domestic garden will not compromise the soakaways for the adjoining properties. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

Page 120 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: 11.2 The use of the land as a domestic garden in association with No 4 Ullesby Gardens is considered to be in harmony with the surrounding area and there would be no adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area.

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

Page 121 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Date of Committee: 13 December 2018

Planning Application No: 18/0868 Date Received: 22 October 2018

OS Grid Ref: 349493, 537073 Expiry Date: 22 January 2019

Parish: Hesket Ward: Hesket

Application Type: Variation of Condition

Proposal: Variation of condition 2 (Plans Compliance) for plot 28 - Replacement of front elevation stone with render. Plots 16, 17 and 21 - replacement of stone and quoins with brick. Plot 13 - Addition of quoins and amendment of front door colour to mouse grey on the finishes schedule attached to approval 17/0660.

Location: Field adjacent to Byrnes Close, Plumpton

Applicant: Reiver Homes

Agent: PFK Planning

Case Officer: Ian Irwin

Reason for Referral: Major Planning Application

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

APPLICATION SITE

Page 122 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

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

APPLICATION SITE

Page 123 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby granted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the application forms dated 31 July 2017 and 22 October 2018 and the following details and plans hereby approved;  Site Plan/Location Plan (ref: SS015.90.9.SL) received 31 July 2017;  Site Plan/Block Plan (ref: SS015.90.9.BP) received 31 July 2017;  Proposed Detailed Site Layout (ref: 11D-Rei - 130 - Rev.A) received 02 August 2017;  Proposed Detailed Site Layout (ref: 11d-REI - 100 - Rev.B) received 31 July 2017;  Planning Plans 1 (ref: ARM-PLP1) received 31 July 2017;  Planning Elevations 1/2 (ref: ROU-PLE1/2 - Rev.V1) received 31 July 2017;  Planning Plans 1 (ref: ROU-PLP1 - Rev.V1) received 31 July 2017;  Planning Elevations 1/1 (ref: ROU - PLE1/1) received 31 July 2017;  Planning Elevations 1/2 (ref: ROU-PLE1/2) received 31 July 2017;  Planning Plans 0868 (Type D) Routledge-V1-18-10-18;  Planning Plans 1 (ref: JOH-PLP1) received 31 July 2017;  Planning Elevations 1/3 (ref: JOH-PLE1/3) received 31 July 2017;  Planning Elevations 1/4 (ref: JOH-PLE1/4) received 31 July 2017;  Planning Plans 1 (ref: DOU-PLP1 - Rev.V1) received 31 July 2017;  Planning Elevations 1/1 (ref: DOU-PLE1/1 - Rev.V1) received 31 July 2017;  Planning Plans 0868 (Type F) Douglas-V2-10-09-18;  Planning Plans 1 (ref: ELL-PLP1) received 31 July 2017;  Planning Elevations (ref: ELL-PLE1/1) received 31 July 2017;  Planning Plans 1 (ref: FEN-PLP1) received 31 July 2017;  Planning Elevations 1/4 (ref: FEN-PLE1/4) received 31 July 2017;  Planning Plans 1 (ref: KER-PLP1) received 31 July 2017;  Planning Plans 3 (ref: KER-PLP3) received 31 July 2017;  Planning Elevations 1/2 (ref: KER-PLE1/2) received 31 July 2017;  Planning Elevations 1/5 (ref: KER-PLE1/5) received 31 July 2017;  Elevations, Plan & Section 1 (ref: SG1-EPS1) received 31 July 2017;

Page 124 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Proposed Boundary Treatment Plan (ref: 11D-REI - 103 - Rev.B) received 31 July 2017;  Proposed Elevation Treatment Plan (ref: 11D-REI -102 - Rev.B) received 31 July 2017;  Drainage Layout (ref: K34320/A1/10 A) received 31 July 2017;  GEO Environmental Engineering - Phase 2 Ground Investigation Report (ref: 2017-2449) received 31 July 2017;  R.G.Parkins & Partners Ltd - Flood Risk Assessment & Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy (ref: K34320/01 - Issue C) received 31 July 2016;  Design and Access Statement, received 31 July 2017;  0868 Development Plot Schedule Rev. C dated 18 October 2018;  Schedule of finishes (ref SS0014/90/12/SF/A) dated 18 October 2018;  0868 Treatments Plan (ref SS0014.90.9.TP - Rev. D) dated 18 October 2018. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Prior to Occupation 2. The access drive shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or otherwise bound and shall be constructed and completed before the development is brought into use. This surfacing shall extend for a distance of at least 10 metres inside the site, as measured from the carriageway edge of the adjacent highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. Ongoing Conditions 3. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved Construction Management ref SS0014.90.9.CMP and the Plan detailing proposals for controlling noise vibration and dust/emissions to air for the duration of the hereby approved development. Reason: In the interests of protecting local residential amenity. 4. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan ref. RHPL-WW-01 and implemented within the next available planting season. Any trees or other plants which die or are removed within the first five years following the implementation of the landscaping scheme shall be replaced during the next planting season. Reason: To ensure that the development is landscaped in interest of the visual character and appearance of the area. 5. The hereby approved scheme shall be carried out in full accordance with the following approved plans;  Foul and Surface water drainage plan ref K34320/A1/10 Rev. A;

Page 125 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Adopted Foul water drainage Long Section and Schedules ref K34320/A1/13 Rev. C;  Surface Water Manhole Construction details 1 of 2 ref K34320/A1/14 Rev, D;  Surface Water Manhole Construction details 2 of 2 ref K34320/A1/15 Rev. D;  Adopted Surface Water Drainage Long Sections and Schedules ref K34320/A1/16 Rev. D;  Surface water drainage catchment plan ref K34320/A1/18;  Surface water drainage outfall details to river Petteril ref K34320/A2/19B;  Detention Basin Construction details ref K34320/A1/20 Rev. E;  Hydro International Technical Specification ref K34320;  R.G. Parkins and Partners Ltd Operation and Maintenance Plan for Sustainable Drainage Systems ref K34320/02/O&M/TM Issue 010; The surface water drainage scheme must be in-compliance with the Non- Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards. No surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly. Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. 6. Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems. Reason: To secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. 7. The hereby approved development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans;  Highway Layout and Levels ref K34320/A1/02 Rev. G;  Highways Longitudinal Sections ref K34320/A1/03 Rev. C;  External works layout ref K34320/A1/05 Rev. B;  External works construction details ref K34320/A1/06 Rev. A;  S38 Highway adoption land dedication ref K34320/A1/07 Rev. B;  Proposed turning head swept path analysis ref K34320/A1/08 Rev. A;  Proposed S38 Street Lighting Design ref AP0524-259-Rev. A;  Plot 28 visibility splay ref SS0014.90.9.P28VS. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety. 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or

Page 126 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grow within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety. 9. No construction works shall take place other than between the following times: 08:00hrs - 18:00hrs Monday - Friday 09:00hrs - 13:00hrs Saturdays And at no times on Sundays or Bank (or Public) holidays. Reason: In the interests of protecting local residential amenity. 10. The boundary wall adjacent to the access shall be maintained at a height not exceeding 1.0 metres. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 11. The high level windows on the eastern elevations of Plots 1 and 10, as shown on the plan ‘Proposed Detailed Site Layout (ref: 11D-REI - 130)’ shall be obscure glazed. Reason: In the interests of protecting local amenity. Note to developer: 1. The section 106 agreement attached to planning permission 17/0660 remains extant in relation to this planning permission.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The application seeks to vary a full planning permission, which was granted under permission ref 17/0660 for the erection of 28 residential dwellings and associated infrastructure, including open space, access, highways and drainage details on land adjacent to Byrnes Close, Plumpton. 2.1.2 The application specifically seeks to vary condition 2 of the original permission. The variation proposed comprises of the following; Plot 28 - The Johnstone - elevational treatment changed to reflect other house types of the same design; Plots 16, 17 and 21 - The Routledge - stone quoins removed from design and replaced with a brick wall; Plot 13 - The Douglas - stone quoins have been added to the proposed design; Finishes schedule - grey coloured front doors proposed as part of the development have been proposed to be a ‘mouse’ grey finish. 2.1.3 The applicant seeks to vary no other aspect of the approved scheme and the development would still achieve a total of 28 residential dwellings. These would, as previously approved be a mixture of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom properties. In total there would be 8 affordable units, located on the site, being 30% of the size of the development in line with the Council’s policies. Each of the properties would be two storeys in height.

Page 127 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE The proposed access would also remain as was previously approved, off the adjacent public highway (C3012). 2.1.4 The proposed construction materials also remain as previously approved, utilising a mixture of locally sourced sandstone, stone quoins, render and slate roofs. The development includes a mixture of design types throughout the site for the buildings, however the use of more traditional construction materials are consistent with materials used within the locality in-keeping with the local built environment. 2.1.5 In line with the requirements of Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended 2017), it is considered that whilst the development falls within the criteria of Schedule 2 Development (Part 10 Infrastructure Projects [b]), the application does not meet or exceed the threshold criteria, by virtue of being less than 5 hectares and for less than 150 residential dwellings. Therefore, the application need not be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site is currently agricultural green field land occupying a relatively central location within the linear settlement of Plumpton. The site covers an area of approximately 1.19 hectares although the red line boundary is larger (2.94 hectares) due to the incorporation of a drainage run from the site away towards the River Petteril. The site is currently used for grazing purposes. 2.2.2 The application site is positioned with expanses of agricultural land to both the immediate north, and to the south beyond the adjacent public highway (C3012), off which access to the site would be achieved. To the immediate east of the site is a built up residential estate known as Byrnes Close, with agricultural land and the linear continuation of Plumpton to the west. 2.2.3 The sites topography is relatively flat, although slightly lower than the road and land to the immediate south. The site is bounded to the west by a mature hedgerow and a stone wall, with a stone wall along the southern boundary and a post and rail fence to the east and north. The stone wall would be retained as part of the proposed development, which in part, protects the character of the immediate locality. 2.2.4 Within the Eden Local Plan, the application site was designated as a ‘Preferred Site’ for housing development (ref: LPL2) referred to as ‘Land adjacent to Byrnes Close’. This was a determining factor in the grant of planning permission ref 17/0660. 2.2.5 There are no planning constraints affecting the site which would be relevant to the determination of this planning application. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Local Highway Authority Responded on the 30 October 2018 and confirmed that ‘Cumbria County Council as both Highway and Lead Local Flood Authority would have no comments in relation to the variation of condition 2 as the amendments would have no impact on highway safety or drainage infrastructure’. Environment Agency No response has been received to date.

Page 128 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response Natural England No response has been received to date. Lead Local Flood Authority Responded on the 30 October 2018 and confirmed that ‘Cumbria County Council as both Highway and Lead Local Flood Authority would have no comments in relation to the variation of condition 2 as the amendments would have no impact on highway safety or drainage infrastructure’. Education Authority No response has been received to date. 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Environmental Health Responded on the 1 November 2018 and confirmed ‘we have no issues with this application’. United Utilities No response has been received to date. Affordable Housing Officer Responded on the 29 October 2018 and confirmed that the proposed alterations to the scheme would have no affect on the affordable element of the permission and so therefore there was no comments. Arboricultural Officer No response has been received to date.

4. Parish Council/Meeting Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish No View Object Support No Objection Council/Meeting Expressed Hesket Parish X Council 4.1 Hesket Parish Council responded on the 15 November 2018 and confirmed no objections to the scheme. 5. Representations 5.1 Seventy letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours, a site notice was posted on 1 November 2018 and a press notice published in the Herald on the 3 November 2018. No of Neighbours Consulted 70 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 0 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 0 6. Relevant Planning History 6.1 17/0660 - Application for the erection of 28 dwellings and associated infrastructure including off-site SUDS pond on land adjacent to Byrnes Close, Plumpton - approved at Planning Committee.

Page 129 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan (2014 - 2032)  Policy LS1 - Locational Strategy  Policy LS2 - Housing Targets and Distribution  Policy DEV1 - General Approach to new Development  Policy DEV2 - Water Management and Flood Risk  Policy DEV4 - Infrastructure and Implementation  Policy DEV5 - Design of New Development  Policy HS1 - Affordable Housing  HS1 - Affordable Housing  HS4 - Housing Type and Mix  EN5 - Environmentally Sustainable Design

Supplementary Planning Documents:  Housing (2010) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Achieving sustainable development  Decision-making  Delivering a sufficient supply of homes  Making effective use of land  Achieving well-designed places  Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Scale and Design  Impact upon character of the area  Affordable Housing  Impact upon Amenity  Drainage Infrastructure 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The village of Plumpton was, at the time of the original granting of planning permission for this site, confirmed to be a Local Service Centre under the old Core Strategy. Now, as per Policy LS1, entitled ‘Locational Strategy’ it is a designated ‘Key Hub’ within the Eden Local Plan. 8.2.2 This policy confirms that Key Hubs are areas which “will be the focus for development to sustain local services appropriate to the scale of the village, including new housing, the provision of employment and improvements to accessibility. Unless proposed in

Page 130 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE this plan, new housing developments which would increase the size of a village by more than 10% on a single site will not normally be supported. Proposals will only be acceptable where they respect the historic character and form of the village.” 8.2.3 The application site is a designated ‘allocated’ site within the Local Plan (ref: LPL2) for housing development. In such locations the Council considers that the principle of housing to be acceptable subject to considerations of design, layout, drainage and access amongst others. It is also noted that the Local Plan acknowledges former shortfalls in housing provision and accordingly the Local Authority is keen to ensure that the rate of up-take for new sites occur in the early years of the plan. Planning applications such as this, for allocated sites such as this, would contribute to fulfilling that intention. 8.2.4 In terms of its location, the application site is considered to be well related to the village of Plumpton, due to its relatively central location within the settlement. It is considered that the original conclusion of planning permission ref 17/0660 still stands in that the development would represent an appropriate use of land, a conclusion reinforced by its allocated status. 8.2.5 As was concluded in relation to the planning permission ref 17/0660 the principle of residential development in this location is considered to be appropriate and acceptable. The development is in-compliance with the locational criteria of the Local Plan. 8.3 Scale and Design 8.3.1 The scale and design of the proposal has already been accepted via the granting of the ref 17/0660 permission. Policy DEV5 of the Local Plan both require development to demonstrate a clear understanding of the form and character of the districts built and natural environment. 8.3.2 It was originally considered that the proposed layout and number of dwellings were appropriate for the size of the site and makes good use of the available land. The proposed layout was noted to be a cul-de-sac, not dissimilar in design to the adjacent Byrnes Close. It was also noted that although this layout was not reflective of the historical linear form and layout of the village as exists to the west of the application site, it was in-keeping with the built form of the more densely built up area of the village to the immediate east. 8.3.3 The NPPF includes Section 12 entitled, ‘Achieving well-designed places’. Paragraph 124 confirms the importance of the design of the built environment, it states, ‘the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning development process should achieve’. 8.3.4 Paragraph 127 confirms that, ‘Planning Policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities);

Page 131 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience’. 8.3.5 In terms of the appearance of the individual buildings, it was considered at the time of the original application being determined, that the proposed design of the buildings did not, generally, represent a particularly high quality design and as such would display only slight architectural merit. However, it was also considered that the buildings were reflective of the built form of the adjacent residential site and the eastern end of the village generally and as such were considered in-keeping with the immediate built form of the settlement. 8.3.6 These proposed changes represent relatively minor alterations to the already approved scheme. In this context the variations are considered acceptable and should be supported as the changes would have negligible impacts in terms of the overall approved development’s outward appearance and finish. 8.3.7 The proposal is therefore considered in compliance with Policy DEV5 of the Local Plan and the NPPF. 8.4 Impact on the character of the local area 8.4.1 The proposed development is for 28 new houses within a central location within the settlement. The impact of the development of residential development within this locality is considered to be acceptable. As noted previously, the suitability of the site has previously been assessed as acceptable by the Council given the site has an ‘allocated’ status. This status therefore means that it is acceptable in policy terms for housing to be constructed upon the site. 8.4.2 The application site is not located within a landscape of any designation or special protection. The proposed, relatively minor changes to the scheme proposal are not considered to have any further impacts beyond those considered by the previous application. 8.4.3 It is therefore considered that the development is acceptable as proposed and merits support. 8.5 Affordable Housing 8.5.1 The originally approved proposal required a 30% affordable housing contribution as per the then extant Core Strategy. Policy HS1 of the Local Plan, entitled, ‘Affordable Housing’ further confirms that ‘the council will seek to secure the provision of 30% of all new housing as affordable homes on schemes with 11 or more units where the on-site contribution does not equate precisely to a whole number of units, the contribution will be rounded down to the nearest unit’. 8.5.2 For the development of 28 homes, it was noted that this would equate to a requirement of 8 affordable dwellings to form part of the development.

Page 132 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.5.3 This requirement remains and will not change as part of this approval. The section 106 legal agreement attached to the 17/0660 permission remains extant were this proposal to be approved. Accordingly, there are no affordable housing concerns in relation to this proposal. 8.6 Impacts Upon Amenity 8.6.1 The proposed development was considered an appropriately positioned in-fill plot within the village of Plumpton. This view has not changed given the minor nature of the proposed variation to the approved scheme. The properties most affected by the development would be those located to the immediate east on Byrnes Close. However, the proposed layout was considered to acceptable when the 17/0660 application was determined – given that there is no change to layout as part of this proposal, there is no reason to conclude differently in relation to this application. 8.6.2 The Housing SPD (2010) recommends that there is a separation distance of 21 metres between principal windows and 13 metres between a main elevation and a blank gable wall. The separation details noted are maintained and preserved in the current design and layout of the site, with distances being in excess of 20 metres. It is noted that no letters of objection have been received to the proposal from any neighbouring property. 8.6.3 Therefore, it is considered that there are no amenity reasons to refuse this application. 8.7 Drainage infrastructure/Flood Risk 8.7.1 The application site is located within a Flood Zone 1 and as such is on land at lower risk of flooding (less than 1 in 1000 year chance). The nearest watercourse to the site is the River Petteril, located over 400 metres to the west. The application proposes a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDs) whereby a drainage run is engineered from the application site to an attenuation pond adjacent to the River Petteril. This form of drainage and engineering is considered to be the most sustainable option for drainage in accordance with the Hierarchy of Drainage Options at outlined within the National Planning Policy Guidance. 8.7.2 This application seeks to change nothing that would have any impact upon the previously approved scheme in terms of drainage and flood risk. It was noted at the time at outline in determining the ref 17/0660 application that it had been supported by a drainage strategy and a Flood Risk Assessment. These had all been subject of consultation with United Utilities, the Environment Agency and Cumbria County Council in their role as Local Lead Flood Authority, with no objections having been raised. The applicant had therefore demonstrated that appropriate and sustainable drainage could be achieved for the site. Furthermore, the applicant has demonstrated that the development would not result in an increase in flood risk to the site itself or to any adjacent or surrounding land in line with both Local and National Planning Policy. 8.7.3 For these reasons it is considered that the site can be appropriately drained and would not result in an increase in the risk of localised flooding and that this application would have no mater 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example,

Page 133 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 The proposed changes to the overarching scheme, approved under planning permission ref 17/0660 are considered minor. As referred to in paragraph 2.1.2 of this report, these amendments amount to the following;  Plot 28 -The Johnstone - elevational treatment changed to reflect other house types of the same design;  Plots 16, 17 and 21 - The Routledge - stone quoins removed from design and replaced with a brick wall;  Plot 13 -The Douglas - stone quoins have been added to the proposed design;  Finishes schedule - grey coloured front doors proposed as part of the development have been proposed to be a ‘mouse’ grey finish. 11.2 There are no other elements of the previously approved scheme that would be changed. The number of dwellings (28) remains the same as does the number of affordable homes to be provided by the development.

Page 134 Agenda Item 9 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 11.3 There are no objections from any consultee, no neighbours (following 70 letters being posted) and a press and site notice have made any comments and the Parish Council has no objections in relation to this proposal. 11.4 There are no material planning reasons upon which to base the refusal of this application. Accordingly, given that the proposed variations would not result in any significant demonstrable harm if approved, the application is supported. 11.5 The application is therefore recommended for approval.

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File - 18/0868

Page 135 Page 136 Agenda Item 10 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Date of Committee: 13 December 2018

Planning Application No: 18/0811 Date Received: 28 September 2018

OS Grid Ref: 3715 5183 Expiry Date: 24 November 2018

Parish: Warcop Ward: Warcop

Application Type: Approval of Details Reserved by Condition

Proposal: Discharge of Condition 3 (Landscaping) attached to approval 18/0488 for an extension to existing approved free range egg-laying unit with associated feed bins and concrete aprons

Location: Land south of Coupland Beck Farm, Appleby

Applicant: Mr W & W Patterson

Agent:

Case Officer: Mat Wilson

Reason for Referral: Cllr Patterson, Vice Chair of the Planning Committee, is one of the applicants.

Page 137 Agenda Item 10 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that Condition 3 of planning approval 18/0488 be discharged.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 Planning permission was granted at the Committee meeting of 13 September 2018 for the erection of a purpose built poultry unit for free range eggs from 16,000 laying hens. The permission was conditional upon the approval of a scheme of landscaping in order to ensure that the visual impact of the building would be suitably mitigated through a scheme of planting. 2.1.2 The proposal seeks to discharge the landscaping condition of approval 18/0488. A landscaping scheme has been submitted with the application. 2.1.3 Since the proposal is merely to discharge a condition of a consented scheme, the application is not subject to public consultation or notification. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application site comprises a field located alongside the A66 at Coupland Beck on the south eastern side of Appleby. The field is approximately 40 metres from the A66, separated from it by a 2m high bank and the old A66 which is now owned by the applicants. The field is generally flat closest to the road, sloping away toward the south. 2.2.2 The approved building will be positioned in the eastern part of the field close to and alongside the A66 which is also the highest part of the site. The field is enclosed by dry stone walls and a post and rail fence. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees N/a 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Council Arboriculturist The proposals contained within the Landscaping drawings are suitable and can be approved. 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response None received as the application is not subject to consultation. 5. Representations 5.1 None received as the application is not subject to public consultation. 6. Relevant Planning History 6.1 10/0580: Erection of a free-range poultry shed - Conditionally Approved 21 October 2010.

Page 138 Agenda Item 10 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 18/0488: Extension to existing approved free range egg-laying unit - Conditionally Approved 13 September 2018. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Local Plan 2014 - 2032 The Eden Local Plan 2014 - 2032 was accepted by the Planning Inspectorate in September 2018 and was adopted at the full Council meeting on the 11 October 2018. The plan replaces the previous Development Plan documents, these being the saved policies from the Eden Local Plan (1996) and the Core Strategy (2010) and is now the formal Development Plan for Eden District Council. This means that the Eden Local Plan 2014 - 2032 now carries full weight in the planning decision process The following planning policies are relevant: RUR2 New Agricultural Buildings; and ENV2 Protection and Enhancements of Landscapes and Trees 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Requiring good design (Para 127)  Conserving and enhancing the natural environment (Para 170) National Planning Practice Guidance 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The proposed extension to the free-range egg laying unit has been approved. This application simply concerns the landscaping scheme proposed to mitigate the visual impact of the building in accordance with the requirements of a planning condition. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 The building will be prominently seen from the A66 and therefore appropriate compensatory planting is critical to softening its visual impact. The applicants have submitted a comprehensive landscaping scheme which meets the requirements set out by Condition 3 of the planning approval. The scheme proposes the planting of species- rich hedgerows on the northwest and southeast boundaries, a native tree and shrub woodland mix with groups of native trees on the northeast (roadside) boundary, and a 20m wide woodland belt on the southwest side of the building. 8.3.2 The scheme includes a landscape maintenance schedule to monitor the planting and to ensure that any plants which fail within the first 5 years shall be replaced. 8.3.3 The schedule of planting, the species mix and location, and the maintenance schedule are considered acceptable and as such it is considered the visual impact of the building will be appropriately mitigated through landscaping.

Page 139 Agenda Item 10 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.3.4 It is considered that the extension to the approved egg-laying unit will have a medium scale landscape and visual impact, which can be mitigated through an appropriate scheme of landscaping. Subject to the implementation of the landscaping, the visual impacts of the proposals on the amenity of the area are considered to be acceptable. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10. Conclusion 10.1 It is considered that the landscaping scheme is acceptable and that Condition 3 of 18/0488 should be discharged.

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

Page 140 Agenda Item 7

Report No: G111/18 Eden District Council Planning Committee 13 December 2018 Review of the Constitution Portfolio: Resources Report from: Deputy Chief Executive Wards: All Wards OPEN PUBLIC ITEM 1 Purpose 1.1 To seek the views of the Planning Committee on the proposed amendments to be made in the Constitution relating to the delegations to the Deputy Director Technical Services and the questioning of members of the public speaking at Planning Committee. 2 Recommendation 2.1 Consideration be given to the recommended amendments to: (1) the scheme of delegation to the Deputy Director Technical Services as set out in Appendix 1 to this report; and (2) paragraph 13 of the Council’s Code of Planning Conduct and Practice. 2.2 It be noted that the views of Planning Committee will be presented to a meeting of the Accounts and Governance Committee, with the matter being the subject of a final decision by Council. 3 Report Details Background 3.1 In 2017 the Planning Services Development Manager suggested draft changes to the Constitution at Part 3, paragraph 4.4(1)(a)(i) (page 92 of the Constitution). The rationale behind the proposed changes was to prevent unnecessary applications proceeding to Planning Committee. This matter was considered by Planning Committee on 14 December 2017 having previously been considered by Accounts and Governance Committee on 13 November 2017. The process was put on hold pending the outcome of the Planning Advisory Service Peer Review which commenced in March 2018. 3.2 The Planning Advisory Service was invited by the Council to carry out a review of the operation of Planning Committee. This request was made in light of the Council having been notified by the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government that it had been put at risk of Special Measures designation relating to the quality of its planning performance on the determination of Major planning applications.

Page 141 3.3 The Peer Review involved two Peer Reviewers visiting the Council in March 2018. The process involved interviews with Council officers and interviews with Members of the Planning Committee. The Peer Reviewers also considered Council planning policy and procedure documents and statistical returns to Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. They also attending the Council’s Planning Committee Meeting held on 15 March 2018. The review concluded with the publication of a final report in July 2018, the findings of which were presented to an informal meeting of Planning Committee members on 27 September 2018. 3.4 The Peer Review report outlined a number of recommended alterations and improvements that could be made to the Council’s Planning Committee process. If such changes are to be implemented two of the proposed changes require an alteration to the Council’s scheme of delegation, as proposed within this report. Items Put Before Planning Committee 3.5 The Planning Advisory Service Peer Review report highlighted the Council’s current ‘call-in’ procedure and Scheme of Delegation as a particular cause for concern. On this matter, the Peer Review made the following comments: ‘Call-in – The ability of only one person to call in an application can put the reputation of the Council at risk, especially if it is not on vitally material planning matters, this needs urgently reviewing. Delegation – Clarification of the scheme of delegation is needed. Applications should only be presented to this important committee when they are clearly in the public interest and there are competing material planning considerations that need to be weighed in the decision making process. The current delegation scheme requires applications to be determined by the Planning Committee when one request is made. This is untenable and leads to a lack of clarity in the role of the Committee.’ 3.6 The proposed amendments scheme of delegation to the Deputy Director Technical Services as set out in Appendix 1 to this report to this report. The rationale behind the change is to prevent unnecessary applications proceeding to Planning Committee, reducing the burden on applicants, members of the public, the Planning Committee and Council Officers. In relation to the undue burden placed upon the Planning Committee, the Planning Advisory Service Peer Review specifically listed the following areas: ‘1. The ability of any individual resident (who may not be directly impacted by the development) requesting ‘presentation’ to the Committee without citing any material planning reasons or a ‘locus standi’* regarding the application. 2. Automatic presentation of an application to the committee when the officer recommendation is opposite to the Town or Parish Councils recommendation.’ Locus standi means the ability of a party to demonstrate sufficient connection to or harm from a planning proposal to justify their participation. 3.7 It is considered that there is merit in the suggestion that any application which is subject to a request by a Member to proceed to Planning Committee should be justified by (a) valid planning reason(s). Furthermore, it is considered that this should be limited to the relevant Ward Member in which the application is

Page 142 located. There should be consistency in this and any objections should be justified by valid planning reasons in order to merit an application being brought to Planning Committee for consideration. 3.8 Valid planning reasons relate to either references to relevant development plan policies or material considerations. The Council cannot take non-valid planning reasons into account when determining a Planning Application. Material considerations are matters that should be taken into account in deciding a planning application and include (but are not limited to):  Overlooking/loss of privacy;  Loss of light or overshadowing;  Parking;  Highway safety;  Traffic;  Noise;  Effect on listed building and conservation area;  Layout and density of building;  Design, appearance and materials;  Government policy;  Disabled persons' access;  Proposals in the Development Plan;  Previous planning decisions (including appeal decisions);  Nature conservation. 3.9 Valid planning reasons exclude objections made on the following grounds:  Devaluation of property;  Loss of view;  Effect on trade/commercial competition;  Effect on private or civil rights;  Personal or financial circumstances or the character of the applicant;  Third party interest; or  Matters covered by other legislation or controls including Building Regulations and licensing. 3.10 The constitution in its current form, leaves the Council vulnerable to challenge where items are more susceptible to being refused for non-material and valid reasons. This is a frequent occurrence with items on the Planning Committee agenda. Furthermore, the ability for a single member of the public to ‘call in’ an application without valid planning reason, can provide a false hope and expectation to members of the public that an application may approved or refused, when in fact there is no planning basis or merit for doing so. This

Page 143 frequently results in items being put before Members of the Planning Committee to determine, where there is no planning judgement or option available. In such circumstances the Planning Committee faces a situation whereby it is only able to reasonably approve or refuse the recommendation without leaving the Council vulnerable to challenge and the potential for awards of costs. 3.11 In the 2017/2018 financial year, a total of 10 planning appeals were decided by the Planning Inspectorate against refusals to grant planning permission by Eden District Council. Four of the appeals were dismissed and six were allowed. In relation to the 6 appeals that were allowed, four related to decisions made by the Planning Committee contrary to officer recommendation. 3.12 The amendment to prevent major applications being brought to Planning Committee solely by virtue of being major is that in the event that there are no objections from statutory bodies or the public, there is no reason why such applications cannot be determined under delegated powers. Clearly if officers have any difficulties or consider it appropriate to consult Members then a decision could nonetheless be taken by the Planning Services Development Manager to seek the views of Members by taking the report to Planning Committee. If such a major application were controversial or sensitive it would be brought to Planning Committee automatically. Questioning of Public Speakers 3.13 A further recommended relates to the ability of Members of the Planning Committee to ask questions of speakers, both for and against an application, following their presentation to the committee as set out in paragraph 13 of the Code of Planning Conduct and Practice. This matter is currently enabled through Part 5 (d) (paragraph 13.4) (page 311 of the Constitution). The rationale behind this proposed change relates to concerns regarding the appropriateness of the members questioning members of the public, and the impact that this has upon Members’ Debate. Appendix 2 to this report sets out a suggested revision to paragraph 13 of the Code of Planning Conduct and Practice. 3.14 In general, public speaking, particularly at a large public meeting such as Planning Committee, can be a nerve wracking and daunting experience for members of the public. For people unaccustomed to public speaking, presenting before the Planning Committee can be intimidating and often at times highly emotional. Such feelings are often exacerbated by the frequent prolonged periods of questioning by Members of the Planning Committee. 3.15 In addition it is considered that the benefit and usefulness of much of the additional information obtained through the public questioning is in itself questionable. In many instances the information obtained, and debate that follows, often relates to non-material planning matters which are not relevant and cannot be taken into consideration in the determination of an application. It is considered more appropriate for Members’ questions to be directed towards Planning Officers. 3.16 Furthermore, the questioning of speakers by Members frequently leads to debate, often on non-material planning matters. The main negative effect of

Page 144 this being that it stifles debate when later required in the consideration of the application. This can lead to the perception that items are not being properly debated and considered by the Planning Committee, adversely affecting its reputation. This matter was highlighted within the Planning Advisory Service Peer Review Report which noted: ‘…there is concern that the current practice of questioning speakers turns into debate and the normal rules of asking questions only through the Chairman are lost.’ 3.17 There are no proposals to replace the questioning of members of the public speaking at Planning Committee with another process. Instead the proposal is to simply remove this from the Constitution. 4 Policy Framework 4.1 The Council has four corporate priorities which are:  Decent Homes for All;  Strong Economy, Rich Environment;  Thriving Communities; and  Quality Council 4.2 This report meets the Quality Council corporate priority. 5 Consultation 5.1 In this case Planning Committee is in effect a consultee. Ultimately any proposals to amend the Constitution need to be determined in this case by Council taking into account the views of Planning Committee and Accounts and Governance Committee. 5.2 This matter is due to be put before Accounts and Governance Committee on 21 February 2019 to also consider the changes proposed within this report having regard to the recommendations of Planning Committee. 5.3 The basis of the above recommendation from Accounts and Governance Committee was that lay objectors cannot be expected to routinely have the skills or resources to identify what are valid planning reasons and what are not valid. Conversely statutory consultees can be expected to be able to identity valid planning reasons and therefore the amended wording is appropriate for such bodies. 5.4 On the 28 September 2018, the findings of the Planning and Advisory Service Peer Review were presented to an informal meeting of Members of the Planning Committee for consideration. Approval was given for alterations to be made to the Committee process. At that time, similar views and concerns were raised by the Members in attendance relating to lay objectors and members of the public as noted by the Accounts and Governance Committee. 6 Implications 6.1 Financial and Resources 6.1.1 Any decision to reduce or increase resources or alternatively increase income must be made within the context of the Council’s stated priorities, as set out in its Council Plan 2015-19 as agreed at Council on 17 September 2015.

Page 145 6.2 Legal 6.2.1 The Constitution has over recent years been reviewed on an annual basis. No legal implications are judged to arise from the proposed amendments to the Constitution. 6.3 Human Resources 6.3.1 There are no human resources implications arising out of the proposals within this report. 6.4 Statutory Considerations Consideration: Details of any implications and proposed measures to address: Equality and Diversity There are no implications arising from this report. Health, Social There are no implications arising from this report. Environmental and Economic Impact Crime and Disorder There are no implications arising from this report. Children and There are no implications arising from this report. Safeguarding 6.5 Risk Management Risk Consequence Controls Required Over time the Risk of decisions being Annual consideration Constitution ceases to challenged due to not given to the need to be fit for purpose and being made in review the Constitution. does not include the accordance with proper provisions which are administrative considered to be requirements. necessary and required. 7 Other Options Considered 7.1 The Committee could decide to support the proposed amendments to the constitution in full or in part or resolve not to support the proposed amendments at all. 8 Reasons for the Decision/Recommendation 8.1 To enable consideration to be given to the need for amendments to the Constitution.

Tracking Information Governance Check Date Considered Chief Finance Officer (or Deputy) 29 November 2018 Monitoring Officer (or Deputy) 29 November 2018

Page 146 Background Papers: Appendices: 1. Proposals for amendments to the scheme of delegation to the Deputy Director Technical Services. The current wording is set out at page 92 of the Constitution. 2. Proposals for amendments to Paragraph 13 of the Code of Planning Conduct and Practice. The current wording is set out at pages 308 to 310 of the Constitution. Contact Officer: Matthew Neal, Deputy Chief Executive (Monitoring Officer) Telephone: 01768 212237

Page 147 Appendix 1 Proposals for amendments to the scheme of delegation to the Deputy Director Technical Services. The current wording is set out at page 92 of the Constitution.

4.4 Delegation of Council Functions to the Council’s Officers 1. Town and Country Planning and Development Control. a) Delegations to Deputy Director Technical Services: i) to determine all planning applications and to make observations on all statutory and other notifications except: 1. applications for which an approval would be contrary to policy - ie departures and potentially justifiable exceptions; 2. applications which are considered by the Deputy Director Technical Services to be of a, controversial or sensitive nature, or which have aroused significant public interest on valid planning grounds; 3. applications for which an objection from a statutory consultee (as set out in the The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015) is received on valid planning grounds and the Deputy Director Technical Services is inclined to approve the application; 4. applications subject to a request by an objector to address the Planning Committee and that objection is based on valid planning grounds; 5. applications subject to a request by the local ward member on valid planning grounds to have the matter determined by the Planning Committee. Valid planning grounds excludes objections made on any of the following grounds:  Devaluation of property;  Loss of view;  Effect on trade/commercial competition;  Effect on private or civil rights;  Personal or financial circumstances or the character of the applicant;  Third party interest; or  Matters covered by other legislation or controls including Building Regulations and licensing.

Page 148 Appendix 2 Proposals for amendments to Paragraph 13 of the Code of Planning Conduct and Practice. The current wording is set out at pages 308 to 310 of the Constitution

13. Public Hearings at Planning Committee 1) Many Local Planning Authorities permit members of the public to address the Committee about a particular proposal prior to the consideration of the application. Procedures vary across the country but all are designed to provide as fair an opportunity as possible for a balance of views to be provided between those supporting and those opposing an application.

2) Members of the public are permitted to address the Planning Committee and the following protocols relate to the procedures adopted:

3) Protocols: a) In accordance with the Council Procedure Rules, any person (including Members, Parish representatives, applicants, objectors and supporters) may seek to address the Planning Committee by making representations, or giving evidence at a meeting, in relation to any matter which appears on the agenda for that meeting.

b) Any person who wishes to address the committee should request to do so in writing to the Deputy Chief Executive by no later than midday one clear working day before the day of the meeting (that is not counting the day of the meeting or the day notice is given - so for a meeting on a Thursday, notice must be given by no later than midday on the preceding Tuesday).

c) In addition to the above provisions, on receipt, within the time frame given, of a material objection to a planning application the objector will be advised by the case officer, in acknowledging receipt of the objection, of the opportunity to address committee when the application is determined. They will be supplied with a form which they can return if they want to avail themselves of that opportunity. The request should be made promptly and in any event within ten days of the day the form referred to above is sent to the objector. A request under this paragraph (which is not withdrawn) will trigger the requirement that an application be determined by the Planning Committee rather than by the Planning Services Development Manager under his delegated authority. However, if at any time it is decided to exercise delegated authority to determine the application in accordance

Page 149 with the objection, the application will be determined by the Planning Services Development Manager, rather than by the Planning Committee, and there will be no opportunity to address the committee.

d) The participation of any Member or member of the public will in all cases be at the discretion of the Chairman of the Committee. Ordinarily approval will be granted, but on occasion the Chairman may refuse the request on the grounds mentioned in the Council Procedure Rules. A request will generally be refused if the representation does not relate to material planning considerations.

e) If a presentation from an objector is agreed the opportunity will also be given for the applicant to respond.

f) If a hearing is agreed the case officer will liaise with the person making the request and the applicant to set up the arrangement. Details of the procedure on the day will be sent to each party appearing. In the event that two or more requests are received from the public to make a presentation about a particular proposal, efforts will be made to reduce this to one person. Equally the applicant will be expected to be represented by one person. In the event of disagreement the Committee will ordinarily hear no more than two representations, which will usually be limited to the two parties living nearest to the application site. In respect of major applications generating significant public interest, the Chairman will give consideration to allowing more parties to speak.

g) On the day of the Committee, hearings will take place as the item arises on the agenda unless altered by the Chairman.

4) The following procedure will apply:

a) The Planning Officer will briefly outline what the proposal is about;

b) Any person making representations objecting to the grant of permission or seeking the imposition of conditions will address the Committee for up to five minutes. In the event that two representations are made these will each be for a maximum of 2.5 minutes;

c) Any person making representations in support of the application (other than the applicant or his/her representative) will then address the committee for up to five minutes. As in relation to objectors, up to five minutes shared between supporters will be permitted.

Page 150 d) Any Parish representative will then be permitted to address the Committee for up to five minutes;

e) If a member of the Council (Planning Committee member or not) wishes to advise the Committee of any representation or lobby he or she has received about the application a similar presentation should then be given but in the case of a committee member the presentation should be purely factual and not opinionated;

f) The applicant (or appointed agent or representative) will then be permitted to address the Committee for up to five minutes, again from the area of the top table;

g) Representatives of the public will then be thanked for their contribution by the Chairman and advised that no further contribution will be permitted from them on the proposal as the Committee considers, then decides the application;

h) The Planning Officer will then conclude the presentation on the application picking up on any points from the presentations that might be misleading in a non-material manner; i) The opportunity will then be given for the officer to be questioned by the Committee; and

j) The Committee will then debate the proposals and come to a decision.

k) If, particularly in relation to applications generating major public interest, more persons are permitted to address the committee, no person will be allowed to address the committee for longer than five minutes and the applicant will normally be given the opportunity to address the committee for an equivalent amount of time to that afforded in total to those objecting to the application.

Page 151 This page is intentionally left blank