Committee: PLANNING AND HIGHWAYS REGULATORY COMMITTEE

Date: MONDAY, 10TH MAY 2010

Venue: LANCASTER TOWN HALL

Time: 10.30 A.M.

A G E N D A

1 Apologies for Absence

2 Minutes of the Meeting held on 19th April 2010 (previously circulated)

3 Items of Urgent Business authorised by the Chairman

4 Declarations of Interest

Planning Applications for Decision

Community Safety Implications

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

Category A Applications

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

5 A5 10/00039/FUL Lancaster University, Bailrigg University (Pages 1 - Lane, Lancaster Ward 29)

Installation of 2 wind turbine generators, each with a maximum tip height of 101m, together with associated site access, onsite access tracks, hardstanding areas, temporary construction and storage compounds and landscaping for Lancaster University

6 A6 10/00126/OUT Norman Jackson Contractors Ltd, Carnforth (Pages 30 - Scotland Road, Carnforth Ward 39)

Outline application for the redevelopment of existing builders yard to provide retail, business and industrial units and associated car parking for Norman Jackson Contractors Ltd

7 A7 10/00151/CU Land Opposite The Chestnuts, Bolton-Le- (Pages 40 - The Green, Bolton-le-Sands Sands 43) Ward

Change of use of disused paddock area to provide parking area for 10 cars, grassed outdoor play area and associated works for Witherslack Care and Education Initiatives

8 A8 10/00170/VCN A B C Lancaster (disused), King Duke's (Pages 44 - Street, Lancaster Ward 47)

Variation of condition No.17 on approved application no. 08/01129/FUL to change the use class for most of the first floor from A1 (non-food) to C1 (hotel) for Kempsten Ltd

9 A9 10/00172/FUL 22 Emesgate Lane, Silverdale, Silverdale (Pages 48 - Carnforth Ward 54)

Erection of a single dwelling in the rear garden of 22 Emesgate Lane for Mr Chris Newton

10 A10 10/00053/FUL Glasson Sailing Club, Bodie Hill, Ellel Ward (Pages 55 - Glasson Dock 59)

Retention of touring caravan for occupation by club warden and family and the change of use of land to create four touring caravan pitches for sailing club members for Glasson Sailing Club

11 A11 10/00212/FUL Land Adjacent 6 Hall Park, Hall Scotforth (Pages 60 - Park, Lancaster West Ward 63)

Erection of a single detached dwelling for Mrs G Hardy

12 A12 10/00047/CU Newlands Farm, Long Dales Lane, Kellet Ward (Pages 64 - Nether Kellet 66)

Change of use of HGV parking area to container storage facility and display of sign for Mr and Mrs M Cowperthwaite

13 A13 10/00166/FUL 4 Grasmere Road, Lancaster Bulk Ward (Pages 67 - 71)

Erection of a two storey rear extension for Mr James Halton

14 A14 10/00266/FUL Vale of Lune R U F C, Skerton (Pages 72 - Powderhouse Lane, Lancaster West Ward 76)

Phased development of the new clubhouse building for Vale of Lune R U F C

15 Delegated Planning Decisions (Pages 77 - 79)

16 Planning Enforcement Schedule (Pages 80 - 85)

ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

(i) Membership

Councillors Keith Budden (Chairman), Joyce Pritchard (Vice-Chairman), Eileen Blamire, Ken Brown, Anne Chapman, Chris Coates, John Day, Roger Dennison, Sheila Denwood, Mike Greenall, Emily Heath, Helen Helme, Val Histed, Andrew Kay, Geoff Marsland, Robert Redfern, Peter Robinson, Bob Roe, Sylvia Rogerson and Roger Sherlock

(ii) Substitute Membership

Councillors Abbott Bryning, John Gilbert, Janice Hanson, Tony Johnson, Ian McCulloch, Keith Sowden, Joyce Taylor, Malcolm Thomas and Paul Woodruff

(iii) Queries regarding this Agenda

Please contact Jane Glenton, Democratic Services - telephone (01524) 582068, or alternatively email [email protected].

(iv) Changes to Membership, substitutions or apologies

Please contact Members’ Secretary, telephone (01524) 582170, or alternatively email [email protected].

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

Published on Wednesday, 28th April 2010 Page 1 Agenda Item Committee Date AgendaApplication Item Number 5

A5 10 May 2010 10/00039/FUL

Application Site Proposal

Lancaster University Installation of 2 wind turbine generators, each with a maximum tip height of 101m, together with associated Bailrigg Lane site access, onsite access tracks, hardstanding areas, temporary construction and storage compounds and Lancaster landscaping

Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Lancaster University Joanne Peaks

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

7 May 2010 Further consideration of acoustic implications associated with the development and verification of the submitted noise assessment by an independent noise consultant on behalf of the Council.

Case Officer Mrs Jennifer Rehman

Departure None

Summary of Recommendation Refusal

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 Lancaster University campus occupies a large site located between the A6 and the M6 motorway, approximately 1.3 km south of Lancaster. The site that is the subject of this application relates to a 23 hectare parcel of land in the university’s ownership and on the other side of the M6 , Hazelrigg Lane to the east and south, and agricultural land to the north towards Hazelrigg Wood and Blea Tarn reservoir. This site is predominately used for agricultural purposes; mainly grazing.

1.2 The site forms a long narrow hilltop ridge tightly situated between the M6 motorway and Hazelrigg Lane. There are two distinct groups of woodland within the site which form two belts on either side of the ridge. A small hilltop copse is situated adjacent to the northern boundary, just outside the application site. The two large belts of trees separate the site from the M6 to the west and residential properties fronting Hazelrigg Lane to the east. To the north, the development site wraps around the existing woodland and extends up to Hazelrigg Lane, directly opposite the access to the Lune Valley Kennels. These areas of woodland are subject to a temporary TPO to protect them in the short term. The university field station, which comprises grassland, research plots, greenhouses, a small building and a permanent metrological mast and telecommunications mast, is situated in this corner of the site.

1.3 Beyond the immediate boundaries of the site, land to the north, with the exception of Blea Tarn Reservoir, east and south is largely rolling farmland used for grazing, intersected by narrow lanes and sporadic residential development. To the southeast beyond Hazelrigg Lane, is the Forest Hills Golf Course and Fishing Lake complex. The River Conder runs through this site flowing from its source at Stockabank (north of Quernmore) along the valley bottom heading south westerly towards Galgate and finally to its confluence with the River Lune. To the northeast of the application site, separated and surrounding by pasture land, is Valley View Kennels. Beyond the western boundary Page 2 of the application site and the M6, lies the Campus of Lancaster University which practically extends the full length of the application site but on the other side of the motorway.

1.4 The topography of the site rises from 40m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) at the southern boundary of the site to 96m AOD at the northern end of the site where the University Metrological Station is situated. A small valley runs north-south along the eastern boundary of the site. The land levels to the north fall towards this valley where the source of a small stream (tributary of the River Conder) has formed and runs down the site towards the southern boundary where it runs under Hazelrigg Lane through a culvert. Land levels rise to the east and west of this small valley. To the west, within the application site, levels rise to a ridgeline situated between the two areas of woodland. The ridge is approximately 85m AOD in the north falling to 40m AOD at Hazelrigg Lane over a distance of approximately 800m. West of this ridgeline, land levels drop towards the western belt of trees and the motorway.

1.5 The site is owned by the University with no public rights way passing through it. Access to the site is via a field access to the south off Hazelrigg Lane, approximately 180m north east of the M6 under bridge on Hazelrigg Lane. There is also an existing access into the University Metrological Station at the northern end of the site.

1.5 The site does not fall within any national landscape designation and is simply allocated as Countryside Area in the Lancaster District Local Plan. The site is located within 1.4 km from the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The planning application submitted is for the installation of two wind turbines with an output of approximately 4.1MW and associated infrastructure. The proposed turbines fall within Schedule 2 II of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 1999 and as such a full EIA and Environmental Statement (ES) accompany the application.

2.2 The proposed turbines will be three bladed, horizontal axis machines with a hub height of 59m and a blade length of 41m. The rotor diameter is 82m with a ground to tip height now confirmed to be 100m. This has been amended from the original ground to tip height of 101m. The turbine itself is no more than 100m high; the additional 1m previously proposed was a maximum ground to tip height to account for foundations. The turbine rotor and nacelle will be mounted on a tapered steel tower (approximately 3.8m – 3m wide), supported on reinforced concrete foundations approximately 15m x 15m with an overall depth of 3m, requiring approximately 400m3 of ready mix concrete of which 45 tonnes of this is steel reinforcement. This will be below existing ground levels.

2.3 The associated infrastructure includes:

• Approximately 1.1km of access track • Access alterations • Crane hardstanding pads • Temporary construction and storage compound • Earthworks • Approximately 1.3km of underground cabling to each turbine and to the electricity substation on the main University campus • 100m of stream culverting • Hedgerow and woodland clearance – approximately 606m of hedgerows to be removed and 0.36 hectares of woodland.

2.4 The proposed turbine locations have been selected following a process of constraint mapping (Chapter 2/Appendix B of the ES). Seven sites were considered and ranked having regard to the constraints map and mitigation difficulty. The two sites proposed which now form part of the submitted application were selected as preferable sites to carry forward. The turbine locations are as follows:

• Turbine 1 (northern turbine) is located at Grid Reference [349175.7, 457789.2] at the northern end of the site at c 87m OAD. The site is constrained by the BT radcom link only. The most significant constraint at this location apart from the radcom link is noise at the Page 3 Valley View Kennels.

• Turbine 2 (southern turbine) is located at Grid Reference [349093.3, 457073.4] at the southern end of the site at 45m OAD. The main constraint remaining in this location is the proximity of the turbine to the adjacent woodland (Beck Wood) and the proximity to the unnamed watercourse.

The turbines are located approximately 700m apart from each other.

2.5 The access track will run from the widened entrance off Hazelrigg Lane at the southern end of the site and extend approximately 1.1km up the site on the eastern side of the ridge, adjacent to Beck Wood, at a gradient of 1 in 15. The access track would have a nominal width of 5m and will require excavation of a minimum of 500mm depth of top soil. The ground underneath will be compacted and a geotextile base layer with crushed stone will be laid on top to a thickness of 500mm. Either side of the access track drainage ditches will be proposed. A grass reinforcement geogrid will be used to provide a running surface for the part of the access track and for any overrun areas for abnormal load vehicles.

2.6 It is proposed to utilise the existing access into the site. The access will be widened and altered to provide additional means for abnormal loads turning left into and right out of the site. The proposed access will consist of a bituminous surfaced bell mouth incorporating the access junction. It will have a 17m radius on the western side and 15m on the eastern side and a total width of 40m. On the western side of the junction there will be an over-run area which shall be surfaced using a grass reinforcement geogrid product. This potentially widens the access at the junction to 55m.

2.7 The proposed crane pads measure 45m x 25m and shall be situated adjacent to the turbine foundation. These will require deeper foundations, due to higher loads the areas will undergo during construction, using up to 600mm of Type 1 granular material and will be constructed in a similar manner to the access track. On the opposite side of the access track adjacent to the crane pads, surface and loading areas are proposed. These measure 100m (length) by 6m (wide).

2.8 The site storage and construction compound would be located in the south western corner of the site in a triangular field located between in the existing field access and the proposed access track, approximately 3500m2 in area. The compound will house temporary portable buildings, containers for tools and equipment, parking for construction vehicles and secure storage of components and materials. At the end of the construction period, all equipment will be removed and the hard standing covered over with stored topsoil which would then be re-seeded.

2.9 Approximately 1.3km of underground cabling would be required to link the turbines to each other and to the existing electricity substation on the main University Campus. The route for this is from the University intake substation following Green Lane through the Campus and then along Hazelrigg Lane. It then runs alongside the proposed access track to try to minimise ground disturbance. To lay the cables drenches of approximately 1100mm deep and 610mm wide are typically required.

2.10 It is anticipated that approximately 6800m3 or 10,000 tonnes of material will be excavated during construction for the turbine bases and infrastructure. It is proposed that as far as practical this material will be reused on site, primarily for restoration of disturbed ground or during the implementation of the proposed habitat mitigation strategy. A spoil storage area has been defined in the application, located above the site compound adjacent to the southern turbine.

2.11 In addition to the above and in order to facilitate the turbines in the proposed locations, two sections of the stream require culverting. A small section of stream will need to be converted at the northern end of the site in order to construct the access track. A larger section of stream is required to be culverted at the southern end of the site due to its proximity to the turbine.

2.12 The proposal also involves the removal of approximately 606m of hedgerow across the site, 3 veteran trees and 0.36 hectares of woodland from Beck Wood. To compensate for this loss approximately 0.79 hectares of planted woodland, 1.74 hectares of woodland and scrub provided by natural regeneration, and approximately 1090m of hedgerow is proposed.

The permanent land take associated with the development, which comprises the turbine foundations, site access track and crane pad hardstandings, totals approximately 1.5 hectares. Page 4

3.0 Site History

3.1 Lancaster University has a complex and extensive planning history. However the only relevant planning history relates to the recent approval for the erection of an 80m anemometry mast, which was granted planning permission by committee on the 2 November 2009. The anemometer has a temporary consent for 12 months and has been used and continues to be used to record wind information data (speed and direction). The anemometer (or met mast) has been erected and is positioned close to the position of the proposed northern turbine. Whilst the permission was for an 80m mast, the mast installed on site is only 70m.

Application Number Proposal Decision 09/00837/FUL Erection of an 80m Anemometry Mast on a guide tower for Approved temporary period of one year

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response Natural England Natural England originally objected to the proposal on the grounds that the development, in particular its poor siting and design, would have an adverse impact on local landscape character and the setting of the AONB. This impact would be exacerbated by the backdrop of existing vertical infrastructure. The general effect on the views from the AONB would be to increase visual clutter and the perception of urbanisation. This raises the question of whether the area has the capacity for more vertical infrastructure generally.

Despite objections on landscape grounds, Natural England has no objections to the development on ecology grounds, provided further detail is provided prior to determination in respect of:

• bat/bird monitoring; • biodiversity mitigation and compensatory measures; • confirmation of the timing of woodland clearance; and, • a detailed habitat management;

Following the submission of an Ecology Addendum, a Habitat Management Plan and associated plans, together with additional landscape and visual information, Natural England have the following comments:

Object to the development. Their reasons for opposition are as follows:

• The additional information (wireframe perspectives) submitted reinforces the fact that the site remains far from ideal for siting turbines because of its shape, landform and existing features. The existing features coupled with the proposed turbines will result in the exacerbation of existing visual clutter in many views. • The different levels and wide spacing results in an unbalanced scheme which would be visually poor when viewed from both close and more distant viewpoints. • Natural England do not consider that the additional effects of the scheme on the adjacent AONB and its setting are sufficient in this case to make a formal objection. However, they believe that in terms of size of the development the current scheme represents expediency rather than good design. • Recommends omitting one turbine from the scheme to help resolve or minimise the above concerns. The southern turbine should be omitted.

Page 5 No objections to the development on biodiversity grounds. All previous concerns have been addressed and more importantly adequate mitigation has been proposed. If minded to approve, conditions will be required for bat/bird monitoring, implementation of the Habitat Management Plan and associated landscaping.

County Landscape Object to the development. Their reasons for opposition are as follows: Officer (LCC) • The site is within Lancashire’s Landscape Sensitivity to Wind Energy Development document; identified as an area of moderate – high sensitivity. Despite the reduction to the height of the turbines (as specified in the Scoping Report), the site and its surrounding landscape does not have the capacity to accommodate turbines of this scale and as such will have landscape and visual impacts of moderate-major significant at distances up to 5km. This is deemed unacceptable. • The turbines are sited on a narrow ridge that has a complex and relatively small scale landscape pattern; the proposed turbines would be out of scale with this landscape which would be exacerbated by the presence of nearby scale comparators. • The turbines are too tall for the rolling lowland landscape and as such would overwhelm the topography. • The size of the turbine blades in relation to the height appear “top heavy”. • The 0.72km separation between the turbines limits the extent to which the turbines would read as a cluster. By comparison the Caton wind turbines which are 90m high are on average around 0.37km apart. • Recommends that the site has the potential capacity to accommodate one turbine (turbine 1-southern turbine) at a reduced height. Notwithstanding this, there would still be significant visual impacts on close range.

County Ecology Prior to the determination of the application the following points need to be addressed: (LCC) • The applicant will need demonstrate that impacts on biodiversity will be fully mitigated/compensated. • If the loss of veteran trees cannot be avoided, mitigation/compensation should be commensurate. • Habitat mitigation plan shows retained hedgerow and new hedges within 50m buffer zone which is contrary to best practice. • Revised stream realignment is not acceptable. • No information submitted regarding woodland ground flora in the area –any loss of this should be compensated and provided.

Following the submission of an Ecology Addendum, a Habitat Management Plan and associated plans, County Ecology no longer object to the proposed development. The following comments have been made:

• With regards to stream culverting, the County Ecologist states that culverting clearly has ecological impacts. However given the particular circumstances at this site and given that the applicant has explored alternative options, they are willing to accept the approach proposed here. As compensation for the culverting the stream it is proposed to create an ‘oxbow’ pool that will be developed to provide potential water vole habitat. • It is proposed to compensate for the loss of three mature trees by planting 60 replacement trees within /adjacent hedgerows – this is now accepted. • The translocation of woodland ground flora is welcomed but should be located in an area of new planting rather than in woodland block B (woodland adjacent the motorway). This matter will be addressed prior to the committee meeting. • Clarification of the survey dates for the great crested newt survey needs to be sought – the Ecology Addendum indicates that the surveys were undertaken on the 4/5th July 2009. This date is outside the dates referred to in the ES and would not be in accordance with the relevant guidance. This matter will be addressed prior to the committee meeting. Page 6

Subject to resolving the above outstanding matters, the following conditions are recommended:

• Bat/bird monitoring conditions required. • Tree felling, clearance will not be carried out during March and August unless the absence of nesting birds has been confirmed. • Habitat creation/enhancement long-term management plan to be conditioned • Repeat badger surveys to be carried out prior to site clearance. • Repeat water vole surveys to be carried out if work has not commenced before November 2010. • Tree Protection conditions in accordance with BS5837:2005 ‘Trees in relation to construction’

Tree Protection Object to the development. The reasons for opposition are as follows: Officer • The loss of woodland and veteran trees to accommodate Turbine No. 2 would result in an unacceptable loss of important mixed species woodland, hedgerows and field grown trees that have significant historic, arboriculture and landscape value; value that if removed cannot be replaced within a single generation. • The three woodland areas are important historic landscape and arboriculture features. The woodlands, hedgerows and field trees are by and large clearly visible landscape features. They offer important amenity value and should be retained and protected. A TPO has been served on these woodlands and field trees to ensure protection in the short term.

Following the submission of the Habitat Management Plan and associated plans, the Council’s Tree Officer reiterates original concerns and indicates a Method Statement for works to install proposed fencing/features in relation to tree protection measures should be submitted. The outcome of this shall be verbally presented to Members.

Based on the additional/amended information submitted, if minded to approve the following conditions would be required:

• Standard Landscaping condition (development to be carried out in accordance with Dwg No LCU 03) • A condition restricting tree felling during period August – end October • Habitat Management Plan to be implemented in full.

County Archaeology Based on the submission of amended/further information, the County Archaeology (LCC) team are satisfied with the details submitted and raise no objection to the proposed development, subject to a condition requiring the implementation of a programme for archaeological works prior to the commencement of any works.

County Strategic Advises that the development must be considered against the provisions of the North Planning (LCC) West of England Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (RSS). Policy DP9: Reduce Emissions and Adapt to Climate Change Policy EM1: Integrated Enhancement and Protection of the Region's Environmental Assets Policy EM17: Renewable Energy Policy EM18: Decentralised Energy Supply.

Landscape, biodiversity and the natural built environment and the extent to which any material harm that may be caused by the proposal will be compensated in full in accordance with the principle of no net loss of recourse.

The development conforms to DP9, EM17 and EM18. County Strategic Planning team are unable to comment whether the proposal complies with Policy EM1. See separate comments from County Archaeology and County Ecology.

Page 7 Ministry of Defence No objection to the proposal. Turbines to be fitted with aviation lighting.

Civil Aviation Advises that the development has the potential to impact upon aviation operations Authority and activities and that the local planning authority should seek viewpoints from both NATS and the MoD. Applicant recommended to initiate consultation with Blackpool Airport licensee.

Subject to comments from other aviation operators, there may be a need for lighting and blades to be coloured white. There is a requirement in the UK for all structures over 300ft high to be chartered on civil aviation maps. Should the wind turbine development progress, developers will need to provide details of the development to the Defence Geographic Centre.

NATS (National Air Although the proposed development is likely to impact NATS electronic infrastructure Traffic Service) NATS has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.

Blackpool Airport No objections and no comments to make regarding the development as proposed.

Lancashire No objections to the construction of two turbines. Whilst the turbines are significant Constabulary Air obstacles, they are unlikely to cause any undue problems. Support Unit County Highways No objections. The following comments have been received:

The Highway Authority is generally satisfied with the Traffic Transport and Highway Impact chapter of the submitted Environmental Statement and has confirmed that they have no objections to the granting of planning permission subject to the following conditions:

• A Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted and agreed in advance of any commencement of any works. • No part of the development hereby approved shall commence until a scheme for the construction of the site access to Hazelrigg Lane has been submitted to, and approved. • Construction of the development hereby approved shall not commence until the approved scheme referred to in Condition above has been constructed and completed in accordance with the scheme details. • The applicant is also advised that the granting of planning permission will require the applicant to enter into an appropriate legal agreement with the County Council as Highway Authority.

One minor issue regarding technical sac curve information for one bridge is still being considered by County Highways. This relates to abnormal load vehicles during the installation and decommissioning stages of development. The outcome of this shall be verbally presented to Members at the committee meeting.

Highway Agency No objections. The following comments have been received:

• No adverse impact upon safety of users of the M6 motorway because of the long range views available of the turbines. • The accident data submitted has been considered and accepted. • The influence of shadow flicker from the nearest turbine to the motorway is not considered material • Due to the close proximity of the nearest turbine to the M6 motorway a condition is required to ensure the minimum topel distance is provided. • Clarification has been provided to confirm that the ground to tip height of the turbine shall be 100m and as such the 150m stand-off distance from the motorway can adequately be provided.

Page 8 Environmental Initial concerns received expressed concerns regarding the proximity of the turbines to Health nearby residential properties and the subsequent potential impact of noise disturbance. The Council have appointed noise consultants to investigate potential noise impacts and verify the data submitted by the applicant.

The appointed noise consultant (Martec Environmental Consultants Ltd) have undertaken an acoustic appraisal of the applicant’s noise information and undertaken further noise measurements in accordance with ETSU-R-97 [1]. The monitoring of background noise levels at two of the same locations used by the developer tends to confirm their results, which indicates wind turbine noise levels are within the limits that ETSU-R-97 [1] would set for this location. The consultants have also confirmed that low frequency noise/infrasound emissions from the turbines is not considered a significant issue.

The Environmental Health Service therefore raises no objections to the development. However due to remaining concerns regarding the proximity of the turbines to nearby properties, three conditions are recommended to safeguard the amenities of nearby residential properties. These consist of further noise background noise assessment to be carried out in accordance with a scheme to be agreed by the local planning authority, the turbines to be fitted with a noise reduction management programmed and condition limiting the noise levels to those prescribed acceptable by ETSU-R-97 [1].

Environment Following the submission of a revised landscaping proposal, which indicates an area Agency of culverting within the blade sweep of the southern turbine in the interests of biodiversity, the EA now object to the proposal. There concerns relate to the loss of 100m of open watercourse and stream habitat. The EA consider the proposed mitigation insufficient for the length of watercourse proposed lost. The EA also indicate that EA consent for the culverting would not be granted irrespective of the granted of planning permission.

United Utilities No objections to the proposed development.

Regional Planning Based on the Schedule of Regionally Significant Planning Application Criteria 4NW Body 4NW (former does not consider this application to be Regionally Significant, which set a threshold NWRA) of 25+ megawatts total installed capacity for renewable energy schemes.

Ellel Parish Council Object to the development. Their reasons for opposition are as follows:

• Concerns regarding the proximity of the development and electromagnetic disturbance. • The Parish Council feels that there are more appropriate sites within the university that would be able to generate energy yield proposed without interfering with the visual amenities of nearby residents. • Detrimental impact on the open and rural character of the area. • The Parish Council point out that the background noise levels from the motorway will not be the same level for 24 hours – impact of noise is a concern to those nearest the turbines. • The site is adjacent to the AONB and would affect the views into and across it.

Scotforth Parish Object to the development. Their reasons for opposition are as follows: Council • The scale of the turbines are completely disproportionate to the local surroundings, they would dominate the landscape and adversely affect residents within the parish. • Issues of noise and possible interference with both TV and radio reception are a concern. • Close proximity to the motorway – distraction to drivers from both directions.

Page 9 Friends of Eden, Object to the development. Their reasons of opposition are as follows: Lakeland and Lunedale Scenery • Unacceptable proximity to neighbouring residents and as a consequence (FELLS) would significantly violate the amenity of local residents in particular the residents of the 5 properties closer than 400m to the turbines. • FELLS refer to the Sillfield appeal which was refused on the grounds of residential amenity and implies that the approval of this application would breach best practice.

AONB Joint No objections to the development. The following comments have been received: Advisory Committee • The Forest of Bowland AONB Manager has carefully considered the proposals and the comments of Natural England and the County Council in respect of impact on the AONB particularly from a landscape and ecological viewpoint. Solely from the basis of AONB purposes alone ie 'conservation and enhancement of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty' I do not feel there is sufficient grounds to object to the proposal. • I am not therefore proposing that the Forest of Bowland AONB Joint Advisory Committee raise any objection to the proposal.

CPRE Object to the development. Their reasons for opposition are as follows:

• The proposal is contrary to PPS1, PPS7 and PPS22, Policy EM1 (RSS) and Policy E1 (Lancaster Core Strategy). • The development would have an adverse impact on the quality of life of the local community and have an adverse effect on the environment, in particular the districts local landscape qualities, such as the designated areas of Morecambe Bay (Ramsar Site) and the Forest of Bowland AONB. • Proposal would not enhance or protect the regions environmental assets due to the substantial amount of woodland and hedgerow to be removed and fails to take into account the needs and wishes of the community. • CPRE have concluded the site is high to medium sensitivity where the effects of the development can not be mitigated against and land use and views will be permanently changed. • Concerns regarding the noise levels indicated in the application. • Concerns regarding the proximity of the development to the nearest residential property.

OFCOM Standard response identifying the fixed link ends(s) within or have paths that cross 500m radius of the stated turbine locations. The Submitted ES addresses all issues associated with the electrmagnetic interference. JRC (below) has also been consulted.

Joint Radio Objects to the proposal. The proposed turbine 1 (northern) could affect an adjacent Company Ltd. National Grid Gas telemetry link because the site falls within 1km of the protected link site. Negotiations regarding this matter are still ongoing but should be addressed prior to the committee meeting. The outcome of this shall be verbally presented to Members.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 The university has provided the Local Planning Authority with a number of representations received during their own public consultation process. However only the letters submitted in response to the planning application have been counted and considered.

5.2 At the time of compiling this report approximately 287 letters of objection have been received, including 1 letter of objection from a political party on the grounds of neighbour impact and visual/landscape impact. A further 4 letters of objection in response to the submitted Residential Receptor Assessment, have now been. Many of the letters are from local residents, particularly those closest to the site; however there are also letters from further afield outside the District. The Page 10 main reasons of opposition are summarised as follows:

Residential Amenity • Inappropriate scale and unacceptable siting • Concerns regarding content and methodology of Environmental Statement • Dominant, imposing and overbearing visual impact detrimental to residential amenity and exacerbated by the constantly moving blades. • Amenity concerns regarding noise, vibration and shadow flicker - many residents unconvinced by noise assessment data undertaken, particularly regarding background noise levels associated with the M6 motorway. • Health concerns relating to the constant low drones emitted by turbines and stress/depression. • The turbines are in ground breaking proximity to residential properties. Many residents have referred to minimum separation distances applied in Scotland and Wales and other European Countries. UK Noise Association recommends a minimum separate of 1mile. French Government requires a minimum distance of 1.5km from residential property; in Scotland a minimum distance of 2km is encouraged. The Companion Guide to PPS22 suggests a practical separation distance of 350m. The World Health Organisation recommends 500m. • No benefit to the local community- the only benefit of the scheme are of monetary value to the University • Loss of views across rural landscape and towards AONB

Character of Area • The turbines will be visually intrusive in the countryside and will dominate the skyline. They appear disproportionate and out of scale with the surroundings, exacerbated by their distant separation • Visual impact can not be mitigated by screening.

• Detract from the distinctive character of Bailrigg village

• Affecting views of Clougha, views across to the AONB and Sunderland Point. • Concerning regarding their cumulative impact with Caton Moor Wind Farm • The two turbines would spoil the approach to city and would detract from other important historical landmarks (Ashton Memorial). • No up-close photomontages • Will destroy views and general enjoyment of recreational walking and cycling routes

Ecology • Destruction and loss of hedgerows, woodland and habitats will have a detrimental impact on wildlife and the visual landscape. • Concerns regarding content and scope of Chapter 5 of Environmental Statement, particularly regarding bird monitoring. • Concerns that the impacts on bats, breeding birds and overwintering birds can not be fully qualified until after implementation of mitigation. • Given the close proximity to two major SSSIs concerns have been raised regarding the possibilities of unidentified specifies being affected by the development. • The mitigation of the loss of trees and woodland will take years to establish and replenish wildlife.

Highways/Safety • Development will lead to an increase risk of road traffic accidents by way of driver distraction. • Concerns regarding blade failure/blade tip disintegration and flying ice blocks, particularly given the close proximity to the M6. • Impact of increased traffic on local residents has not been considered • The turbines have been squeezed onto the site and only just meet the motorway safeguarding separation distances.

Energy Development • Inefficient energy production – concerns regarding methodology and figures provided in the Environmental Statement. • Carbon emissions produced as a result of production, transportation, construction and decommissioning of the turbines

Page 11 • Concerns regarding the precedent of this development. The proposal constitutes sporadic development – developments of this nature should be designated to wind farms such as Caton moor and Morecambe Bay or off-shore wind farms where wind source is far more efficient. • The University have not properly considered other forms of energy production saving that would have minimal impact on the environment • University should adopt better housekeeping, such as turning lights off in order to reduce energy consumption. • Turbines would affect the data collection form the Metrological Monitoring station on Hazeriggg Lane

Other Issues • Concerns regarding the level of community consultation carried out. • The wind industry is simply manipulating the issue of climate change and using the green label in order to promote its own profits. They are also capitalising on the subsidies available for renewable energy. • Unconvincing arguments regarding the chosen locations and the constraints of other sites

• Concerns that the University “flexing its corporate muscles” – using the turbines as a

marketing tool.

• Neighbours have highlighted recent appeal decisions where applications have been refused

on the grounds of loss of residential amenity where turbines are sited between 450m – 650m of nearby dwellinghouses. • Concerns regarding the interference with television reception • Adverse affect on local business (Lune Valley Kennels and Forest Hills Golf Course). Turbine 1 is only 200m from Lune Valley Kennels. • Loss of local employment if businesses are adversely affected. • Concerns relating to the adverse effects of turbines on animals (dogs, cats and horses in particular) • Loss of property values and desirability of houses within close sight of the wind turbines

5.3 There has also been a considerably amount of support for the development. At the time of compiling this report, approximately 232 letters of support have been received commenting on the wider environmental benefits of the scheme. The main reasons for support are as follows:

• The benefits of reducing the University’s carbon footprint and supporting government commitments to reduce CO2 emissions far outweigh any environmental impact (noise, visual and landscape impacts). • The University will be the first in the UK to proceed with such a significant large scale “green” energy proposal and will lead locally, regionally and nationally. The development would provide education/research opportunities. • The turbines would support the local economy through inward investment. • Demonstrates that the University and the City Council are serious about developing sustainable futures. • Helps tackle climate change • The turbines are visual pleasing and could attract visitors to the area

5.4 It is noted that of the number of the support letters have been submitted, a number are submitted by University students and employees, together with some residents from further afield within the District and outside the District. Nevertheless, these are still valid items of correspondence and are reported as such.

5.5 Despite the number of objections received and the gravity of these objections, it is also noted that many of the objectors (not all) are not opposed to the University’s commitment to reduce their carbon emissions through the development of a renewable energy scheme. However many remain extremely concerned about the scale, design and location of the proposed wind turbines.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 National, Regional and Local planning policy are relevant to this proposal. The following list is of particular relevance and shall form the principle policy framework for assessing the application: Page 12

6.2 National Planning Statements (NPS), Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and Planning Guidance Notes (PPG)

PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) sets out the Governments overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development and provides generic advice for all new development. The Government sets out four aims for sustainable development. These are: • developing strong, vibrant sustainable communities • protection of the natural and historic environment • prudent use of natural resources • promoting a strong, stable and productive economy

With regard to environmental protection, PPS1 states that a high level of protection should be given to most valued townscapes and landscapes, wildlife habitats and natural resources, conserving and enhancing wildlife species and habitats and the promotion of biodiversity. It goes on to state that planning policies should take account of environmental issues; such as the mitigation of the effects of, and adaption to, climate change through the reduction of green house gases and the use of renewable energy. Where adverse impacts are unavoidable, mitigation and compensatory measures may be appropriate.

PPS1 (Planning and Climate Change Supplement) indicates that planning has a key role to play in tackling climate change and securing progress towards the UK’s emission targets. It also states that planning authorities should provide a framework that promotes and encourages renewable and low-energy generation and as such policies should be designed to promote and not restrict renewable technologies and supporting infrastructure. Subsequently, applicants for renewable energy development should not be required to demonstrate the overall need for renewable energy, nor should the energy justification for a proposed development in a particular location be questioned.

PPS5 (Planning for the Historic Environment) now supersedes PPG15 and PPG16 in relation to the historic environment and archaeology. The Government’s overarching aim is that the historic environment and its heritage assets should be conserved and enjoyed for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations. In order to deliver sustainable development, PPS5 states that polices and decisions concerning the historic environment should:

• Recognise that heritage assets are a non-renewable resource • Take account of the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits of heritage conservation • Recognise that intelligently managed change may sometimes be necessary if heritage assets are to be maintained in the long term.

Policy HE1: Heritage Assets and Climate Change is particularly relevant. HE1.3 states that where conflict between climate change objectives and the conservation of heritage assets is unavoidable, the public benefit of mitigating the effects of climate change should be weighed against any harm to the significant of heritage assets in accordance with the development management principles in this PPS and national planning policy on climate change. Policy HE6 of PPS5 states that where an application site includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, planning authorities should require developers to provide an appropriate desk-based assessment or where appropriate a field evaluation with an application.

PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) sets out the Government’s overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all. This advice is also formally provided in PPS 4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, which supersedes certain paragraphs of PPS 7. When determining planning applications for development in the countryside, local planning authorities should continue to ensure that the quality and character of the wider countryside is protected and, where possible, enhanced. They should have particular regard to areas that have been afforded statutory designation for their landscape, wildlife or historic qualities. Major developments should not take place in these designated areas, except in exceptional circumstances. When determining planning applications for development in the countryside, planning authorities should:

Page 13 • take account of the need to protect natural resources, and; • provide for the sensitive exploitation of renewable energy sources in accordance with the policies set out in PPS22.

PPS9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) sets out planning policies on the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geological conservation though the planning system. The aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests. Where granting planning permission would result in significant harm to those interests, local planning authorities will need to be satisfied that the development cannot reasonably be located on any alternative sites that would result in less or no harm. In the absence of any such alternatives, local planning authorities should ensure that, before planning permission is granted adequate mitigation measures are put in place and appropriate compensation measures sought. PPS9 states that Ancient woodland is a valuable biodiversity resource; once lost it cannot be recreated. Planning authorities should not grant planning permission for any development that would result in its loss to deterioration unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location, would outweigh the loss of woodland habitat. Aged or ‘veteran’ tress found outside ancient woodlands are also particularly valuable for biodiversity and their loss should be avoided.

PPS22 (Renewable Energy) is the overarching national policy that sets out Governments stance on renewable energy development and positive steps towards delivering Governments commitment to tackling climate change. PPS22 sets out a number of key principles that planning authorities should adhere to when considering applications for renewable energy developments. These include:

• Renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in locations where the technology is viable and environmental, economic, and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily; • Regional and local policies should be designed to promote and encourage, rather than restrict, the development of renewable energy resources; • The wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects, whatever there scale, are materials considerations and should be given significant weight; • Planning authorities should not make assumptions about the technical and commercial feasibility of renewable energy projects; • Small-scale projects can provide a limited but valuable contribution to overall outputs of renewable energy and meeting energy needs both locally and nationally. Planning authorities should not therefore reject planning applications simply because the level of output is small;

• Developers of renewable energy projects should engage in active consultation and

discussion with local communities at an early stage in the planning process;

• Proposals should demonstrate any environmental, economic and social benefits as well as

how any environmental and social impacts have been minimised through careful

consideration of location, scale, design and other measures.

The Government has already set a target to generate 10% of UK electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010. The White Paper sets out the Government’s aspiration to double that figure to

20% by 2020. PPS 22 requires regional spatial strategies to include regional targets for renewable energy capacity in the region, and states that these targets should be expressed as the minimum amount of installed capacity. PPS22 also emphasises that the potential to generate substantial amounts of renewable energy from offshore projects should not be used as a justification to set lower targets for onshore projects.

PPS 22 has regard to the potential landscape and visual effects of renewable energy developments and states that such effects may be minimised through appropriate siting, design and landscaping.

PPS22 (Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide) offers practical advice as to how the policies contained in PPS22 can be implemented. The guide provides advice and guidance relating to a range of technologies. With regards to wind turbine development, this guidance expands and covers social and environmental benefits, together with issues such as noise, shadow flicker, landscape and visual impact, access and associated infrastructure, electromagnetic interference, ecology, historic conservation and archaeology. The companion guide should be read in conjunction with PPS22.

Page 14

PPG24 (Planning and Noise) advises local planning authorities when determining planning applications for development which will either generate noise or be exposed to existing noise sources to minimise the adverse impact of noise without placing unreasonable restrictions on development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens of business. The authority should ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance, considering carefully in each case whether proposals for new noise-sensitive development would be incompatible with existing activities. Authorities should consider whether it is practicable to control or reduce noise levels, or to mitigate the impact of noise, through the use of conditions or planning obligations. Ambient noise should be taken into account when considering the application.

PPS25 (Development and Flood Risk) requires flood risk to be taken into account at all stages of the development process. PPS25 recognises that flooding cannot be wholly prevented, but its impacts can be avoided and reduced through good planning and management.

Draft National Planning Statement (NPS) EN3 for Renewable Energy Infrastructure – Section 2.7 relates to onshore wind and reiterates the guidance contained in PPS22. It identifies the key impacts of onshore wind development as the historic environment, landscape and visual, noise, shadow flicker, and traffic and transport. This policy also lists a series of information to be provided with applications.

PPS (No Number Yet Allocated): Consultation (Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate) March 2010 – this consultation document brings together PPS1 Climate Change Supplement and PPS22 into a new draft PPS for Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate. The requirement for this is a response to a significant amount of new legislation and policy, such as the Climate Change Act 2008 and The Low Carbon Transition Plan and Renewable Energy Strategy (July 2009). The consultation document states that the planning system sets out the overall framework for development. This should help secure progress against the UK’s emissions targets, both by direct influence on energy use and emissions through, for instance, encouraging energy efficiency, and through bringing together and encouraging actions from others. Policy LCF14: Renewable and low carbon generation is most relevant and reiterates a number of the criteria in PPS22 for determining planning application for renewable energy proposals. For particular importance, it reiterates that planning authorities should not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate overall need; and that significant weight should be given to wider environmental, social and economic benefits of renewable energy projects.

6.3 North West Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) - adopted September 2008

Policy DP7 (Promote Environmental Quality) seeks to protect environmental quality by, amongst other means, respecting the character and distinctiveness of places and landscapes; maintaining and enhancing the quantity and quality of biodiversity and habitat; the protection and enhancement of the historic environment; and maintaining tranquillity of the open countryside and rural areas.

Policy EM1 (Integrated Enhancement and Protection of the Region’s Environmental Assets) - The Region’s environmental assets should be identified, protected, enhanced and managed. Schemes should deliver an integrated approach to conserving and enhancing the landscape, natural environment, historic environment and woodlands, and where proposals affect these assets then mitigation and compensation for loss or damage should be a minimum requirement. Of particular relevance is Policy EM 1 (A) which states that planning proposals should identify, protect and maintain distinctive features that contribute to landscape character in the Region. This approach recognises the importance of landscape character assessments undertaken by local authorities.

Policy DP9 (Reduce Emissions and Adapt to Climate Change) – as an urgent regional priority, plans, strategies, proposals, scheme and investment decisions should contribute to reduction ion the Regions carbon dioxide emissions form all sources in line with national targets to reduce emissions to 60% below 1990 levels by 2050. Increasing renewable energy capacity and promoting microgeneration are key measures identified to help reduce carbon emissions.

Policy EM17 (Renewable Energy) supports the development of renewable energy schemes. It states that in line with the North West Sustainable Energy Strategy, by 2010 at least 10% (rising to at least 15% by 2015 and at least 20% by 2020) of the electricity supplied in the North West should be provided from renewable energy sources. The following criteria should be taken into account but Page 15 should not be used to rule out or place constraints on the development of all, or specific types of, renewable energy technologies. The criteria includes:

• anticipated effects on local amenity resulting from development, construction and operation of schemes (e.g. air quality, atmospheric emissions, noise, odour, water pollution and disposal of waste) • acceptability of the location/scale of the proposal and its visual impact in relation to the character and sensitivity of the surrounding landscape, including cumulative impact • effect on the region’s World Heritage Sites and other national and internationally designated sites or areas, and their settings but avoiding the creation of buffer zones • effect of development on nature conservation features, biodiversity and geodiversity, including sites, habitats and species, and which avoid significant adverse effects on sites of international nature conservation importance by assessment under the Habitats Regulations • potential benefits of development on the local economy and local community • effect on agriculture and other land based industries

Policy EM18 (Decentralised Energy Supply) expects local planning authorise to provide a framework that promotes and encourages renewable and low carbon energy development in order to contribute to the achievement of regional renewable energy targets.

6.4 Saved Policies of the Lancaster District Local Plan (LDLP)- adopted April 2004

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

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

Policy E7 (Protection of Water Resources) – Development proposal which would affect an existing watercourse will only be permitted where the water quality would be maintained or improved, and there would be no significant adverse impact on the landscape, nature conservation, recreation and amenity importance of the watercourse.

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

Policy E22 (Wind Farms) – partly superseded by the Core Strategy, states that proposals for the development of wind turbines will be assessed against their impact on the character of the landscape (including cumulative impact), nature conservation, historical conservation and nearby dwellings.

Policy E35 (Conservation Areas) – development proposals which would adversely affect important views into and across a Conservation Area or lead to an unacceptable erosion of its historic form and layout, open spaces and townscape setting will not be permitted.

Policies E44-E46 (Archaeology) – development proposals should take into account archaeological considerations and the need to safeguard important sites from damage or destruction. Development proposals that would have an adverse impact on the site or setting of a scheduled ancient monument or other monument of national importance will not be permitted. Other sites of archaeological importance will also be protected. When development affecting such sites is acceptable in principle, a scheme for mitigation of damage should be secured to preserve the remains in situ, or where preservation is not justified adequate provision for investigation and

Page 16 recording before and during development will be required. An archaeological assessment and/or evaluation will be required as part of the planning application to make adequate assessment of the nature, extent and significance of the remains present and the degree to which the development is likely to affect them.

6.5 Lancaster District Core Strategy (LDCS) - adopted July 2008

Policy SC1 (Sustainable Development) seeks to ensure new development proposals are as sustainable as possible, minimise greenhouse gas emissions and are adaptable to the likely effects of climate change. This policy requires development proposals to be integrated with the character of the landscape and where appropriate enhances biodiversity. The use of renewable energy technologies and the efficient use of land (previously developed land) are measures promoted by this policy.

Policy SC3 (Rural Communities) seeks to build healthy sustainable communities by empowering rural communities to develop local vision and identity, identify and need local needs and manage change in the rural economy and landscape. Development should protect, conserve and enhance rural landscapes and the distinctive characteristics of rural settlements.

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

Policy ER7 (Renewable Energy) seeks to maximise the proportion of energy generated in the District from renewable sources where compatible with other sustainability objectives. The need for renewable energy must be balanced against landscape impacts, local amenity, habitats and species, farming and land based industries and local transport networks.

Policy ER1 (Higher and Further Education) states that Lancaster University is the Districts most important economic asset and its continued growth is important to the District and to the Region. This policy seeks to support the continued expansion of Lancaster University within the existing built- up part of the campus and, outside this area, where special justification is demonstrated.

Policy E1 (Environmental Capital) – its purpose to improve the District’s environment by:

• protecting and enhancing nature conservation sites and landscapes of national importance, Listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeological sites • minimise the use of land and non-renewable energy • resist development which would have a detrimental effect on environmental quality and properly manage environmental risks such as flooding, • ensuring that development in the city of Lancaster and other historic areas conserves and enhances their sense of place • protect and where possible enhance habitats and the diversity of wildlife species, and conserve and enhance landscape

Policy E2 (Transportation Measures) – ensuring all major development proposals are accompanied by enforceable measures to minimise and mitigate the transport impacts of development.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The principle issues for Members to consider in the determination of this application are namely:

1. The benefits and contribution that the proposal would make to achieving regional and national targets for renewable energy generation; and the extent of compliance with the national, regional and local policies listed in section 6; 2. The effects of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the landscape; and the extent of compliance with the national, regional and local policies listed in section 6; 3. The effects of the proposal upon biodiversity and habitat; and the extent of compliance with the national, regional and local policies listed in section 6; Page 17 4. The effects of the proposal upon the living conditions of nearby local residents, particularly in terms of visual impact, noise and shadow flicker; and the extent of compliance with the national, regional and local policies listed in section 6;

Other issues associated with the development will also be discussed however it is the above issues which are of particular significance.

7.2 Renewable Energy

The Climate Change Act 2008 was put in place to set legally binding targets for the UK to reduce carbon dioxide levels to 80% less than 1990 levels by 2050. The UK Government has also set a target of 10% electricity to be generated by renewable energy sources by 2010, rising to 15% by 2015 and 20% by 2020. These targets are set out in PPS22 and adopted in the RSS. The RSS provides a breakdown of these targets for each County by renewable energy type. For example in 2010 Lancashire should be generating 195MW of electricity from onshore wind turbines, increasing to 233MW in 2015. To date, the total operating capacity in Lancashire amounts to 146.8MW with an additional 9MW having the benefit of planning consent (excluding small scale and micro-generation schemes. This is a shortfall of 39.2MW to meet the 2010 targets for the County. At present the UK is not set to meet the national targets and the Region is equally unlikely to meet their targets.

The struggle to meet targets across the Country has led to the publication of the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan 2009 and the UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009, which is likely to lead to adoption of a new national planning policy - Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate, superseding PPS1’s companion guide and PPS22. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009 maps out the UK’s Government Strategy for reaching the EU target of 15% of the UK’s total energy consumption from renewable by 2020, from the current level of around 2%. It also increases electricity targets from current levels and puts greater focus on total energy consumption as well as electricity.

The above policies and targets emphasise the growing need for renewable energy installation in both the Region and the UK as a whole.

Lancaster University is the Districts most important economic asset and its continued growth is important to the District and the Region. The University are committed to UK Government targets of reducing carbon emissions and recognises that sustainability and a reduction in carbon emissions is an essential part of their future growth and development. Lancaster University’s Energy and Carbon Management Plan (2009) sets out the University’s principal strategy to manage carbon emissions in future years and has been developed as part of the Higher Education Carbon Management Programme process. In addition, the University also have a Sustainable Energy Strategy (2007) which forms part of their infrastructure Masterplan.

The total electricity consumption of Lancaster University in the year 2008/2009 was 32.3 GWh (32,300 MWh). The primary function of the proposed wind turbines is to harness wind energy to create a clean and sustainable source of electricity to replace part of the University’s grid supplied electricity. The installed capacity of the development will be 4.1MW which will generate an electrical output of approximately 10,755 MWh per annum. This represents around one-third of the University's total electrical consumption. In turn it will also prevent the release of 5743 tonnes of carbon dioxide. It is quite clear that the proposal would contribute towards meeting the RSS targets and such would conform to Regional polices EM17 and EM18, together with national and local policy.

7.3 Efficiency of Wind Energy Development

The companion guide to PPS22 indicates that the principle of harnessing wind energy by wind turbines is well established and that there is no doubt about the technical feasibility of wind power. In addition, it states that the UK is particularly well placed to utilise wind power. Unlike many universities, Lancaster University’s rural setting places it in a unique position whereby the utilisation of wind power will make for very high yielding from a sustainable energy resource and as such will make a significant contribution to the Governments targets for reducing carbon emissions.

Throughout the consultation process, one of the key objections from the public was the perceived ineffectiveness of wind technology and concerns about carbon emissions produced during the construction, transportation and installation of wind turbines. Some members of the public also Page 18 stressed that turbines of this scale should be located offshore or form part of larger wind farms. Whilst these are valid points, PPS22 clearly states that wind energy development is accepted as a vital method for meeting energy demands of the country. PPS22 also states that planning authorities should not reject planning applications simple because the level of output is small – they still provide a limited but valuable contribution towards overall outputs. Similarly, the potential to generate substantial amounts of renewable energy from offshore projects should not be used as a justification to set lower targets for onshore projects. Notwithstanding this, the points raised effectively question the validity of wind technology and their role in renewable energy production as a whole. These are not material planning considerations. Robin Brooks, the Planning Inspector on the recent Sillfield appeal reported:

“…the precise nature of climate change, the contribution that wind power can make to averting such change, its inherent efficiency, the scale of carbon dioxide savings…are matters for the political arena rather than a planning [application]”.

It is abundantly clear in current planning policy of the scale and urgency to tackle climate change. It is equally clear that the benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight in the determination of planning applications. In this context, the output from the proposal and its overall contribution to meeting regional targets for the production of energy from renewable sources is acceptable and complies with the relevant policies listed in section 6 of this report. How these benefits balance against other material considerations will be discussed in the following sections.

7.4 Landscape and Visual Impact

The applicant has carried out a thorough Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) as part of the Environment Impact Assessment and has undertaken this with regard to best practice and relevant legislation, policy and guidance using drawings showing the Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV’s), wireframe visualisations and photomontages. It is noted that the ZTV drawings and wireframes are based on bare ground conditions and as such represent the worst case scenario; they exclude any localised screening or intervening structures and therefore fail to take account of anything that lies between the viewpoint and the turbine. The use of photomontages helps illustrate a more representative view and is therefore common practice when dealing with applications of this type. The methodology employed in the submitted LVIA is considered adequate.

Firstly, it should be noted that there is a distinction between landscape impact and visual impact. The former is the degree to which the site and the immediate landscape setting can accommodate change with regard to effects on its fabric, character and quality. Visual impact of the proposal relates to how the proposal will change the character of available views and change the visual amenity of visual receptors.

The submitted LVIA identifies three main objectives:

1. to identify the effects of the development on the landscape character of the area; 2. to identify the effects of the development on the visual amenity of the area; 3. to identify any cumulative effects the development will have on visual amenity.

7.5 Landscape Character

The application site is located adjacent to the M6 motorway corridor south of Lancaster within the rolling lowland landscape of the nationally recognised Bowland Fringe and Pendle Hill landscape character area (No.33), adjacent to the Morecambe Bay and Lune Estuary character area (No.31). The key characteristics, amongst many, of the Bowland Fringe and Pendle Hill include:

• undulating rolling landscapes; • Small to medium-sized fields enclosed by well maintained hedgerows and mature trees; • Extensive semi-natural woodland, on both valley bottoms, sides and ridges; • Meandering, tree-fringed watercourses with oxbow lakes within predominantly pastoral landscape; • Dense north-south communication corridor (M6, A6, railway line and Lancaster Canal) • Small villages, hamlets, scattered farmsteads of local traditional vernacular

Page 19 The site is situated in an area which is a pinch point in the region between these two landscape characters areas and could be described as a communications corridor where transport (M6, A6 and railway), services and communications routes come together. As a consequence, transmission lines, electricity pylons, the M6 motorway form prominent features in the landscape; together with the larger buildings on the university campus (Bowland Tower) and distance views of Heysham power station.

With the exception of the above nationally recognised character areas, the site is not located within any national or regional landscape designation. It is however only 1.4km from the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The Lancashire County Council Landscape Character Assessment ‘A Landscape Strategy for Lancashire’ (2000) has provided baseline information for the submitted LVIA. This document defines a number of Landscape Character Types (LCT), which are then sub-divided into Landscape Character Areas (LCA). The development site falls within two landscape character types (LCTs). The northern half of the site falls within LCT7: Farmed Ridges and LCA7c: Langthwaite Ridge. The southern part of the site falls within LCT12: Low Coastal Drumlins and LCA12c: Carnforth–Galgate – Cockerham.

The characteristics of the two character areas are quite distinct. Langthwaite Ridge which has an orientation of north south appears relatively low in comparison to the backdrop of the Bowland Fells. The distinctive round-ridged profile with wooded sides sets it apart from the adjacent low lying drumlin field. The mix of farmland and woodland is typical of this character type and in this location is noticeably visible from distance views. The main characteristics of the Low Coastal Drumlin LCT (LCA12c) is that of low lying land extending behind the coast from Morecambe Bay between Cockerham in the south and Carnforth in the north. This landscape supports an extremely high proportion of the built up areas of Lancaster and Morecambe and as such provides a convenient transport corridor (M6, A6, and mainline Railway) which run side-by-side in a north south orientation.

The Landscape Sensitivity to Wind Energy Development in Lancashire (Lovejoy, 2005) provides strategic guidance on the sensitivity of Lancashire’s landscapes to wind energy development. The application site falls within LCT’s which are identified to have a moderate-high sensitivity to wind energy development. Notwithstanding sensitivity, the potential scale of wind energy development considered most appropriate in these LCT’s is identified as small to possibly medium scale (small scale 2-5 1.3MW+ turbines), although this is clearly subject to other material considerations and the site specific sensitivities, which may or may not demonstrate a smaller or greater capacity than that indicated in the Lovejoy report.

In terms of the effects of the development on landscape character, the applicant has demonstrated in the submitted LVIA that there would be both direct and indirect effects associated with the proposed development. The direct effects principally relate to the impacts to landscape fabric associated with the construction stages of development, access tracks, crane pads etc, but more importantly in this case the loss of hedgerows, woodland and veteran trees. This issue will be discussed in more detail in the biodiversity section of the report. Notwithstanding this, the loss of trees, woodland and hedgerows would have a significant adverse effect on the fabric of the landscape, contrary to the conclusions drawn in chapter 6 of the ES. The Councils Tree Protection Officer has objected quite strongly to the loss of the woodland commenting that the woodland provides significant historic, arboriculture and landscape value. The applicant has proposed significant mitigation for the tree loss but it is obvious, in the short term, that there will be a significant impact to the character and visual appearance of the area; the landscape/amenity value the trees provide now, if removed, cannot be replaced within a single generation.

With regards to the landscape effects of the development on the Langthwaite Ridge, it is clear there will be a substantial magnitude of change to the fabric, character and quality of the landscape within a 4km range which would result in significant indirect effects. The magnitude of change in relation to views within 5km of the Galgate-Cockerham-Carnforth LCA would be moderate leading to a major/moderate effect, again resulting in significant indirect effects.

The LVIA has also assessed the landscape effects of the development on neighbouring character areas, concluding significant landscape effects would apply to areas within approximately 5km of the site, although the composite effects for each of these character areas would not be significant.

Page 20 The areas of potential visibility within the AONB are in the southern and western parts of the designation, predominantly within 10km of the application site. Due to the close proximity of the site to the AONB the magnitude of change within 5km would range from moderate to substantial however the overall effect would not be significant. The Joint Advisory Committee for the AONB has not objected to the development. Natural England comment that there would be an effect on the AONB but not sufficient to justify a refusal. Subsequently, the likely effects on landscape value of the setting of the Forest of Bowland AONB would be considered not significant. PPS22 states that renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in locations where the technology is viable and environmental, economic, and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily. Designated landscapes are generally afforded greatest protection which in itself means sites outside of such designated areas are more likely to become under pressure to develop and when under growing pressure to support renewable energy proposals, we are going to have to accept such development in non-designated areas possible more often.

One of the key principles of PPS7 is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character. Similarly, both regional and local planning policy seek to protect and enhance environmental assets and ensure new development is scale and keeping with the character and natural beauty of the landscape, is appropriate to its surroundings. There is no doubt that the character and appearance of the landscape would fundamentally change and the countryside in this location would be significantly affected. However, the site in question does not occupy a completely uninterrupted landscape. The site is situated in a transitional landscape dominated by communications infrastructure and transport networks. The presence of large pylons, the university buildings (Bowland Tower) and the motorway on either side of the site already have a massive impact on the character of the landscape. However that said, the character of Langthwaite Ridge would dramatically change and would represent a ‘wind farm landscape’.

7.6 Visual Effects

Visual effects are concerned wholly with the effect of the development on views and the general visual amenity as experienced by people (receptors). Visual effects are assessed in relation to viewpoints, settlement, properties, tourist and recreational destination and transport routes. The proposed development will be visible from many aspects within a 5km range. The most prominent views will be from the motorway heading northbound and from nearby roads and properties within approximately 1km. The site will also be visible from the adjacent golf course and nearby public rights of way. There are a number of individual residential properties that will have clear site of the proposed turbines. The impact on residential amenity will be discussed under a separate heading.

In terms of visual landscape impact, there would be a significant localised landscape impact associated with the development. The two turbines will appear out of proportion with the small intimate character of the landscape and will dominant the skyline on approach to the site. Due to the low lying character of the landscape where the turbines will be sited, and the character of the adjacent landscape types, the turbines when viewed on approach to the city will have no backdrop and will tower above other vertical structures in the area, such as Bowland Tower and electricity pylons. As noted earlier the sensitivity to wind farm development in this location is regarded moderate – high, despite there being capacity for small scale – medium scale development. The principle of development has not raised immediate objection, however the design and scale of the proposed scheme has raised significant concerns from both the County Council Landscape Officer and Natural England. Despite a reduction to the height of the turbines (from 123.7m at the EIA scoping stage), the County Landscape Officer remains of the opinion that the site and its surrounding landscape does not have the capacity to accommodate a wind farm at the proposed scale. This in the main is due to the relatively small scale of the ridge that the development site is situated, the presence of nearby scale comparators, the landscapes inherent level of sensitivity and the small scale and complex landscape character. These concerns are considered to be exacerbated by the juxtaposition of the turbines over different levels (45AOD and 90AOD), their scale at 100m high and their wide spacing. It is clear that the position of the turbines in relation to each other is not ideal and makes it difficult to read the turbines are one scheme. However, due to site constraints the locations of the proposed turbines are not flexible and as such there is little that can be done to improve the overall design of the scheme.

In terms of the visual effects of the development from nearby settlements, both Bailrigg and Galgate shall experience a major and significant effect. The hamlet of Bailrigg is only 700m from the nearest turbine (northern) but is separated from the site from the motorway. Galgate is some 1.3km from the Page 21 turbines. The eastern edge of the settlement is most likely to be affected.

The visual impact from the motorway and adjacent roads is considered not significant. From the Lancashire Coastal Way the LVIM concludes a slight to moderate visual effect despite possible significant effects from viewpoints within 5km. It also concludes slight to moderate visual effects from national cycle route 6 and regional cycle route 90. Notwithstanding this, the overall effects on these routes would not be significant.

The impacts on landscape fabric have been carefully considered and where necessary mitigated, i.e loss of woodland. During the construction and decommissioning phases of the development there is be significant impacts on the visual appearance of the landscape, these include the large areas of hardstanding required to transport, store and install the turbines. The access track, foundation base to turbine 2 (southern) and overrun areas at the access shall be constructed using a form of grasscrete, the storage compound and spoil areas will be restored and returned back to agricultural use or incorporated into the habitat mitigation plans. The only areas of hardstanding will be the access track at the crest of the hill, which will be screened in part by the proposed planting, and the base and crane pad located at turbine 1. In the long term this impact, whilst not completely reversible, will not have a significant impact on landscape fabric.

In is understood, that landscape concerns raised by the County Landscape Officer and Natural England could be overcome, if the proposal was for one turbine on the site (the northern turbine). Notwithstanding this, as the application stands at present there would be an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside area, contrary to policy PPS1, PPS7, DP7, EM1, E4, E22, E1 and SC3.

7.7 Cumulative Landscape and Visual Effects

The proximity of the proposed turbines to other wind farms has been assessed and forms an important part of the ES. Neighbouring wind farm/turbines considered consist include Caton Moor which are located approximately 9km north east of the proposed site and the consented turbine at Dewley Cheese in Garstang, some 13km south of the proposed site. All three sites are located within different LCAs substantial distances away from one another. In view of this they are able to co-exist without transformation of landscape type and coalescence of character. No objections have been raised in respect of cumulative landscape and visual effects.

7.8 Biodiversity

One of the key aspects of the proposal is the impact the turbines will have on the biodiversity of the area having regard to the relevant legislation and policy. The proposed site comprises agricultural land dominated by grassland, which is intersected by hedgerows and partly bound by mature woodland. There is also a small stream running down the eastern boundary of the site. The site therefore provides a diverse array of habitats for both flora and fauna. The application site falls outside any special designation, however in order to facilitate turbine 2 (southern turbine) 0.39 ha of woodland has to be removed, together with 606m of hedgerow and the culverting of the stream. The ecological impacts of this alone are profound but coupled with the turbine development make this issue a significant concern in the determination of the application. In accordance with PPS9, the applicant must demonstrate where harm or damage is unavoidable, mitigation and compensation for the harm or loss must be commensurate.

In order to mitigate for the loss of veteran trees, woodland, hedgerows and open watercourses, a detailed habitat mitigation/landscaping plan and management strategy have been submitted. This indicates 0.79ha of proposed new planting, 1.74 hectares of woodland and scrub provided by natural regeneration, and approximately 1090m of hedgerow is proposed. To compensate for the loss of 3 veteran trees, 60 replacements trees are also proposed. The mitigation proposals have been designed to protect and enhance existing habitats, provide new habitats in locations far enough away from the turbines, in particular avoid the blade sweep of the turbines, and to improve habitat connectivity. All of the proposals identified have now been accepted by Natural England and the County Ecologist.

The element of the scheme which has raised most concern relates to the culverting of the stream at the southern end of the site and the potential loss of water habitat. Stream alignment was initially considered but due to the buffer zone required around the blade sweep of the turbine and the Page 22 topography of the site this was considered and unfeasible option. Alternative wetland habitats have been considered, including stream alignment and the creation of ponds elsewhere on the site, however concerns have been expressed that these could result in additional movements of birds and bats in close proximity to the blade sweep buffer zone and may pose further risks to biodiversity and as such have been discarded. One specific option considered was the creation of a pond in the triangular section of field located south west of the southern turbine. This presented a number of problems:

1. The pond (wetland habitat) would not be connected to the existing stream – loss of habitat connectively; 2. The creation of a larger pond anywhere on the site would encourage birds and bats to travel across or within the blade sweep area/buffer zone – risk to biodiversity not enhancement; 3. The triangular area of land is currently farmed by a tenant farmer. With the exception of the construction and decommission stages of the development, this section of land needs to remain in productive agricultural use. A balance needs to be made with regards to further land take to accommodate the habitat proposals.

Despite the objections received from the Environment Agency, Natural England and the County Ecologist have accepted that the culverting of the stream to the southern end of the site is the only option. As compensation for the culverting of the stream it is proposed to create an oxbow pool that will be developed to provide potential water vole habitats. Enhancements to the northern section of the stream will also provide adequate mitigation. The proposed landscape and habitat mitigation plans are significant and from a biodiversity point of view adequately compensate for the moderate- high impacts anticipated. The compensatory measures are therefore considered commensurate. In the long term it is unlikely that there would be any risk to biodiversity as a consequence of the proposed development - if anything biodiversity should be enhanced, provided the management plan is implemented, monitored and reviewed in accordance with the detail submitted. The application has adequately addressed and mitigated for the impacts on biodiversity and as such the proposal is considered compliant with PPS9 and the relevant regional and local policy listed in section 6. Conditions would be required to ensure the habitat management plan is implemented, together with conditions for tree protection, landscaping, and the felling of woodland to occur outside breeding seasons.

7.9 Visual Impact and Residential Amenity

There are a number of residential properties in very close proximity to the proposed turbines. Issues such as shadow flicker, noise and visual impact are a serious concern.

7.10 Shadow flicker

Shadow flicker is the effect of the sun shining behind rotating blades and creating an intermittent shadow inside nearby buildings. It only occurs when certain metrological, seasonal and geographical conditions prevail – as such it does not occur very often. However, when it does it can be a source of nuisance. There is no guidance available regarding what levels of shadow flicker may be considered acceptable in the UK. In the absence of this guidance, the applicant has adopted a generally accepted maximum figure of 30 minutes per day; 30 hours per year; or 30 days per year which every is the greatest. These guidelines are derived from guidance applicable in Germany. As such the applicant has suggested that a significant effect only occurs above these thresholds. The submitted ES indicates that worst case scenario and expected levels of shadow flicker at 21 receptor points. 12 of these 21 points were above the threshold and therefore could have a significant effect. Whilst the applicant suggests that the timing of the potential shadow flicker could help mitigate the significance of the phenomenon. For example, when people are generally away from home (working hours), or early in the morning when people may still be asleep. This alone is not adequate mitigation and would not prevent undue harm to residential amenity. As such, if Members are minded to approve the development, this is a matter which could be appropriately addressed by a condition. This effectively requires a control system to be employed as part of the wider turbine control system to calculate whether shadow flicker may affect a property based on pre- programmed co-ordinates for the properties and wind turbines, and the intensity of sunlight. When the control system calculates that the sunlight is bright enough to cast shadows and the turbine shadows fall on a nearby property, it automatically shuts the turbine down, restating when the shadow has moved away from the property.

Page 23 Concerns regarding light reflection can be adequately mitigated by conditioning the final colour and finish of the turbine to ensure it has an anti-reflective matt finish.

7.11 Noise

Due to the proximity of the development to nearby residential properties, the issue of noise has been a serious consideration. As such the Council appointed an independent environmental noise consultant to verify the submitted acoustic information and undertake further background noise checks.

In accordance with PPS22, the submitted noise assessments carried out by the applicant and the Council’s consultants have had regard to the methodology and guidance in ETSU-R-97. Whilst the document is ten years old, it has become the de-facto standard for assessing the noise from wind farms and as such is appropriate in this case.

PPS22 Companion guide requires that turbines should be located so that increases in ambient noise around noise-sensitive developments are kept to acceptable levels, in comparison with background noise levels. Noise from modern wind turbines, particular the RePower types indicated in the application, will be associated with aerodynamic noise only. Tonal noise from mechanical components has virtually been eliminated from modern machines.

ETSU-R-97 suggests that noise from wind energy developments in terms of 10 minute LA90 index should be limited to 5dB above prevailing background noise levels during the day (07.00h – 23.00h). During the night, the lowest night time limit for wind farm noise should be 43dB (LA90) or 5dB above night-time prevailing background noise.

In this case it is surprising now high the existing background noise is. This is clearly a consequence of being close to the M6 motorway. Many of the nearby residents have raised concerns about noise associated with the turbines and the background noise levels indicated in the ES. The consultants acting on behalf of the Council have verified the applicant’s data and from their own measurements they indicate that they would have no reason to differ from the developer’s description of the noise environment or the predictions made in ES. All nearby properties fall within the range prescribed by ETSU-R-97 and as such it is unlikely that the proposed development would have any adverse impact on nearby residents in terms of noise disturbance. Conditions can be imposed to ensure noise levels do not exceed the accepted limits. This would safeguard the residents of nearby dwellings in terms of noise.

Concerns regarding Ultra Low Frequency Sound (ULF) or infrasound are unlikely to be substantiated. The Council’s noise consultant has considered this in their report and concludes that there is no evidence that ground transmitted ULF sound from wind turbines is at sufficient levels to be above perception levels within residential properties [let alone be harmful to human health], nor that ETSU-R-97 is deficient in this respect.

7.12 Visual Impact

Due to the proximity of the turbines to nearby residential dwellings it is understandable that local residents have stressed significant concern. Unlike Scotland and Wales, there are no standard separation distances for wind turbines in relation to nearby dwellings. It is also clear form recent appeal decisions (Gargreave, Sillfield and Carlisle) that Inspectors are paying greater regard to the effects of wind turbine development on the living conditions of nearby properties, particularly within c650m from wind turbine development. With due consideration to these decisions, and by judging the submitted application on its own merits, the development is considered to have a significant impact on several nearby properties. Turbine 2 presents the greatest level of concern. Here there are six properties all virtually within 350m of the southern turbine, with the nearest property only 255m away. The case officer has visited the properties most affected by the development to assess the impact on residential amenity.

Eastrigg is positioned 255m from turbine 2 with its principle elevation, primary living windows and garden area facing directly towards the turbine. There is no doubt in this location that turbine 2 would have a significant adverse effect. The outlook from this property would be completely dominated by the 100m high rotating turbine which would be exacerbated by the removal of woodland. In view of this, the proposed turbine would be significantly detrimental to the residential Page 24 amenities of this property. There is no mitigation that would remove this concern. The northern turbine is also relatively close to the property (c 500m). At present the rear garden is not used for domestic purposes, although it could be should the occupier wish to do so, and is used for grazing sheep. If the area was utilised as garden the turbine would be clearly visible, however given that the main aspect of the garden faces east there could be mitigating factors that would regard this relationship acceptable.

1 and 2 Hazelrigg Barns are located within 279m of the southern turbine. These two properties form a group of barn conversion. For the purposes of clarification, the southern barn (no. 1) has a granny annex associated with it which forms nearest part of the dwelling to the site. The barns are positioned fronting Hazelrigg Lane with their principle elevations overlooking the landscape towards the AONB (east). The rear elevations face the application site but to a certain degree are screened by the belt of woodland which runs down the eastern boundary of the site. Notwithstanding this, the ground floor windows to the granny annex, first floor windows to the adjacent barns and private garden areas would be affected to an unacceptable degree. The turbines would be overbearing and intrusive and significantly harmful to the enjoyment of their dwellinghouses and associated garden areas. To my mind this relationship and perception of overbearingness would not diminish over time and can not be mitigated. The presence of existing woodland and outbuildings would not provide sufficient screening. At such close proximity the turbines would tower above the adjacent outbuilding buildings and woodland dominating the views from these properties and gardens to the point where living conditions would be completely blighted by the development. The northern turbine is located further away but on elevated land. This turbine will not be visible from rear or front windows but may be visible from gardens. As a consequence of the orientation of these properties this turbine alone is unlikely to cause undue impact. However the fact that both turbines will be visible in both north and south aspects from the rear gardens exacerbates the overbearing and inappropriate relationship this scheme has with these nearby residential properties.

Hazelrigg House is located 304m to the southern turbine and approximately 450m to the northern turbine. The principle aspect and primary windows of this property face east towards the AONB and south towards the application site. The garden wraps around the west and north of the property and as such will suffer the impacts of two turbines in extremely close proximity with approximately 20m difference in land levels from the northern turbine. The combination of both represents a significant impact. There are no habitable windows facing the northern turbine but several facing the southern turbine – some of which will be screened or obstructed by intervening vegetation and outbuildings on the adjacent plot however the prominence and shear presence of such large, moving structures would be severely damaging to the living condition of those residents.

Barrow Greaves Farmhouse and bungalow are located to the south of the application site beyond Hazelrigg Lane. These two properties are situated in the valley bottom with the two turbines situated on significant higher land to the north. Views from principle windows of both the bungalow and farmhouse will be adversely affect together with garden areas. The garden to Barrow Greaves is enclosed by the house itself to the east and agricultural buildings to the south and southwest. The main aspect from this garden shall face north directly up towards the proposed turbines. The southern turbine is within 356m of this property on elevated land. The main outlook from Barrow Greaves farmhouse garden would be a landscape completely dominated by wind turbine development. At this close range, this can not be regarded acceptable in planning terms.

There are a number of residential units located at Blea Tarn situated approximately 590m north east of the northern turbine at c105m AOD. The building facing the application comprises maisonette accommodation. To the rear of this building are two converted barns with a bungalow located to the east of the main building. The principle windows of the converted barns are in the large restricted from views of the turbines, other than a large window on the western barn which faces south. This is a single storey building with floor levels set lower than ground levels at Blea Tarn Farm. As such whilst the turbine will be visible from this location, there are boundary trees which wood protect intervening screening to the extent that the harm would not be significant. Beachcroft (the bungalow) is orientated west east and as such has the benefit of principle views to the east. Whilst the turbine would be visible from the access track and gardens the nature of surrounding boundary treatment and the presence of other large manmade structures in the immediate vicinity, it is unlikely the turbines would cause significant undue harm to residential amenity. Blea Tarn Farm however has principle windows facing the northern turbine. Notwithstanding this the turbines will be in peripheral vision as a large pylon immediately in front dominates views in this location. This in itself does not mitigate the impact of the turbines. It is considered in this location that the presence of Page 25 both turbines and their relationship to one another, in relatively close proximity to this property would exacerbate an already cluttered and interrupted landscape which is regarded harmful to the residential amenities of occupiers of the maisonettes at Blea Tarn Farm. The design of the turbines, i.e their separation and different heights as a response to the site contours, intensifies the concerns in this case with the turbines appeared stacked on top of each other. From both up-close and distant viewpoints in the location, amongst others, views will be obstructed by effectively the diameter of rotating blades of one turbine on top of the other.

Kit Brow and Studley Hill off Kit Brow Lane are approximately 720m south east of the application site. These properties have main garden areas and principle windows facing north and west. These properties are situated on slighted elevated land but will have both turbines in their main sight of vision, particularly from the first floor lounge and balcony of Studley Hill. In this regard, despite the 720m separation form the southern turbine, the orientation, topography and lack of intervening structures would mean the development is detrimental to their residential outlook.

In addition the above properties, there are many others that will have clear views of the wind turbines which is inevitable in an urban fringe location such as this. However the majority of these properties are over 800m from the site and generally enjoy other views from main windows and garden areas.

The applicant has provided additional residential amenity surveys in light of recent appeal decisions and the concerns raised by Officers. Equally, Officers have viewed the site from numerous properties and consider that the appearance of turbine 1 and the combination of turbine 1 and 2 from some sites would be detrimental to residential amenity. The appearance, design and scale of the turbines at close quarters, together with the motion of turbine blades would be intrusive and intimidating and would significantly detract from the enjoyment of both houses and gardens surrounding them. There is little in the way of mitigation which would resolve these concerns.

7.13 Other Matters – Highways And Access

Highway implications associated with wind turbine development are concentrated over three phases; construction; operation and maintenance and; decommissioning.

The submitted highway/traffic chapter within the ES considers all three phases. The site is situated on the eastern side of the M6 motorway, adjoining Hazelrigg Lane approximately 1.7 miles north of Junction 33 of the motorway.

The primary highway considerations relating to wind turbine development focus on the transportation of the turbines to and from the site during construction and decommissioning stages. In this case, the route shall be run from the M6, along the A6 through Galgate to the hazelrigg/A6 junction at the southern end of the University campus. This was considered the most appropriate route – leaving the M6 at junction 34 has been discounted due on inaccessible points through the centre of the city.

Highway and transportation issues are principally associated with abnormal loads; the blades come in one piece and as such require vehicles which can accommodate 41m blades. Swept path analysis has been carried as part of the proposal to demonstrate ease or adaptation required to existing road networks, to deliver the turbine parts to the site. As part of the route analysis the route from the M6 has been broken down into 9 legs. The route from the M6 to Scew Bridge (Galgate) is relatively straight forward, other than the transport vehicle overrunning opposite lanes or preventing vehicles taking-over. At Scew Bridge (West Coast main Line Masonry Arch) abnormal loads will overrun both lanes and the pedestrian kerb line. Due to the width of the road and the dimensions of the abnormal load vehicles, vehicles travelling in the opposite direction will be forced to slow down and give way for this vehicle. There is no physical impact on the network at this point, other than a street light on the western side of the road needing to be temporarily relocated and on-street parking to be regulated during transportation stages. At the junction of the A6 and Hazelrigg Lane, signals, bollards, signs and pedestrian guards will all need to be removed to allow the vehicle to overrun when manoeuvring and turning right into Hazelrigg Lane. Once on Hazelrigg Lane, the abnormal loads will predominantly extend across both lanes until the vehicles have entered the site.

The formation of the site access is noted in the proposal section of this report. The main issue associated with this is the impact this has on the character and appearance of the landscape. This has been noted in the section on landscape impact. County Highways have raised no objection to the proposal, subject to relevant conditions ensuring that the effects on the highway network during Page 26 transportation is minimised. This will require the applicant to agree a Transport Management Plan with the local planning authority.

The traffic generation associated with component transport equates to:

• 4 abnormal load vehicles for the transportation of the tower sections; • 3 abnormal load vehicles for the transportation of the turbine blades; • maximum of 3 abnormal load vehicles for the transportation of the nacelle, rotor hub and drive train; • 4 HGV vehicles for miscellaneous internal and external equipment.

There will be a in the region of 60 additional HGV trips associated with the preparation of the site (crane pads and foundations), together with approximately 20 heavy goods vehicles for the connection of the equipment to the grid.

The construction of the turbines and associated work is anticipated to take 5 months and as such, whilst there will inevitably be some disruption to the local road networks and neighbouring properties, this would be in the short term.

Operation effects mainly relate to the impact of the turbines on drivers; driver distraction. County Highways and the Highways Agency have raised no objection to the proposal. The Highways Agency is satisfied that because long range views of the turbines can be obtained there would be no adverse impact upon safety of the users of the M6 motorway. PPS22 Companion Guide states in paragraph 54 covers this issues and states: ‘At all times drivers are required to take reasonable care to ensure their own and others’ safety. Wind turbines should therefore not be treated any differently from other distractions a driver must face and should not be considered particularly hazardous’. The turbines are positioned to adhere to the required set-back distances and as such raise no highway objections. Once operational there are very few traffic movements associated with the development other than periodic checks and maintenance.

The decommissioning of the wind farm once the 25 year lifespan has been reached will take place over an estimated 3 months and will in part be a reverse of the commissioning stages of development.

7.14 Other Matters - Socio-Economic Implications

There have been a number of concerns raised regarding the impact of the development on nearby businesses, tourism and the local economy. The submitted ES has provided a thorough assessment of likely socio-economic impacts, concluding that any effects would occur at the local and regional level and are deemed to be minor and in the short term not significant. There will be clear employment opportunities associated with the development (construction, supply chain and indirect and direct financial savings it offers to the University). It is also thought that the development would contribute positively towards improvements towards the socio-economic profile of the area. There is no reason to believe that wind turbine development will adversely affect the local economy and tourism in particular. Indeed the reverse may be the case.

Concerns’ regarding the impact of wind farms on animals has been raised by nearby residents, in particular Valley View kennels and local residents with horses. Unforutnately there is no legislation or guidance regarding this matter to comment. However, it is noted in the submitted ES that the high frequency tonal noise associated with turbines, which may affect animals, is unlikely to occur in this case as noted in the noise section of this report.

With regards to tourism, there are no public rights of way affected by the development, other than those footpaths identified to experience visual effects within certain ranges of the development. The proposed golf course sits immediately adjacent to the site where the turbines will be visible. The effects of the turbines on recreation and tourism uses in the area depend on the attitude of the individual (receptor). The information provided in the ES indicates through studies undertaken that the majority of the public are in favour of generating energy from renewable sources.

Page 27 7.15 Other Matters - Archaeology/Historic Environment

The submitted ES has appropriately assessed the impacts of the development on the historic environment and archaeology to the satisfaction of the County Archaeologist submit to a condition requiring the implementation of a programme for archaeological works prior to the commencement of any works.

The indirect impacts of the installation of the turbines in relation to nearby listed buildings, Schedule Monuments, Registered Historic Parks and Conservation Areas has been undertaken within a 10km radius of the proposed site. Of the 30 sites considered, 24 may be visually impact by the development and of the 17 conservation areas study 15 may be affected. Whilst these sites are to be considered of high importance, the impact of the development would be indirect and temporary in terms of the lifespan of the landscape they sit in. As such the magnitude of the impact is considered to be small.

7.16 Other Matters - Aviation and Electromagnetic Interference

No objections have been received from the Ministry of Defence, the National Air Traffic Service, the Civil Aviation Authority or Blackpool Airport.

With regards to electronic interference, there are still ongoing discussions with the Joint Radio Company Ltd regarding interference with the adjacent National Grid Gas telemetry link. The outcome of these discussions will be verbally presented to Members.

With regards to television interference, there will be possible signal degradation 4km around each turbine to properties receiving from Lancaster broadcast station. Notwithstanding this, the best server for this area is Winter Hill not Lancaster. Winter Hill is not adversely affected and as this should not pose a problem.

8.0 Conclusions

8.1 National and regional planning policies, together with local planning policy seek to promote and encourage proposals of renewable energy development. PPS22 clearly states that the wider environmental, social and economic benefits of such proposals should be given significant weight in the determination of planning applications. However, all other material considerations must be considered and balanced against the benefits of the proposal.

There is no doubt that the proposal offers significant benefits and would wholly comply with national and regional policy with regards to its contribution towards meeting the UK’s government targets. Having regard to the submitted Environmental Statement, planning policy and the consultation responses both statutory, non-statutory and neighbouring representations, the main issues to be weighed against the proposal are:

• Landscape and Visual Impact • Ecology • Residential Amenity

8.2 One of the key principles of PPS22 requires that proposals should demonstrate how environmental and social impacts have been minimised through careful consideration of location, scale, design and other measures. Similarly, national, regional and local policies seek to ensure the Districts environmental assets are protected and enhanced and where appropriate mitigated.

The University’s application site is unfortunately constrained by a number of factors, such as habitat buffer zones and highway set-back distances, resulting in the proposed locations being virtually fixed. Whilst this may be the case, it does not necessarily indicate that they will be acceptable. Having undergone thorough consultation through the planning process, it is clear that landscape impact is one of the main concerns. A number of statutory consultees comment that the separation of the two turbines, their scale, the difference in heights as a consequence of the changes in land levels, and the presence of other vertical comparators in the landscape results in a significant effect. As set out in the analysis of this report, this results in the turbines appearing as two separate schemes and not one. The landscape is described as small, low lying, complex and intimate. There

Page 28 is no doubt that the proposed turbines will appear out of proportion with the landscape, but with pressure to preserve and protect designated areas there is going to be ever increasing pressure to develop landscapes such as this. The presence of the motorway, electricity pylons and the university campus already have an urbanising effect on this rural landscape and as a consequence it may be possible that wind turbines in this landscape could be acceptable. The principle concern relates to the design of the scheme. Both the County Landscape Officer and Natural England have suggested in their responses that the site could accommodate one turbine rather than two in order to alleviate the bulk of the landscape objections. Notwithstanding this, a significant factor to be considered is the fact that the turbines have a lifespan of 25 years and after that it likely the land will be reinstated to its former condition within reason. A recent appeal Inspector comments that ‘twenty- five years is a tiny proportion of the history of the landscape…and if landscape is to survive in the long-term future then consideration must be given to accepting shot-term harm to its character’. This is a valid point, and as such it is recommended that the short-term adverse effects on this landscape, which is already interrupted with other man-made features, is limited to a relatively small area and located outside any special designated area, and is therefore outweighed by the long-term environmental benefits of the proposal.

8.3 Despite objections from the Environmental Agency, the impacts on biodiversity are equally harmful in the short term, however the mitigation strategy proposed, together with long term management and monitoring of habitats and wildlife within the application area is considered commensurate and therefore compliant with PPS9. The loss of woodland from a visual amenity perspective is significant and one that can not be replaced within a single generation. However this loss is outweighed by the long-term environmental benefits of the proposal.

8.4 Finally, the impacts on residential amenity are considered profound particularly to the properties listed earlier in the report. Recent appeal decisions have concentrated on impacts of wind farms within generally 650m of properties and in most cases the impacts have been regarded unacceptable. The applicant has provided two cases where turbines have been located within 650m of nearby properties; one of these being the approved turbine in Garstang. There will clearly be cases where turbines will be accepted in close proximity to residential properties and others that will not, and in the absence of any specific guidance in legislation each case will have to be judged on their own merits. The proposed wind turbines are located extremely close to nearby residential dwelling. Whilst issues such as shadow flicker and noise can be appropriately addressed by condition, the issue of visual impact can not. In comparison to landscape impact, twenty-five years when consideration residential amenity is considered long-term. The proposed wind turbines would have a significant adverse effect on a number of properties, by virtue of their design, scale and shear proximity to them. The proposed wind turbines would adverse affect their living conditions to a degree that would not be outweighed by the long-term environmental benefits of the proposal.

8.5 It is clear from the above discussion that the southern turbine is the most contentious in terms of landscape character, visual impact, biodiversity and residential amenity. The northern turbine presents landscape character and residential amenity concerns when considered in context with the southern turbine. There may be an argument to suggest that one turbine at the top of the site may eliminate the many of concerns in order for the benefits to outweigh the impacts associated with this turbine.

Given the above, Members are reluctantly advised that the proposed development cannot be supported.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development, by reason of its scale, design, close proximity and visual impact, would exert a significant harmful influence on the living conditions currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents and as a consequence is contrary to PPS22 and saved polices E4 and E22 of the Lancaster District Local Plan.

Page 29 Human Rights Act

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

Background Papers

None.

Page 30 AgendaAgenda Item Item 6 Committee Date Application Number

A6 10 May 2010 10/00126/OUT

Application Site Proposal

Norman Jackson Contractors Ltd Outline application for the redevelopment of existing Scotland Road builders yard to provide retail, business and industrial Carnforth units and associated car parking Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Norman Jackson Contractors Ltd Donald K Clark Ltd

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

12 May 2010 N/A

Case Officer Mr Andrew Drummond

Departure Yes

Summary of Recommendation Approval subject to conditions

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The 0.75 hectare site is situated about 0.15km north of the main crossroads in the centre of Carnforth. There is a small office block on the east side of the site close to Scotland Road with the western half of the site utilised as a yard. These 2 uses are separated by the joiners' shop.

The site slopes downhill from east (Scotland Road) to west by about 9 metres.

1.2 The site is bordered by Scotland Road to the east, the town centre car park (by Booths supermarket) to the south, Border Aggregates to the west and north.

Vehicular access is provided from Scotland Road (A6) where the nearest bus stops are located. Additional pedestrian access is gained from Market Street via the town centre car park. This also forms the route through to Carnforth railway station, less than a 5 minute walk away.

1.3 The site falls within Scotland Road Employment Area and just to the east of Carnforth Town Centre.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The existing buildings on the site would be demolished to make way for a mixed-use development comprising a 'L' shaped 2 storey office block, a series of workshops, retail units, a service yard and a total of 93 car parking spaces.

2.2 Due to the site topography, the retail units (totalling 1,509 sq.m) would appear to be single storey from Scotland Road, but would actually form the first floor of a large building, the ground floor comprising 1,115 sq m of workshops. Though the building would be 15m high, from Scotland Road it would appear to be only 8m because the drop in levels across the site. This is only 1m higher than the existing Booths store. The width of the building would be 47m with a depth of 28m.

The 'L' shaped office block would be located in the north west corner of the site. The 3 units forming the block would be arranged over 2 storeys and provide a total of 834 sq m of B1 space. The office block would be 8m high, 23m in depth and have an overall length of 30m. Page 31

Both buildings would have a pitched roof. As this is an outline application no materials are specified at this time.

2.3 The main access would still be located on Scotland Road, but the junction alignment would be improved, as agreed with County Highways.

A car park, comprising 65 spaces, would be situated between Scotland Road and the retail units, with a further 28 spaces provided off the service yard to serve the workshops and offices. Cycle parking is also identified to the frontage of the retail units.

The service yard would be retained, albeit reduced, to the western side of the site with access gained from a spur off the main access road. This spur would also be utilised by deliveries to Booths supermarket if the scheme is permitted.

Pedestrian access would be improved from Scotland Road, with a defined crossing point created across the service yard spur road to enhance links to Market Street via the town centre car park.

2.4 The plans show limited landscaping, with new planting proposed along the north and east boundaries, and to the south of the retail unit.

3.0 Site History

3.1 One relevant application relating to this site has previously been received by the Local Planning Authority:

Application Number Proposal Decision 06/00798/FUL Remodelling of the entrance junction and reorientation of Approved the car park

4.0 Consultation Responses

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

Consultees Response County Highways The Highway Authority has the following comments:

ƒ It is recommended that a highway improvement scheme is implemented at the A6 Lancaster Road/Market Street/Scotland Road junction to upgrade the signal control to MOVA operation. ƒ The impact of site clearance and construction traffic will be very sensitive on the Air Quality Management Area in Carnforth. Conditions will be required with respect to the construction of the development site to minimize the impact and ensure safety for existing users of the site. ƒ Improvements to the northbound bus stop in Scotland Road by provision of a new shelter and possible relocation to the north side of the junction. ƒ It will be necessary for any planning permission to be conditional on the existing car park management strategy for the Booths store to be extended to include the proposed car park for the non food retail element of this application in order to prevent long stay parking in that car park. ƒ Cycle spaces (secure and covered), as well as mobility impaired and 3 motorcycle parking spaces must be provided for all proposed development at the appropriate rates. ƒ A condition of any permission should be that a Travel Plan, and any targets set therein, is agreed with County Highways ƒ Site access and provision of loading and unloading facilities to be provided prior to occupation or trading

County s106 Officer A contribution towards sustainable transport measures may be required. Page 32 Environment No objection but the Agency requires conditions relating to drainage and land Agency contamination. They also recommend that the developer considers water management, recycling materials, energy efficient buildings and sustainable forms of construction.

United Utilities No objection to the proposal provided that the following conditions are met:

• Surface water should not be allowed to discharge to foul/combined sewer. This site must be drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer. • Land drainage or subsoil drainage water must not be connected into the public sewer system directly or by way of private drainage pipes. It is the developer's responsibility to provide adequate land drainage without recourse to the use of the public sewer system. • Deep rooted shrubs and trees should not be planted in the vicinity of the public sewer and overflow systems. • A separate metered supply to each unit will be required.

Police Overall advice is that the ‘Secured by Design Commercial standard’ should be achieved for this development. The primary objective is to ensure that the overall design of the premises is such that it reduces the opportunities for crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour. Good use of natural surveillance (especially over the staff car park), lighting, CCTV (where appropriate), landscaping and external rainwater pipes will assist in achieving this standard.

Environmental The proposed development warrants specific planning controls to prevent adverse Health impacts. The following conditions are recommended:

• Hours of construction - 0800-1800 Mon to Fri and 0800-1400 Sat only • Restriction of opening hours (retail units) - 0800-2200 Mon to Sat and 0800- 1600 Sun • Hours of operation (industrial/commercial units) - 0800-1800 • Hours of deliveries - 0800-1800 • Ventilation • Odour control (industrial activities) • Odour control (cooking and food) • Commercial/industrial noise break-out • Noise assessment and control • Scheme of dust control

In terms of air quality the Service requires the installation of MOVA technology at the main crossroads in Carnforth.

Carnforth Town Recommendation to approve in principle. Council

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 No correspondence was been received at the time of compiling this report. Any comments subsequently received will be reported verbally.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and Guidance Notes (PPG)

PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) - provides generic advice for all new built development. Sites should be capable of optimising the full site boundary and should deliver an appropriate mix of uses, green and other public spaces, safe and accessible environments and visually pleasing architecture. The prudent use of natural resources and assets, and the encouragement of sustainable modes of transport are important components of this advice. This advice is echoed in Page 33 PPG 13 - Transport. A high level of protection should be given to most valued townscapes and landscapes, wildlife habitats and natural resources, conserving and enhancing wildlife species and habitats and the promotion of biodiversity.

PPS 4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth) - All planning applications for economic development should be assessed against the following impact considerations:

ƒ whether the proposal has been planned over the lifetime of the development to limit carbon dioxide emissions, and minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to, climate change; ƒ the accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport including walking, cycling, public transport and the car, the effect on local traffic levels and congestion (especially to the trunk road network) after public transport and traffic management measures have been secured; ƒ whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions; ƒ the impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area including the impact on deprived areas and social inclusion objectives; and ƒ the impact on local employment.

In terms of retail development, the emphasis is on the protection of existing town and local centres. The proposal should not have an adverse impact on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer.

PPG13 (Transport) - encourages sustainable travel, ideally non-motorised forms of transport such as walking and cycling, but also other means like public transport. The use of the car should be minimised. This can be encouraged by the location, layout and design of new developments.

6.2 Regional Spatial Strategy - adopted September 2008

Policy DP2 (Promote Sustainable Communities) - fostering sustainable relationships between homes, workplaces and other concentrations of regularly used services and facilities, improving the built and natural environment, conserving the region’s heritage, promoting community safety and security including flood risk, reviving local economies, promoting physical exercise through opportunities for sport and formal / informal recreation, walking and cycling.

Policy DP4 (Make Best Use of Existing Resources and Infrastructure) - development should accord with the following sequential approach: first, using existing buildings (including conversion) within settlements, and previously developed land within settlements.

Policy DP5 (Reduce the Need to Travel, Increase Accessibility) - development should be located so as to reduce the need to travel, especially by car, and to enable people as far as possible to meet their needs locally. All new development should be genuinely accessible by public transport, walking and cycling, and priority will be given to locations where such access is already available.

Policy DP7 (Promote Environmental Quality) - understanding and respecting the character and distinctiveness of places and landscapes, the protection and enhancement of the historic environment, promoting good quality design in new development and ensuring that development respects its setting, reclaiming derelict land and remediating contaminated land and use land resources efficiently, maximising opportunities for the regeneration of derelict or dilapidated areas, promoting green infrastructure and the greening of towns and cities.

Policy W5 (Retail development) - promote retail investment where it assists in the regeneration and economic growth of the town and city centres. In considering proposals and schemes any investment made should be consistent with the scale and function of the centre, should not undermine the vitality and viability of any other centre or result in the creation of unsustainable shopping patterns.

Policy RT2 (Managing Travel Demand) - measures to discourage car use (including the incorporation of maximum parking standards) should consider improvements to and promotion of public transport, walking and cycling. Major new developments should be located where there is good access to public transport backed by effective provision for pedestrians and cyclists to Page 34 minimise the need to travel by private car.

Policy RT9 (Walking and Cycling) - encourage the delivery of integrated networks of continuous, attractive and safe routes for walking and cycling to widen accessibility and capitalise on their potential environmental, social and health benefits.

Policy EM16 (Energy Conservation & Efficiency) - ensure that the developer's approach to energy is based on minimising consumption and demand, promoting maximum efficiency and minimum waste in all aspects of development and energy consumption.

Policy EM18 (Decentralised Energy Supply) - new non residential developments above a threshold of 1,000m² and all residential developments comprising 10 or more units should secure at least 10% of their predicted energy requirements from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources.

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

Policy S1 (Retail Hierarchy) - new shopping development, other than small local shops, will be permitted only within the identified District centres. Development will only be permitted that is appropriate to the size and function of the centre concerned.

Policy EC5 (Employments Areas) - Scotland Road in Carnforth is allocated as one of the sites for business uses within the District.

Policy EC6 (Criteria for New Employment Development) - New employment development will be permitted which makes satisfactory provision for access, servicing, cycle and car parking, is easily accessible to pedestrians and cyclists from surrounding streets, bus stops and rail stations, is appropriate to its surroundings in terms of siting, scale, design and external appearance, uses high quality facing materials and landscaping, provides screening to service yards, makes satisfactory arrangements for the disposal of sewage and wastewater, does not have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of residents and businesses, and is accompanied by a Travel Plan.

Policy T9 (Providing for Buses in New Developments) - seeks to locate development, which will significantly increase the demand for travel as close as possible to existing or proposed bus services (i.e. within a 5 minute walk or 400m).

Policy T26 and T27 (Footpaths and Cycleways) - Requirements to include cycle and pedestrian links for new schemes.

Policy R21 (Access for People with Disabilities) - requires disabled access provision.

6.4 Lancaster District Core Strategy - adopted July 2008

Policy SC1 (Sustainable Development) - Development should be located in an area where it is convenient to walk, cycle or travel by public transport between homes, workplaces, shops and other facilities, must not result in unacceptable flood risk or drainage problems, does not have a significant adverse impact on a site of nature conservation or archaeological importance, uses energy efficient design and construction practices, incorporates renewable energy technologies, creates publicly accessible open space, and is compatible with the character of the surrounding landscape.

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

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

Policy ER3 (Employment Land Allocations) - ensure that the right amount of employment land is provided in the right place to meet the needs generated by existing businesses, new businesses and inward investment. Employment uses should be located within the main urban areas of Lancaster, Morecambe and Carnforth, be located on previously developed land, be served by a realistic choice of means of transport, be accessed to the M6 via suitable roads and be accesibel to shops and community facilities. Page 35

Policy ER5 (New Retail Development) - new comparison retailing will be focused on Lancaster or central Morecambe. New local food retailing to be provided in town or local centres, or at an appropriate scale in sustainable locations in areas of deficiency.

Policy ER7 (Renewable Energy) - To maximise the proportion of energy generated in the District from renewable sources where compatible with other sustainability objectives, including the use of energy efficient design, materials and construction methods.

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

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

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 Retail / Employment Uses

The application site (Scotland Road, Carnforth) is allocated as an Existing Employment Area under Policy EC5 of the Lancaster District Local Plan. The proposed office and workshop accommodation on this sustainably located site in the town centre is supported by PPS4, saved Local Plan policies and Core Strategy policies.

The retail space proposed is intended to be divided into no more than 5 units with a minimum floorspace of 232 sq m in each. Ancillary storage and office space for the retail units can be provided within the loft space as required.

Planning policy on retail matters does seek to improve the vitality and viability of town centres. Carnforth is defined as a District Centre, but its health over the recent years has declined, with one of the factors being the out-of-centre Tesco store to the south. This proposal seeks to restore the balance of retailing to the town. However, Core Strategy policy clearly states that comparison shopping should be focused on Lancaster and Central Morecambe. Though sequentially the proposal is right on the edge of the shopping area in Carnforth, it clearly falls well outside the boundaries of Lancaster and Central Morecambe. The applicant has provided the City Council with some commentary on the matter, and though some reservations remain, a pragmatic approach to the proposal can be adopted meaning the scheme can be supported whilst preserving the rationale of relevant planning policy.

It is noted that technically the application is a departure from the Core Strategy. In essence, approving a large footprint of comparison retail in this location would go against adopted planning policy if the space was unrestricted. A number of measures are considered necessary to address this. Firstly it is important to restrict the amount of retail floorspace (net sales floorspace) to prevent extensions onto other floors of the building. Secondly, the sub-division of units is crucial. Carnforth is a District Centre, defined by smaller retail units. Though this proposal is welcomed in terms of providing retail units with internal spaces that meet modern retailers’ needs, one or more large single occupiers could have significantly different impacts which result in a materially different relationship with the existing centre. Ensuring that the development is divided into small unit (as the applicant proposes) in a diversity of uses will ensure that the development takes a form which reflects and reinforces Carnforth’s District Centre role and is not of a scale which would have an impact on wider shopping patterns within the District. The Lancaster Retail Study (paragraph 8.4) could not be clearer in stating that, given the nature and scale of Carnforth, it would be inappropriate to expand its role and range of services.

There is also a need to control the range of goods sold to limit floorspace used for the sale of goods categories which underpin the vitality and viability of the existing centre, particularly chemists goods, DIY/Hardware and also books, cycles and related goods. The key is to ensure that the new development forms a natural small extension to the existing centre. This means being characterised by diversity and having good linkages. Page 36 7.2 Design, Layout and Landscaping

The design of the proposal has been shaped following meeting between the applicant and the City Council’s Planning Service, Carnforth Town Council, Carnforth’s Chamber of Trade and CARP.

The topography of the site is difficult, but the design has made use of the ground levels to propose a mix of suitable uses whilst maintaining building heights. As such, the development is sensitively designed and of an appropriate scale.

The proposal seeks to redevelop an underused site that does little, if anything, to enhance the character of Carnforth. The site is prominent from Scotland Road, a busy artery into and out of the centre of Carnforth, and currently presents a few obsolete buildings to those passing or accessing the town’s main car park. This application proposes to retain the existing uses (builders yard with offices and workshops), but to locate them in “fit for purpose”, modern facilities to the west of the site whilst opening up the eastern half to retail development on the edge of the town’s shopping area, including an extension to the town centre car park.

It is proposed to use a similar palette of materials on the retail frontage as that on the Booths supermarket to tie the proposal in to its surroundings and town’s shopping area. The site currently does not boast of much vegetation. The submitted plans show some tree/shrub planting, mainly to the east and north boundaries with some hard and soft landscaping within the site. It also shows an area partially within the application site and partially within Booths’ ownership, for a piece of public art that could be funded by both landowners (there is currently an application pending for an extension to Booths supermarket). However, this is an outline application with all matters reserved except access, so the details on the plans in terms of materials, landscaping and public art are illustrative only.

7.3 Transport (Access, Parking and Travel Plan)

As discussed above the site falls on the edge of Carnforth’s shopping centre, just off Scotland Road (A6). This road, as well as Market Street, is operated by buses serving various routes. In addition, through the town centre car park by Booths supermarket, there is pedestrian access to the rail station. In terms of accessibility, the site is well served by public transport within a 5 minute walk.

However, it is not as accessible by car despite its proximity to the A6 due to technical difficulties with the access arrangements. This matter has been subject to a previous planning application (see site history above), and a solution has been designed in liaison with County Highways. The revised access would provide a priority right hand turning lane both within the site (to turn out of the site towards Carnforth crossroads) and also a priority right hand turning lane on the main carriageway (A6) to turn into the site (if driving along Scotland Road from the north). This solution will help cars move more freely into and out of the site. However, if the reconfiguration does not work in the future due to traffic growth, County Highways has advised that a traffic light controlled junction may be required, though this is not ideal due to its proximity to the traffic lights at the main crossroads (Kellet Road, Market Street and A6). This flexibility has been built into the design. County Highways has challenged some of the findings within the submitted Transport Assessment, especially relating to the impact of the development on queue lengths at the main crossroads in Carnforth. To assist with vehicular movements at this junction, County Highways is seeking the developer to install MOVA technology at the traffic lights of the main crossroads.

The revised access would also facilitate improvements to pedestrian access from the A6, making the bus stops easier and safer to reach on Scotland Road. A further pedestrian route is also illustrated on the submitted plans along the frontage of the proposed retail units, across the service yard access to Market Street via the town centre car park and Booths supermarket. This route should be well designed to ensure that this connection is clear, safe and well used. Connectivity such as this is strongly promoted in the new PPS4, and therefore appropriately delivered as part of this scheme if permitted.

Despite the good connections by public transport, the development will attract a number of car trips. As shown, the development proposes 93 car parking spaces (65 at the front of the site for the retail units and 28 to the rear from the offices and workshop). 4 mobility spaces are proposed within the retail car park with an acceptance that others will need to be provided if required for the offices and workshop. It will be necessary for any planning permission to be conditional on the existing car park Page 37 management strategy for the town centre car park (beside Booths supermarket) to be extended to include the proposed car park for the non food retail element of this application in order to prevent long stay parking in that car park. Equally, the car park should be phased to coincide with the operation of the retail units to prevent an extension to the existing town centre car park without associated development. As part of any reserved matters application cycle spaces (secure and covered), as well as mobility impaired (10% provision rather than just the 4 proposed) and motorcycle parking spaces must be provided for all proposed development at the appropriate rates.

The plans submitted show the pedestrian routes and the cycle storage area, and the application highlights the public transport facilities in the vicinity of the site, but these need to be utilised if the scheme is to actually deliver sustainable transport solutions. A key document to help the developer realise these aspirations is the Travel Plan. A Travel Plan was submitted with the application, but as can be seen from County Highways’ comments, further work is required in this regard.

7.4 Environmental Issues (air quality, land contamination and flooding)

A part of Carnforth’s centre has been designated as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and as such developments must be assessed for their impact upon the area. The City Council’s Environmental Health team and the Highway Authority support the use of MOVA technology at the main crossroad in Carnforth to assist with the movement of traffic, a significant contributor to the poor air quality experienced, especially on Market Street. Conditions requiring this off site highway improvement, a Construction Plan and dust control should be imposed on the permission should planning be granted to ensure that necessary measures are taken to prevent the development having an adverse impact on the AQMA.

The Environment Agency and the City Council’s Contaminated Land Officer are satisfied with the adequacy of the Geotechnical Assessment undertaken on the site by the applicant’s consultants. The latter has required 4 standard conditions in relation to land contamination to ensure that necessary measures are taken to deal with on site contamination as well as the prevention of importing or exporting contaminants.

It is proposed to use a soakaway to deal with surface water drainage. This approach is supported by United Utilities, who require foul sewerage and surface water to be drained on separate systems, and Environment Agency. The soakaway will help reduce the risk of localised flooding by limiting surface water run-off whilst also reducing the risk of contamination from flooded foul sewers.

7.5 Sustainability - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

The application is rather sketchy regarding renewable energy and energy efficiency, though the Sustainability Statement does refer to design efficiencies, waste management, BREEAM assessments, insulation, grey water use, local materials and natural ventilation. However, like all proposals of this type, to meet the requirements of RSS policy, at least 10% of the development’s predicted energy requirements should be met through on site renewable energy generation, and therefore this will be required by way of condition should planning permission be granted.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 No planning obligations are sought. The highway works shall be delivered by way of a Section 278 (s278) highway agreement.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 From the reasons discussed above, the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out overleaf. Whilst the application has been advertised as a departure from planning policy, it is considered that given the scale, location and the mixed-use nature of the proposal, the proposal does not warrant referral to the Secretary of State. If Members are minded to approve the application, they are asked to delegate authority back to the Head of Regeneration and Policy to allow for the expiry of the consultation period.

Page 38 Recommendation

That subject to delegation back to the Head of Regeneration and Policy (to allow for expiry of the consultation period and subject to no new material considerations being raised during that consultation period) and subject to a Section 278 Highway Agreement, Outline Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard planning permission timescale 2. Outline permission – all reserved matters required 3. At least 10% renewable energy condition 4. Standard landscape condition 5. Adoptable highway details required 6. Construction of new access 7. Protection of visibility splays 8. Provision of the main car park fronting Scotland Road – to be provided upon occupation of the retail units 9. Mobility car parking spaces 10. Cycle storage – details required 11. Motorcycle spaces – details required 12. Off site highway works – upgrade and relocation of the northbound bus stop on Scotland Road and installation of MOVA technology at the traffic lights on the Scotland Road/Kellet Road/Market Street junction 13. Wheel cleaning facilities – temporary during construction 14. Travel Plan – details required 15. Separate drainage system 16. Provision of interceptor – car parks 17. Amount of retail space shall not exceed 1,161 sq m (GIA) 18. The development will be maintained as at least 4 separate shop (A1) units 19. No single retail unit to take up more than 40% of the total net retail floorspace 20. No more than 20% of the total net retail floorspace shall be used for each of the following categories of goods:

(i) Pharmaceutical and medical goods, cosmetics and related goods; (ii) DIY goods, hardware, paints and glass and related goods; (iii) Books and related goods; (iv) Cycles, cycle accessories and related goods.

21. Restriction of opening hours (retail units) – 0800-2200 Mon to Sat and 0800-1600 Sun 22. Hours of operation (industrial/commercial units) – 0800-1800 23. Hours of deliveries – 0800-1800 24. Hours of construction – 0800-1800 Mon to Fri and 0800-1400 Sat only 25. Scheme for dust control 26. Standard contaminated land condition 27. Contaminated land – importation of soil, materials and hardcore 28. Contaminated land – prevention of new contamination 29. Bunding of tanks 30. Noise assessment and control 31. Commercial/industrial noise break-out 32. Scheme for odour control – cooking and food 33. Scheme for odour control – industrial activities 34. Ventilation details 35. At least 10% of predicted energy demand to be provided by on-site renewables

Page 39 Human Rights Act

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

Background Papers

None

Page 40 AgendaAgenda Item Item 7 Committee Date Application Number

A7 10 May 2010 10/00151/CU

Application Site Proposal

Land Opposite The Chestnuts Change of use of disused paddock area to provide parking area for 10 cars, grassed outdoor play area The Green and associated works

Bolton Le Sands

Carnforth

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Witherslack Care And Education Initiatives The Wright Design Partnership

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

16 April 2010 Arboriculture Impact Assessment

Case Officer Mr Daniel Ratcliffe

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approval with conditions

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The site which forms the basis of this change of use application is situated adjacent to and to the west of the A6 (Main Road). To the north of the site is Mill Lane and to the west lies The Green, which is a small modern residential estate. The property known as The Woodlands (formerly The Chestnuts) sits across The Green to the west of the site. In contrast to the small modern properties which comprise The Green, The Woodlands is an old large detached property used as a Children’s Home. The surrounding area is designated within the Bolton le Sands Conservation Area.

1.2 The site is a parcel of what has become scrubland opposite The Woodlands. The site is surrounded by a short stone wall along the Main Road and Mill Lane boundary and a timber post and rail fence along The Green boundary. There are a substantial number of mature trees within the site, predominantly along the boundary with Main Road with the remainder of the site being overgrown with long grass, dense brambles and bushes.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application proposes the change of use of the area of land formerly used as a paddock. The area is proposed to be used to provide an area of parking for staff and users, as well as an outdoor playing space to be used by the children during the better weather, in association with ‘The Woodlands’ Children’s Home.

2.2 The proposed parking area will be situated at the north end of the site. It is proposed to be 15.5 metres by 12 metres in area and will allow for the parking of 10 vehicles utilising an existing gate opening accessed from The Green. The car park surface will be finished in ‘Grasscrete’ to help minimise the visual impact. The remainder of the ‘inner circle’ of the site will be restored to a grassed area to allow for playing space.

Page 41 2.3 It is proposed that a 2.4 metre chain link fence is to be erected within the site to shield play equipment (football and tennis balls etc) from the nearby highway. Where required, such as at the existing opening along the northern boundary, the boundary wall will be repaired in matching materials.

2.4 The original application also involved the creation of a hard surfaced play area but this has been removed from the proposal due to the visual inappropriateness of this element – a matter highlighted in numerous neighbour objections.

3.0 Site History

3.1 There is no recorded history for the site referred to as the paddock. The Woodlands, has been run as a children’s home for the past 12 months.

3.2 The trees within the site, which mainly sit around the boundary, are protected in law by Tree Preservation Order Number 9 and combined with their location within the Conservation Area it is an offence to cause damage to, uproot or remove these trees without written consent of the local planning authority.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response Parish Council Concerned about the hours of use for the recreation area and possible noise nuisance to the neighbouring properties. Care should be taken to avoid impact on preserved trees. Condition planting to screen the area from the adjacent A6.

County Highways No objections subject to a condition requiring a space close to the entrance of the building should be designated for mobility use, provision of cycle storage. Cultural Services No comments received within the statutory consultation period.

Environmental No objections, hours of construction condition required. Health Tree Protection Comments regarding amended plans are awaited. Officer Initially requested that a Tree Protection Plan, Tree Constraints Plan, Arboriculture Method Statement and Landscape scheme must be submitted prior to any decision being made. Should the application be approved details of landscaping shall be agreed prior to work commencing and trees should be retained and protected, any removals must be mitigated with a replacement planting ratio of 3:1. Conservation The site is in need of enhancement. Recommends a green chain link fence as Officer opposed to a welded mesh/anti climb fence. Details to be conditioned. ‘Grasscrete’ is preferred as opposed to tarmac.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 6 letters have been received at the time of compiling this report. 3 letters object to the proposal, 2 feel the works will have some benefit but object on other matters, and 1 letter feels this is an opportunity to create a pedestrian crossing across the A6. The points contained in the letters have been summarised as follows:

ƒ Parking does at present cause obstruction to The Green ƒ The current paddock is an eyesore, overgrown and fences in a poor state of repair ƒ A pedestrian crossing be provided across the A6 ƒ Car park and playing space should not be for general use but for users of the property only ƒ Concerns over the chain link fence within the Conservation Area ƒ Already play areas within the village ƒ Magnet for young people to congregate if allowed to ƒ Too few green spaces such as this remain ƒ Trees may be damaged/removed Page 42 ƒ The car park will increase volume of traffic ƒ The play area will lead to a traffic hazard when children are playing ƒ Loss of wildlife and habitat.

5.2 A petition against the proposal containing 19 names has also been received. It may be worth noting that at the time of compiling this report all of the neighbour responses had been received prior to the plans being amended. The applicant hoped that the removal of the hard surfaced playing area from the application may allay some of these concerns. Neighbours have been consulted on the amended plans and any comments will be verbally reported.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS 5): Planning for the Historic Environment, specifically paragraph HE7.5 states that local planning authorise should take into account the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment.

6.2 Lancaster District Core Strategy (LDCS): Policy SC3 refers to Rural Communities. It states that in Rural Areas the Council will work to protect, conserve and enhance rural landscapes and the distinctive characteristics of rural settlements and also to enhance sensitive recreation.

6.3 Policy E1 refers Environmental Capital It seeks to improve the Districts Environment by applying national and regional planning policies and resisting development which would have a detrimental effect on environmental quality and public amenity.

6.4 Lancaster District Local Plan (LDLP): Policy E35 refers to Conservation Areas and their surroundings. It states that development proposals which would adversely affect important views into and across a Conservation Area or lead to an unacceptable erosion of its historic form and layout, open spaces and townscape setting will not be permitted.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The key criterion to consider relates to PPS 5 and whether this scheme would make a positive contribution to the character and distinctiveness of the Conservation Area and either preserve or enhance its setting.

7.2 It is clear that the area as it presently appears does not positively contribute to the Conservation Area. It is essentially open as paddock land, but it is overgrown and appears to be irregularly maintained. As originally submitted, the proposal would not have preserved or enhanced the Conservation Area. The provision of two areas of tarmac – one for the car park and a larger one for the play area - would have been visually intrusive. However, the removal of these elements from the scheme in favour of a grassed play area and a ‘Grasscrete’ (grassed hardstanding) car park greatly alleviates this concern.

7.3 The grassed play area will be bounded by a 2.4 metre high, green-coloured chain-link fence. This is considered a necessity in practical terms to contain ball games within the play area. The line of the fencing has been modified during discussions so that it contains only the grassed play area. The green colour of the fence will help assimilate it into the landscape, and there will of course be the potential to grow plants up against the outside of the fence in the future. The existing trees surrounding the site will help screen it further. However the precise materials and finish of the fence is a matter that the local planning authority wishes to retain a degree of control over, and so this matter is subject to an appropriate planning condition.

7.4 Given the above modifications to the scheme, it is the local planning authority’s view that the proposals are capable of preserving the Conservation Area.

7.5 The applicants maintain that the additional car parking will help resolve an ongoing problem – that of obstructive car parking along The Green. County Highways do not object to the proposal on the basis that a mobility space is provided and cycle storage/parking is also included. Both these requirements are imposed as recommended conditions.

7.6 Following the Tree Protection Officer’s initial observations, an Arboriculture Impact Assessment Page 43 (AIA) has been submitted. The report agrees that the trees within this site are of significant value to the character and setting of the Conservation Area. The trees within the site are scheduled to be retained, with some works to remove deadwood, ivy and some crown balancing. The necessary measures will be taken to protect trees and their roots during any development. Subject to the Tree Protection Officer’s further observations regarding the AIA, the standard conditions will offer protection both during construction and post-development.

7.7 A condition relating to hours of construction has also been recommended, to protect neighbouring amenity.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 None.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 The proposal strikes a balance between providing essential facilities for the Children’s Home and preserving the appearance of the Bolton-le-Sands Conservation Area. It is considered that use of land is appropriate within what is essentially a built-up area of the settlement. The application is consequently recommended for approval.

Recommendation

That Outline Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard three year permission 2. Amended plans 19th April 2010 3. Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans 4. Car parking to be associated with the Children’s Home only (for staff and/or visitors) 5. Precise location of one mobility parking 6. Materials to be agreed – boundary wall, fencing and grasscrete surface 7. Hours of construction 0800-1800 Monday to Friday, 0800-1400 Saturday 8. Cycle storage to be provided 9. Landscaping scheme to be agreed 10. Any conditions as requested by Tree Protection Officer

Human Rights Act

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

Background Papers

None.

Page 44 AgendaAgenda Item Item 8 Committee Date Application Number

A8 19 April 2010 10/00170/VCN

Application Site Proposal

A B C Lancaster (disused) Variation of condition No.17 on approved application King Street no. 08/01129/FUL to change the use class for most of Lancaster the first floor from A1 (non-food) to C1 (hotel) Lancashire Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Kempsten Ltd Alan Lamb

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

20 May 2010 N/A

Case Officer Mr Andrew Drummond

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approval

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The application site is located on the corner of King Street and Spring Garden Street. The old cinema building and bingo hall was constructed of red brick with faience panels to the King Street façade. The Spring Garden Street elevation was of solid brick, and was only broken up by a billboard.

Both King Street and Spring Garden Street are one-way roads, with the former forming part of the city's gyratory systems.

1.2 On the opposite side of Spring Garden Street is a small, surface public car park, and diagonally across King Street lies the cobbled and ‘tree-scaped’ triangular area known as Queen Square.

The properties visible from the site to the west and south are predominantly 3-4 storey Georgian terraces built in the eighteenth century with traditional stone and large sash windows. The properties immediately to the north of the site along King Street, that form a 2-storey terrace that arcs round into Common Garden Street, are inter-war construction.

Though there are numerous Listed buildings in the vicinity of the site, there are no Listed buildings actually adjacent to the site.

1.3 The site falls within the City Centre Conservation Area and within the City Centre as defined by the Local Plan in relation to retail development and uses.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The purpose of this application is to vary condition 17 attached to planning permission 08/01129/FUL. Condition 17 states; "Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning Use Classes Order 2005 (or any other order revoking or re-enacting that Order), the use of the ground and first floors (with the exception of the hotel lobby) shall be limited to Use Class A1(non- food) and shall not be used for any other purpose without the express consent of the local planning authority." The reason for this condition is to ensure that inappropriate uses do not occur within the locality, and for highway safety purposes. Page 45 2.2 It is proposed to use the majority of the first floor for C1 (hotel) use rather than A1 as it has currently got planning permission for (see 2.1 above). The proposal seeks to provide 16 new bedrooms to the first floor with the western side of the first floor being utilised as a café, which would be run by the hotel operator. This would be served by kitchen on the same level. The staff room, office and reception would be relocated from the second floor to the first, releasing space on the second floor for 3 additional bedrooms. If approved, the overall development would deliver a 134-bed hotel with an associated café, whilst retaining retail space on the ground floor.

2.3 This application does not significantly change the design, scale, form, floorspace or materials of the approved building. The minor changes are as follows:

ƒ The glazed curtain walling above the hotel entrance would be blocked off ƒ 3 new windows on the eastern elevation at first floor level ƒ 4 new windows on the northern elevation at first floor level ƒ An additional door at ground floor level on the northern elevation to serve as an emergency exit from an extra escape staircase that is required for health and safety purposes

3.0 Site History

3.1 A number of relevant applications relating to this site have previously been received by the Local Planning Authority. These include:

Application Number Proposal Decision 08/00146/CON Demolition of existing bingo hall and cinema complex Approved 08/01129/FUL Construction of a 6-storey development with A1 retail use Approved at ground and first floors with a 115 bedroom hotel at second to fifth floors 09/00628/VCN Variation of Condition 17 to allow open A1 use of the Withdrawn ground and first floor retail space 09/00787/VCN Variation of Condition 24 to allow operations or activities Approved within the ground and first floor retail space between the hours of 06.00 and 23.00 without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority 09/01109/VCN Variation of Condition 17 to allow open A1 use of the Refused ground and first floor retail space 09/01148/VCN Variation of Condition 17 to allow A4 use in Unit 4 Approved

4.0 Consultation Responses

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

Consultees Response County Highways No objections from a highway point of view.

Police No comments received during the statutory consultation period.

Environmental No objection. Health

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 No correspondence was been received at the time of compiling this report. Any comments subsequently received will be reported verbally.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and Guidance Notes (PPG)

Page 46 PPS 4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth) - All planning applications for economic development should be assessed against the following impact considerations:

ƒ Whether the proposal has been planned over the lifetime of the development to limit carbon dioxide emissions, and minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to, climate change; ƒ The accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport including walking, cycling, public transport and the car, the effect on local traffic levels and congestion (especially to the trunk road network) after public transport and traffic management measures have been secured; ƒ Whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions; ƒ The impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area including the impact on deprived areas and social inclusion objectives; and ƒ The impact on local employment.

In terms of retail development, the emphasis is on the protection of existing town and local centres. The proposal should not have an adverse impact on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer. Hotels are classified as a town centre use, and as such a sequential approach should be adopted when assessing sites for hotel uses.

6.2 Regional Spatial Strategy - adopted September 2008

Policy W5 (Retail Development) - In considering proposals and schemes any investment made should be consistent with the scale and function of the centre, should not undermine the vitality and viability of any other centre or result in the creation of unsustainable shopping patterns.

Policy W6 (Tourism and the Visitor Economy) - schemes should seek to deliver improved economic growth and quality of life, through sustainable tourism activity with a focus on Lancaster as a destination with emerging potential for heritage related tourism development, where tourism supports and compliments their status as historic towns and cities.

Policy W7 (Principles for Tourism Development) - ensure tourism proposals are of a high quality, environmentally sensitive and well-designed.

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

Policy R21 (Access for People with Disabilities) - requires disabled access provision.

6.4 Lancaster District Core Strategy - adopted July 2008

Policy ER4 (Town Centres and Shopping) - to maintain vitality and viability of the town centres by focusing comparison shopping to Lancaster City Centre as well as developing its role as a tourist destination.

Policy ER6 (Tourism) - Promote and enhance tourism development in the District by making provision for new visitor accommodation where necessary.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The permitted scheme has 2 floors of retail arranged on ground and first, with 4 storeys of hotel accommodation above. It was initially envisaged that the retail space would be let to 1 or 2 retailers who would operate over 2 floors. However, the applicant has been unable to secure such tenants despite a long and extensive marketing campaign. There seem to be 2 reasons for this. Firstly in the current market conditions retailers are generally consolidating rather than expanding. Secondly, there has been some uncertainty over the precise future of Lancaster retail centre in relation to other potential city centre developments As a result the applicant has only had interest from retailers seeking smaller footprints in a more traditional format (i.e. ground floor only).

In light of this, the applicant has looked at alternative uses for the first floor. Whilst there has been no interest for office space or sports facilities, such as a gymnasium, their hotel operator, Page 47 Travelodge, has conveyed an interest to secure more bedrooms and to furnish the hotel with a cafe. In policy terms, a hotel use is acceptable in a town centre. Though the loss of retail space in a central location such as this is unfortunate, in the circumstances its loss is acceptable. However, it is acceptable because the space is at first floor level and difficult to market, especially during a recession. The key is to maintain the retail space at ground level, which is proposed.

7.2 In design terms, the building remains very much as negotiated on the 2008 permission. A few additional windows and a door are required to the north and east elevations, but the most prominent elevations remain virtually untouched. This helps to maintain the balanced proportions of glass and stone. To achieve this, the cafe and reception wraps round the additional hotel rooms creating an active frontage as sought in the 2008 application. The only area where this cannot be achieved is on the internal wall of the office and kitchen space that faces onto King Street. As this wall is very visible from outside the building, a feature should be made of this wall by some sympathetic lighting and art work (though not advertisements). This element should be secured by way of a condition if permission is granted.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 The 08/01129/FUL permission was granted subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 (s106) agreement requiring 3 payments for:

ƒ Improvements to the Conservation Area ƒ A toucan crossing across King Street to Queen Square ƒ Improvements to the cycleway network in the vicinity of the site

The applicant has signed the s106 agreement and is making the relevant payments in accordance with the agreed timetable.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 For the reasons set out above, the variation to Condition 17 to allow the first floor of the development to be used for hotel purposes is acceptable.

Recommendation

That Condition 17 of Planning Permission 08/01129/FUL BE VARIED to allow A3 and C1 use on the first floor subject to:

1. As per drawing numbers B3320 P202A and B3320 P203A 2. The interface of the glazed curtain walling and the 2 bedroom units on the first floor above the hotel entrance - details required 3. Outer face of the kitchen/office wall - public art (non-advertising) 4. Odour control - cooking and food

Human Rights Act

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

Background Papers

None.

Agenda Item 9 Page 48 Agenda Item Committee Date Application Number

A9 10 May 2010 10/00172/FUL

Application Site Proposal

22 Emesgate Lane Erection of a single dwelling in the rear garden of Silverdale 22 Emesgate Lane, Silverdale Carnforth Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Mr Chris Newton Miss Jo Clark

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

20 April 2010 Committee Cycle

Case Officer Mr Andrew Holden

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Permission be granted subject to conditions

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The application site is located in the centre of the village of Silverdale opposite the local library off Emesgate Lane. The street frontage of the site comprises a detached two storey dwelling, No 22 with an associated open access to the north of the dwelling. A detached double garage is located to the side and rear of the main dwelling with direct access off Emesgate Lane. The application site comprises the existing vehicle access and approximately half of the substantial garden land to the rear of No. 22. The land raises approx 2.0m from the street frontage to the rear boundary and comprises predominately of open lawn.

A detached bungalow, No 24 Emesgate Lane lies to the north of the site and is separated by a substantial evergreen hedgerow and an attached garage to No 24 sitting at a lower level than the floor level of the bungalow. The eastern boundary is a stone wall with a detached bungalow approximately 25m further east at a higher level. The southern boundary is demarcated by substantial tree planting within the adjoining plot, currently an agricultural contractor’s residence and yard area. The remaining plot boundary is a newly established stone wall which separates part of the garden to No 22 into the curtilage of the adjoining property at No 20 Emesgate Lane.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application is seeking consent for the erection of a single detached dwelling with a linked single garage. The proposal is seeking to develop a three bedded dwelling, the main habitable rooms are to be located on the ground floor along with an en-suite bedroom. The upper floor accommodation comprises two double bedrooms and a separate bathroom.

The property is sited approximately midway into the original plot to No 22 Emesgate Lane, reflecting a similar set back from the street as the neighbouring dwelling at No 24. The main property is one and half storeys in height and links to a single garage via a single storey hall and utility room. The garage is to be located approximately 1.3m from the side boundary with Page 49

no 24. The main dwelling will sit 7.0m from the northern boundary. The east and southern boundary lie approximately 11.0m from the dwelling. The new dwelling is also sited approximately 16m from the main rear wall of the existing house, N0 22 Emesgate Lane.

The general footprint of the dwelling is 13m X 5.5m which reflects that of the neighbouring bungalow. The eaves height of the property is 3.7m above ground level with the ridge rising to 5.4m. The garage and linking hallway heights are 2.5m and 3.2m respectively. Externally, the dwelling has been designed with most of the window openings facing south into the new garden. The upper floor windows to the southern elevation are traditional peaked dormers. The remaining windows face either to the east again toward the new garden or are at ground floor level. The ground floor is to be dug into the rising land and is taken from the current ground levels to the rear of the existing detached garage. This excavation reduces the floor level by approx 700mm within the plot (relative to actual ground levels) and a little over 1.0m in relation to the neighbouring bungalow at No 24.

Externally, the walls are to be white render to match 22 Emesgate Lane with timber window frames. The roof covering is local slate laid to diminishing courses. New boundaries are to be natural local stone.

3.0 Site History

3.1 The site has been the subject of two relatively recent planning applications: -

Application Number Proposal Decision 04/01074/FUL Conversion of existing barn with extensions to form Granted Sept 2004 additional living accommodation and erection of a detached garage. 08/01053/OUT Outline application for the erection of a two storey Withdrawn November dwelling with garage. 2008

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response County Highways The existing access suffers from poor visibility, particularly to the left however the proposed amendments incorporating the new parking space will slightly improve the situation by moving the access away from the adjoining building. On that basis they would not wish to object, on condition that the proposed wall abutting the highway and the return wall separating the parking space from the hard standing at the entrance shall not exceed 1m in height.

The following Standard Highway Conditions should form basis for approving the application.

Boundary wall and access separation height shall not exceed 1.0m in height HW04 – Hard surfacing at highway entrance (5m) HW05 – Provision of vehicular access HW14 – Provision of vehicular turning space as per plan HW16 – Provision of garages & car parking (for new housing development)

Environmental Contaminated Land Officer – no desk study received – recommend rejection. If Health Officer approved the following conditions are requested:

• Hours of construction condition - 0800-1800 Mon to Fri, 0800-1400 Sat Radon affected area – building measures should prevent egress and concentration of radon gas. Page 50

United Utilities No objections subject to development of a separate metered supply and contacting Service enquiries over water mains/sewers. Tree Protection The site is established within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Officer Trees identified within and around the site boundaries are not subject to conservation area or tree preservation order constraints.

The proposals have identified a small group of ornamental conifer and an early- mature silver birch for removal. Removal of these trees would have no significant impact on local amenity or adverse impact on the character of the AONB. They should of course be mitigated with new planting as part of a landscape scheme within the new development.

A large, mature Scots pine has been identified for retention and protection during the proposed development period. This tree is clearly visible from the public domain and must be retained and sufficient protection afforded in compliance to BS 5837 (2005) Trees in relation to construction to ensure its health, stability and sustainability beyond the proposed development period. Potential impact upon the tree needs to be assessed.

Concludes that removal of the small area of ornamental conifer and silver birch is acceptable subject to conditions relating to the submission of a Tree Protection Plan, Tree Constraints Plan, detailed Arboriculture Method Statement for all works within the vicinity of trees to be retained, and a Landscape Scheme detailing new planting within the proposed development (include species, location, size at planting, quantity, support systems and maintenance regime for a minimum period of 5-years post planning).

Parish Council Objects to the scheme – backland development, against City Council and AONB policy. Utilises an existing vehicular access, but increases traffic which is not desirable. Not necessary development in the centre of the village.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 To date two letters of objection have been received the grounds for objection include: -

• The development is a two storey property and not a dormer bungalow; • The development would overlook number 22 to the front of the site and the adjacent bungalow, No 24; • The development is backland and unacceptable; • The location plan includes land recently sold off and separated form the site by a new stone wall; • No mention of a new private sewage scheme; • No indication of how the treatment plant would relate to adjoining septic tank; • Access onto Emesgate Lane is poor, the development of an additional dwelling will only add to the problem; • Too close a relationship to the adjoining bungalow, the garage is sited close to siting area - car fumes.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 Lancaster District Local Plan - Saved policies E3, E4 and H7

Policy E3 (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) – Development within and adjacent to the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which would either directly or indirectly have a significant adverse effect upon the character or harm the landscape quality, nature conservation interests, or features of geological importance will not be permitted. Any development must be of an appropriate scale and use materials appropriate to the area. Page 51

Policy E4 (Countryside Area) – Within the countryside development will only be permitted where it is in scale and keeping with the character and natural beauty of the landscape, is appropriate to its surroundings in terms of siting, scale, design, materials, external appearance and landscaping, would not result in a significant adverse effect on nature conservation or geological interests, and makes satisfactory arrangements for access, servicing, cycle and car parking. Policy H7 (Housing in Villages) – The policy is only partly saved and needs to be considered in conjunction of Policy SC3 of the Lancaster Core Strategy. The policy seeks to support housing which is appropriate in terms of design, density and open space and would not have a significant adverse effect upon the character of the settlement, surrounding landscape or the amenities of nearby residents. The identified villages are details in SC5 and include Silverdale.

Lancaster Core Strategy - policies SC1, SC3, SC5 and E1

SC1 (Sustainable Development) – Seeks to ensure that development proposals are as sustainable as possible

SC3 (Rural Communities) – Seeks to build healthy sustainable communities and directs housing to a limited number of rural villages which enjoy a number of key services. Silverdale is one of the indentified villages.

Policy SC5 (Achieving Quality in Design) – maintain and improve the quality of development in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and other rural areas that reflects and enhances the positive characteristics of its surroundings including the quality of the landscape.

Policy E1 (Environmental Capital) - Development should protect and enhance nature conservation sites and landscapes of national importance, Listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeological sites, minimise the use of land, resist development which would have a detrimental effect on environmental quality, properly manage environmental risks such as flooding, protect and where possible enhance habitats and the diversity of wildlife species, and conserve and enhance landscapes.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The 2008 Application

The site has been the subject of a recent outline planning application for the development of a detached dwelling in the rear garden. The application, 08/01053/OUT was submitted on the basis of a principle consent only. However, concerns were raised over the potential highway conflicts of developing a scheme with tandem entrance points and the limited visibility at the access and resulted in a recommendation for refusal by County Highways. In addition the

outline nature of the application made a detailed assessment of any development impossible and it was clear form site inspection that any application to develop this site would need to be considered in the context of a detailed submission.

Following discussion with the applicant the application was withdrawn in November 2008 but he had indicated a willingness to:-

• Replace the existing septic tank for a joint treatment plant for both dwellings. • Redesign the vehicle access to remove County Highways objections. • Submitted a detailed scheme including materials and design criteria to match the local

vernacular (limestone/slate) etc.

The current application is a result of the above and allows assessment of the full details of the scheme.

7.2 Red Edged Area for the Application

The initial application submission indicated a triangular section of garden to the south of 22 Page 52

Emesgate Lane that was to be associated garden to the original dwelling. It was commented upon by local residents that this part of the site was in practice separated from the remaining garden are by a newly built stone wall. Following discussion with the agent it became clear that this area of land whilst in the ownership of the applicant is committed to the neighbouring development adjacent to 20 Emesgate for the construction of a sheltered flat scheme approved in 2007 and part of a current application 10/00183/FUL to form a one bed dwelling at 20 Emesgate Lane.

As a consequence it was concluded that this area of land be omitted from the current application and whilst still technically in the ownership of the applicant it no longer forms part of the land currently being considered.

7.3 Access Design

The current submission has taken account of the concerns of County Highways. The access has been redesigned to develop a single shared access at the northernmost point of the street frontage. Access to the existing dwelling would be set back into the site via a gated entrance in a parking/turning courtyard to the rear of the dwelling. The driveway would be extended to the new dwelling with its associated independent parking and turning area. This arrangement is considered to slightly improve the situation by moving the access away from the adjoining building. On basis of the current arrangement, County Highways have removed the objection subject to appropriate conditions.

7.4 Relationship to Other Dwellings and Wider Village

Relationship to No. 22 Emesgate Lane – the existing dwelling has windows both to the street frontage and it rear elevation. The dwelling is ‘L’ shaped and enjoys windows to both internal elements of the ‘L’. The rear windows look out onto a private courtyard and enclosed garden area. A minimum distance has been maintained of over 20m from the rear windows to the new garden boundary wall with no direct overlooking from the windows of the new dwelling. The amenity area and parking provision for the existing dwelling are considered to be acceptable and not unduly compromised by the development. Conditions would be required to ensure that appropriate boundary treatments (both for highway visibility and privacy) are developed along with the maintenance of parking/turning provisions.

Relationship to No. 24 Emesgate Lane – the adjoining property is a true bungalow with an attached garage to its southern side. The majority of the habitable room windows face to the front and rear of the property but the dwelling does enjoy a second kitchen, a dining room window together with a porch/conservatory on the southern elevation facing the development. The floor level of the bungalow is higher than that proposed for the new dwelling by a approximately 1.0m. In order to reduce the impact upon the neighbouring property the garage has also been located closest to the dwelling and lies 5.0m from the side wall of the house and 3.0m for the conservatory. The reduced floor height to the dwelling and the garage result in the eaves of the lower garage being level with the boundary hedgerow with the roof rising above. The main dwelling has been set back further from the boundary and is to be 11.5m from the side wall of the bungalow. This distance is comparable with the requirements set down in SPG 12 The Residential Design Guide which would seek a distance of 12 m from windows. The lower floor level and reduces overall height of the new dwelling is considered to more than compensate for the 0.5m shortfall in the minimum distance.

There are three side windows to the new dwelling facing No. 24, however, these are all at ground floor and are secondary to the main windows to other less intrusive elevations. In addition, the reduced floor level and the presence of a substantial evergreen boundary hedgerow protect the adjoining property from over looking. A roof light is positioned over the upper floor bathroom but this can be controlled to be built at a height that will prevent overlooking.

Overall, it is considered that the new dwelling has an acceptable relationship with the neighbouring bungalow and whilst it will inevitable have some impact it is not unreasonable and would not be unduly detrimental to the amenities of the residential occupiers.

Page 53

Character of the Village Centre – the proposed dwelling is located in the centre of the village and will be visible behind the detached garage and original dwelling, No.22. The design of the dwelling is considered appropriate for the village location. Its materials are to match those of the neighbouring historic property. The roof form by way of pitch and design again draws inspiration from buildings located close by in the centre of the village. The house (set back from the street frontage) is not uncommon in Silverdale and reflects that of the neighbouring dwelling. Overall, the development is considered appropriate in design and form for the setting of the village.

7.5 Contaminated Land

Environmental Health has raised a formal objection to the proposal as it is not supported by a Desk Study to consider contaminated land. The request for a Desk Study in advance is considered unreasonable. The property is already garden land in association with a residential use and as such the ‘end use’ has not changed - only the scale of the garden area. It is considered that an ‘unexpected contamination’ condition could be attached to any consent instead.

7.6 Tree Protection

The development will involve the removal of a small group of ornamental trees and a small silver birch. The Tree Protection Officer has raised no objections to their removal but advises that it should be mitigated with a new planting scheme. A large scots pine is located outside the site on its southern boundary within the contractor’s yard. The location of the new dwelling has been positioned, in part, to minimise any impact upon the tree but further information has been requested from the applicant to provide an assessment of the constraints affecting the tree. These details are anticipated in time for the committee meeting.

7.7 Domestic Waste

The waste from 22 Emesgate currently flows to a basic septic tank and filters through a limestone rock base and a large soakaway area with no secondary treatment. The proposal is seeking to replace the current septic tank with a package treatment plant to serve both dwellings. This approach is favoured by the Environment Agency as it dramatically increases the quality of the outflow from the system. It is considered that there is adequate garden area to deal with any additional flows associated with the development. The agent has indicated that a ‘consent to discharge’ will be applied for prior to installation and all Environment Agency recommendations will therefore be adhered to.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 None.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 It is considered that the new dwelling can be satisfactorily located within the rear garden to No. 22 Emesgate Lane without undue impact upon either of the neighbouring residential properties or the wider street scene. The development represents an opportunity to develop a family sized house in a sustainable village location. Whilst addressing some outstanding issues in respect of foul drainage and vehicle access improvements. Subject to appropriate conditions, the application should be supported.

Recommendation

That subject to confirmation of no significant impact upon the adjacent trees that Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: : 1. Standard 3 year time limit 2. Development to be built in accordance with the approved plans 3. Amended red edged area Page 54

4. Hard surfacing at highway entrance (5m) 5. Provision of vehicular access 6. Provision and maintenance of vehicular turning spaces as per plan 7. Provision and maintenance of car parking spaces for both existing and proposed dwellings 8. Wall abutting the highway and the return wall separating the parking space from the hard standing at the entrance shall not exceed 1m in height. 9. Details of all boundary treatments including height 10. Garage to remain available for car parking 11. Hedgerow to the northern boundary to be maintained 12. Bathroom roof light height to be a minimum of 1.5m above floor level 13. Details landscaping scheme including replacement tree planting 14. Tree protection, Tree Constraints Plan, detailed Arboriculture Method Statement for all works to be submitted and agreed 15. External material to be agreed 16. Roof light details to be agreed 17. Eaves, verge and rain water goods to be agreed 18. GDO rights removed – extensions, doors and windows 19. 10% energy generation 20. Unexpected land contamination condition

Human Rights Act

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

Background Papers

None.

Page 55 Agenda Item Committee Date AgendaApplication Item Number 10

A10 10 May 2010 10/00053/FUL

Application Site Proposal

Glasson Sailing Club Retention of touring caravan for occupation by club warden and family and the change of use of land to Bodie Hill create four touring caravan pitches for sailing club members Glasson Dock

Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Glasson Sailing Club Barden Planning Consultants

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

18 March 2010 Committee cycle and Deferral for Committee Site Visit

Case Officer Petra Williams

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approve

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 This application was deferred from the last Planning Committee meeting to allow for a site visit. Members will recall the discussion of the “preserve and enhance” tests relating to the impact of the proposal on the Glasson Dock Conservation Area.

1.2 The application site relates to a relatively small grassed area of Glasson Sailing Club which is located at Fishnet Point at Glasson Dock. The site is within Glasson Conservation Area and is accessed through an industrial estate which lies to the immediate south of the site. It is these large industrial buildings which dominate the immediate area surrounding the sailing club.

1.3 The club provides storage for boats belonging to club members and boat access to the River Lune which borders the northern edges of the site. The site is not highly visible from the landward side as it is screened by industrial buildings. A clubhouse stands on the north-eastern edge of the site.

The northern edges of the site are adjacent to the River Lune estuary which is part of an area 1.4 designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Ramsar site, Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Morecambe Bay Special Protected Area (SPA).

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The retrospective aspect of this application relates to the siting of one caravan which has been occupied by an employee of the club and his wife for some time. The occupant is responsible for managing the site and site security.

2.2 The other aspect of the application is for the siting of 4 touring pitches for occasional use by club members only. The red edge relating to the proposal is tucked into the south west corner of the site and is screened by trees/planting along the eastern and southern boundary as well as an industrial building that borders the site. Page 56

3.0 Site History

3.1 The site as a whole has an extensive planning history dating back over 30 years. Historic applications relate to the erection of a boathouse, slipway, porch/conservatory extensions and several temporary permissions for use of land for camping.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response Environmental No objections – Applicant advised to apply for a site licence Health Natural England No objections – The proposal will not materially or significantly affect the protected interests. This is providing there are strict conditions to ensure that:

• Use of the caravans are for the sailing club only; • There is no creation of hard-standing or groundwork to support the caravan units; • The caravan plot does not facilitate the requirement for further services or ancillary structures; • No additional access tracks or roads are created. Highways No objections - This is a relatively minor application and Highways are not aware of any local highway problems which may result from the use providing a condition is attached which ties the 4 touring pitches to use by club members as indicated on the application form. CPRE No comments to submit on this application. Lancaster Civic No objections subject to appropriate conditions. Society Conservation No objections. Officer

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 A total of 149 objections were received, 144 of which were template letters. Objections included the following points;

• Questions were raised regarding the lack of environmental consideration and the need for an Environmental Assessment. These points will be considered in paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2.

• As there are already two existing caravan sites in the Glasson Dock area concerns were raised regarding the creation of an additional caravan park.

• The issue of the requirement of a caravan licence and the number of caravans which may be accommodated within the site (caravan licensing is a separate matter for Environmental Health).

• Concerns that the application fails to meet the planning validation criteria. Concerns included the need for a Utilities Statement providing details of how the development will connect to existing infrastructure systems; the need for an Amenity Space Provision Statement outlining the amount and type of amenity space; the need for a Loss of Open Space/Recreation Assessment.

5.2 One resident is of the opinion that the proposal is contrary to saved Policies E4 and E35 of the Lancaster District Local Plan 1996 – 2006. Saved Policy TO7 relates to New Touring Caravan Sites and was also raised as a point of issue. The issue of traffic generation and rural tourism was also raised. Concerns were also raised relating to housing and residential development. However the LPA is of the opinion that these policies are not relevant to this application. It has been questioned Page 57 whether this application is a change of use from sailing club to caravan park. The application site relates to a small area of land within the boundaries of the existing sailing club. Further more the use is considered ancillary to the existing use of the site as a sailing club.

5.3 The issue regarding a public right of way across the sailing club has also been raised. Following examination of County maps and consultation with the Highways Department it has been confirmed that a public right of way across the site does not exist.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 At the national level Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 4 – ‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’ and PPS 5 – ‘Planning for the Historic Environment’ are relevant.

Planning Policy Statement 4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth. Policy EC7 of PPS4 relates to planning for tourism in rural areas and states that local planning authorities should support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments in appropriate locations carefully weighing the objective of providing adequate facilities with the need to protect landscapes and environmentally sensitive.

PPS 5 outlines the Government’s overarching aim for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment and its heritage and states:

• In considering the impact of a proposal on any heritage asset,(e.g. conservation areas) local planning authorities should take into account the particular nature of the of the heritage asset; and,

• When considering applications for development within the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities should treat favourably applications that preserve setting.

PPS 7 establishes the Government’s objectives for rural areas and reiterates that decisions relating to development proposals should be based on sustainable development principles and ensure effective protection of the environment. A number of paragraphs of PPS7 have been superseded by PPS 4.

6.2 The principal development plan policies considered most relevant to the submitted application include the following “Saved” Policies from the Lancaster District Local Plan:

• Policy E4 relates to development within the Countryside Area and states that development will only be permitted where it is appropriate to its surroundings and has no adverse effect on nature conservation.

• Policy E5 relates to development within the open coastline and acknowledges the existing industrial activities at Glasson Dock.

• Policy E35 acknowledges the need to “preserve or enhance” conservations areas and states that proposals which would adversely affect important views into and across a conservation area or lead to an unacceptable erosion of its historic form and layout, open space and townscape setting will not be permitted.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 Procedural Matters

Contrary to some concerns raised by residents, the application does not seek a change of use from a sailing club to a caravan park. The proposal is considered to be relatively small-scale and ancillary to the existing main use of the site as a sailing club.

Page 58 It has also questioned why the local planning authority had not taken enforcement action against the Sailing Club for the siting of the residential touring caravan, which has been there for some time. However this issue was not brought to the attention of the local planning authority until January 2010. This partly retrospective application now seeks to regularise the situation.

7.2 Environmental Considerations

As ever the local planning authority has considered the requirements of “Circular 02/99: Environmental Impact Assessment” and is of the opinion that an Environmental Assessment is not required as the proposal is neither Schedule 1 nor Schedule 2 development. In light of this a scoping/screening opinion is not necessary. In terms of the Habitat Regulations the site lies outside the SPA, SAC and SSSI although it is adjacent to such sites. However the proposal is considered as minor development, of a transient nature and as such it is unlikely to have “significant impact” which would trigger the need for an Appropriate Assessment.

7.3 Conservation Area Considerations

The existing Conservation Area designation is of course a material consideration and thus it follows that the visual impact of the touring caravans upon the appearance and setting of the Conservation Area is critical. The local planning authority is of the opinion that due to the existing use and the screening of the site (the existence of a mature hedgerow and the presence of the industrial sheds and the former Custom House) there will be no detrimental impact and therefore ”preserves” the character of the Conservation Area

7.4 No hardstanding is proposed, meaning that the visual impact is negated still further. Sailing Club members would be restricted to a stay of no more than week. and due to the size constraints of the site an increase in the number of caravans would not be possible. Toilet and washing facilities are already provided in the existing clubhouse.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 There are no planning obligations to consider.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 It is considered that the siting of the caravans will not impact unduly on the surrounding Conservation Area or the adjacent coastline due to the existing use of the site, the effective existing screening and the presence of the surrounding industrial buildings.

9.2 In order to prevent inappropriate development, the occupation of the existing caravan will be tied to the site warden by condition and a further condition will be added to restrict the use of the four touring pitches to club members only. Furthermore it is recommended that permission is granted on a temporary basis only (3 years) in order for the local planning authority to review the situation at the sailing club.

9.3 The proposal is not considered to be contrary to national policy guidance and saved policies E4, E5 and E35. The proposal will not materially harm the significance of the surrounding conservation area and therefore Members are advised that the application can be supported.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Temporary 3 year consent 2. Existing caravan to be occupied by club warden and his family only 3. Four caravan touring pitches to be used by sailing club members only 4. Members restricted to a stay of no more than one week; 5. Bound guest register to be kept and made available. 6. Notwithstanding the detailed plans hereby approved, no hardstanding, groundworks or additional access or tracks to be provided

Page 59 Human Rights Act

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

Background Papers

None.

Page 60 AgendaAgenda Item Item 11 Committee Date Application Number

A11 10 May 2010 10/00212/FUL

Application Site Proposal

Land Adjacent 6 Hall Park Erection of a single detached dwelling

Hall Park

Lancaster

Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Mrs G Hardy The Wright Design Partnership

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

18 May 2010 None

Case Officer Petra Williams

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approve

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 This application has been brought before members at the request of Cllr Denwood after concerns were raised by the occupants of 2 Hall Park regarding the overbearing impact of the proposal on their property. However amended plans have since been received which appear to address these concerns.

1.2 The application site is within Hall Park which is within the residential area of Scotforth. The properties within Hall Park vary in style and age and there is a mix of two storey detached properties and chalet style bungalows. Consequently there are a range of roof styles and external materials. The subject site presents itself as a vacant plot within the street frontage off Hall Park between Nos. 2 and 6 and is former garden land, which historically belonged to a property in Eden Park to the north.

1.3 The road to the front of the site rises from east to west with the gradient increasing significantly towards the top of Hall Park. Land levels within the plot are reasonably level but increase slightly from south to north west.

1.4 The plot is generally overgrown with mature trees growing in the north eastern and south western corners. A mature hawthorn hedge forms the front boundary and there is a beech hedge situated along the majority of the eastern boundary.

1.5 The property to the west of the site (6 Hall Park) is set on significantly higher ground but has a predominantly north-south aspect, although the property has a conservatory structure which faces east across the application site. There is also window overlooking the site which is hemmed in between the rear of the integral garage and the side of the conservatory. . 1.6 The property to the east (2 Hall Park) is set slightly lower and has an east-west aspect with its rear elevation facing the application site. Due to its lower land levels there is an increased potential for Page 61 adverse impact on this property resulting from development on the application site.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application proposes a detached four-bedroomed dwelling with integral garage. The proposed dwelling is of a similar size and scale to an earlier scheme which gained approval in 2009.

3.0 Site History

3.1 An application in 2009 was given approval for the erection of a detached dwelling.

Application Number Proposal Decision 09/00049/FUL Erection of a single detached dwelling Permitted

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response Tree Protection No objection to removal of 2 trees indicated on plan. Details of replacement planting Officer scheme and maintenance regime must be agreed in writing. Comments on amended tree protection measures will be reported verbally.

United Utilities No objections subject to standard advice.

County Highways No objections – subject to conditions relating to the provision of the garages and car parking and protection of visibility splays along the site frontage.

Strategic Housing No objections.

Environmental Views awaited on this scheme. Raised concerns during the previous application Health regarding the lack of a soil contamination study. The LPA were of the opinion that at that time that as the site is former garden land in this instance the Environmental Health concerns could be addressed by condition. This is therefore the approach that the LPA will take with the current application.

Access Officer To facilitate compliance with the Building Regulations and Local Planning Policy R21 it may be necessary to swap the position of the front door and the downstairs WC so to be able to facilitate level approach and access.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 Representations received form neighbours comprise:

• No. 6 Hall Park – Concerned regarding lack of dimensions on the drawings • No.2 Hall Park – Concerned regarding overlooking and overbearing impact • No.1 Hall Park – Concerned regarding lack of dimensions, proposal forward of the building line, loss of tree to front of the site, size of the proposal in relation to the plot and first floor over the garage, Also concerned about loss of light and overlooking from front upper floor windows. • 64 Scotforth Road – Concerns regarding overlooking.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Statements - PPS 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) - sets out the overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development, advocating high quality design, accessibility to services and facilities, reducing the need to travel, inclusiveness, efficient use of land and improvements and enhancing biodiversity and landscape character. Page 62

Lancaster District Core Strategy (LDCS) – Policy SC1 (Sustainable Development) seeks to ensure that new development proposals are as sustainable as possible; in that it is convenient to walk, cycle and travel by public transport; the site is previously developed and is well integrated into the landscape and where appropriate enhances biodiversity.

Lancaster District Local Plan Saved Policy H19 – New residential development within existing housing areas should provide a high standard of amenity, make satisfactory car parking arrangements and not impact unduly on neighbouring residential amenities.

Supplementary Planning guidance Note 12: (SPG12) The Residential Design Code offers general guidance and design principles.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The submitted scheme is of a similar scale and size to one already permitted and therefore the principle of developing this site for residential use has already been established.

However, in relation to the current scheme, the local planning authority raised concerns regarding the proposed first floor over the garage were raised at an early stage with the agent. The amended plans have addressed this issue. The whole of the gable to the garage elevation has been removed. Therefore the impact of the proposal on 2 Hall Park, to the east is significantly reduced.

7.2 Siting

The scheme largely occupies the same footprint as the previous approval. There is no defined building line in this part of Hall Park due to the differing styles of properties. However the size and siting of the proposed dwelling within this plot is considered to be appropriate.

7.3 The property to the west of the site (no.6) is set significantly higher that the subject property and the depth of the proposed dwelling stops short of the line of the neighbouring conservatory in order to minimise visual impact. The east facing window of the proposed property will be in line with the proposed eaves line of the new dwelling which will be sited 5.5 metres away. It is acknowledged that the development will impact this window to some degree but this will be minimise by the lower level of the proposed dwelling and the sloping roofline away from 6 Hall Park. Eaves height of the new dwelling will be 3m immediately adjacent to no.2 Hall Park and 4.2m immediately adjacent to no.6 Hall Park and the main ridge height will be 6.7m.

7.4 The eastern side elevation will face the rear of 2 Hall Park which is set lower than the application site. The distance between the two properties (side to rear) will be 12m which is considered appropriate. The amended plans remove the gable from the east elevation which would have resulted in an overbearing form of development with regard to No.2. The amended plans now present an acceptable form of development. The beech hedge along the eastern boundary forms natural screening which will minimise overlooking towards both no.2 Hall Park and 64 Scotforth Road.

7.5 Design

The scheme as amended now largely reflects the design of the neighbouring property, no.6 Hall Park. The roof will be pitched chalet style running north south. The exterior will have a dash render finish, tiled roof and upvc windows and doors. There will be an attached garage to the eastern elevation with a tarmac drive to the front.

7.6 Trees

There are currently no legal constraints affecting trees established within the property; no tree preservation orders and the site is not established within a conservation area. A total of 6x trees have been identified. T1 - sycamore, T2 - Holly, T3 - Holly, T4 - oak, T5 - Pear and T6 - Beech. It is proposed that T5 & T6 are removed to accommodate the development and that T1-T4 are retained and protected during the development of the site.

Page 63 7.7 The beech tree (T6) is highly visible from the public highway and it makes a significant contribution to the softening, screening, and greening of the site. It has been pruned poorly in the past which has the affect of reducing the useful life potential of this tree. T5 pear has limited long term amenity value. Given this it would not be unreasonable to consider the removal of T5 & T6 and their replacement within the context of the proposed development. Replacement planting is proposed upon completion of the development however details of replacement planting scheme and maintenance regime have not been submitted. However these details can be covered by condition.

A detailed Tree Protection Plan has been received following a request by the Tree Officer. Comments on this are awaited.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 There are no planning obligations to consider in respect of this submission.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 The principle of a detached dwelling on this site has already been accepted and the submitted plans are a reworking of an existing approval. The site is within an existing residential area close to shops, services and transport routes. The receipt of amended plans has addressed all of the valid planning concerns in relation to impact. Further amended plans are awaited which will address the Access Officer concerns raised in paragraph 4.1. In reality this is a relatively straightforward amendment.

Therefore it is now felt that subject to receipt of these plans the application can be supported.

Recommendation

That Planning BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard time limit 2 Amended Plans and tree protection information 3 Development in accordance with approved plans 4 Samples of external materials and finishes to be submitted and agreed 5 Samples of hard standing material 6 Windows and doors minimum 100mm setback 7 Garage use ancillary to main dwelling 8 Obscure glazing of window to western elevation 9 Removal of permitted development rights 10 Retention of hedging along southern and eastern boundaries 11 Planting scheme 12 Provision of garages and car or parking (for new housing developments etc.) 13 Protection of visibility along site frontage (within 2m of the highway boundary) 14 Scheme to be submitted which incorporates on-site renewable energy measures to provide at least 10% of the predicted energy requirements arising from the development. 15 The development shall be designed and constructed to meet at least the standards set out in Code 3 for Sustainable Homes. 16 Details of surface water drainage to be agreed 17 Hours of construction 18 Details of a preliminary risk assessment regarding soil contamination on the site to be submitted and agreed.

Human Rights Act

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

Background Papers

1. None

Page 64 AgendaAgenda Item Item 12 Committee Date Application Number

10/00047/CU

Application Site Proposal

Newlands Farm Change of use of HGV parking area to container storage facility and display of sign. Long Dales Lane

Nether Kellet

Carnforth

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Mr & Mrs M Cowperthwaite Thomas Gill

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

2 April 2010 Committee cycle

Case Officer Mr Daniel Ratcliffe

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Refusal

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The application site is located at the corner of Long Dales Lane and Main Road to the east side of the village of Nether Kellet. To the north of the site is Hawthorns Caravan Park and to the south Dunald Mill Quarry. The application proposes the change of use of an existing Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) parking area to a container storage facility. The site consists of one detached dwelling fronting Long Dales Lane and one detached storage unit which sits to the rear of the property.

1.2 An area of land to the north of the property included which appears to be within the domestic curtilage of the property is currently set aside for the storage of trailers, machinery and other heavy goods equipment. It is this area of land which forms the basis of this application.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application proposes the change of use of an area of yard to a container storage facility. The applicant has claimed in the supporting documentation that the yard has recently ceased to be used for the parking of HGV’s and trailers in association with the applicant’s haulage business. There is evidence of some aspect of storage on the site but there is no history of an application for this type of use. From the signage on site it would also appear the dwelling on site operates as a dog grooming business.

2.2 The proposed storage container facility which effectively provide lockable space for “local small business and householders” and relates to the area north of the dwelling. The applicant has indicated his intention to store no more than twelve containers on the site. Nine of the containers will be approximately 6 metres (length) by 2.5 metres (height) and 2.5 metres (width), and three additional containers of the same size will each be split in to two. As a result the 12 containers will actually be split into 15 units. The containers will be finished/painted brown to match the nearby building.

Page 65 2.3 Access to the site, which can only be gained via Long Dales Road, will be restricted to 7.00am to 9.00pm as the site will be gated and locked from 9.00pm to 7.00am the following day. The applicant will retain two HGV’s but these will be stored elsewhere on the site. The application states that at present the predicted number of vehicles using the site per week is approximately 20 (although verification on this cannot be ascertained and clearly if the business has ceased, this may impact on that number) Should the application be approved the predicted number of vehicle movements is estimated at 50 per week.

2.4 The area proposed for storage sits below the level of the adjacent road and is largely hidden from view from the highway by a tall hedge which runs along the boundary at the road intersection.

3.0 Site History

3.1 None.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response Parish Council No comments received within the statutory consultation period

County Highways No objections

Tree Protection Recommendations: Retain Leyland Cypress hedge and no ground disturbance within Officer 3 metres Environmental No objections Health

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 None received.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas states in paragraph (iii) of its key principles… Accessibility should be a key consideration in all development decisions. Most developments which are likely to generate large number of trips should be located in or next to towns or other service centres that are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling in line with policies set out in PPG13, Transport.

6.2 Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport focuses on the sustainability of new development. It states in paragraph 28 that new development should help to create places that connect with each other sustainably, providing the right conditions to encourage walking, cycling and the use of public transport. The thrust of this policy is a reduction in the need to travel, and the promotion of more sustainable transport choices for people and for moving freight.

6.3 Lancaster District Core Strategy: Policy SC1 (Sustainable Development) seeks to ensure that new development proposals are as sustainable as possible, minimise greenhouse gas emissions and are adaptable to the likely effects of Climate Change and sets out criteria against which proposals should be assessed.

6.4 Policy E2 (Transportation Measures) partly seeks to focus development on town centres and location which offer a choice of modes of transport and resisting major development in car dependant locations.

6.5 Lancaster District Local Plan: Saved Policy E4 (Development within the Countryside) It states that development will only be permitted where it is in scale and keeping with the character and natural beauty of the landscape; is appropriate to its surroundings in terms of siting, scale, design, materials, external appearance and landscaping; would not have a significant adverse effect on Page 66 nature conservation or geological interest; and makes satisfactory arrangements for access, servicing, cycle and car parking.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 From a land use planning point of view the site is residential and not one allocated for Class B8 (storage) use. There are clear sustainability issues associated with such a development within this rural location. Supporting information submitted by the applicant predicts that there will be an estimated 50 vehicle movements per week should the proposed change of use be approved. This is in contrast with the approximate 20 (vehicle movements) per week that the applicant associates with the existing/former use as a HGV parking area.

7.2 It is considered that, irrespective of whether the existing sue has ceased or not, the location of the development is entirely unsustainable, being located in a relatively remote rural location and even outside of the centre of the nearest rural settlement. PPG13 emphasises that development creating considerable traffic generation should be located in existing centres. The proposed change of use will probably lead to use by commercial enterprises (and householders, as the applicant suggests) who need short-term and long term storage. This is apparent from the statement provided by the applicant which confirms that at present the site is used by the applicant’s son, brother and another local builder for storage of tools and materials. Evidence of this could be found at the site.

7.3 The planning authority understands that vehicular journeys are a fundamental factor of the proposed use. It is for this reason that the authority believes that, in accordance with the provisions of PPG13, intensive storage facilities such as this should be directed to more appropriate geographical and sustainable locations such as to the various industrial estates within the district, in particular Kellet Road Industrial Estate in Carnforth, which would be more accessible in relation to the local road network and closer to the nearest large rural population hub.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 None.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 Approval of 12 storage units has the potential to be a significant traffic generator. Clearly in this rural location such a development would be contrary to one of the Council’s key principles of promoting sustainable development and should be discouraged. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development will be entirely dependent on vehicular journeys both to and from the site in a rural location away from existing centres and identified areas of similar industrial use. As such the approval of the development would be contrary to Polices S1 and E2 of the Lancaster District Core Strategy and the key principles of Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas and Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport.

Human Rights Act

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

Background Papers

None.

Page 67 Agenda Item Committee Date AgendaApplication Item Number 13

A13 10 May 2010 10/00166/FUL

Application Site Proposal

4 Grasmere Road Erection of a two storey rear extension

Lancaster

Lancashire

LA1 3HE

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Mr James Halton None

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

15 April 2010 Deferral for committee site visit

Case Officer Mrs Jennifer Rehman

Departure None

Approval subject to conditions regarding external Summary of Recommendation appearance.

(i) Procedural Matters

This application has been brought back to committee following a recent decision to defer the application for a committee site visit. There are no material changes to the application since it was last considered and as such the recommendation is unchanged. The only matter of clarification which needs to be revised from the previous report is that the windows shall be upvc and not timber.

This application has been refereed to the Planning Committee by the Head of Planning Services as the applicant is a (recent) former employee of Lancaster City Council and was previously employed in Planning Services.

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The property that is the subject of this application relates to a small one-bedroom terraced property on Grasmere Road within the Freehold area of Lancaster. The application property is located at the northern most part of Grasmere Road close to the junction with Borrowdale Road.

1.2 The Freehold area of Lancaster is characterised by the grid pattern of streets and long and narrow gardens creating a pleasant spacious and green environment. The application property is the last of the two-storey properties on this section of Grasmere Road. The property is stone built under a slate roof adjoining a two-storey terrace to the south and a three storey terraced property to the north. The front elevation of the property has been extended to form a bay window and front porch. Surrounding properties are simple in form with stone surround windows and doors punctured into the front elevations. This original fenestration detail is typical to most of the properties in the Freehold area.

1.3 The topography of the site rises west to east resulting in a significant change in land levels to the rear of the property. To the rear of the property there is a small outhouse attached to the rear Page 68 elevation no bigger than 2 square metres in area. Immediately outside the rear door is a small raised concrete/stone platform forming a patio before dropping to the garden. A small, flat roof (grass roof) outbuilding is located half way down the garden with chicken pens situated beyond at the far end of the curtilage. The boundary treatment consists of privet hedgerows to both party boundaries. The property also has the benefit of a small enclosed garden area to the front. There is no allocated parking associated with this dwelling. Very few properties in the Freehold area have the benefit of off-street parking.

1.4 The site is unallocated in the District Local Plan.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 For the purposes of clarification, the application has been amended since the original submission to omit a single storey extension to the rear. Planning permission is now sought for the erection of a two-storey extension only. The extension extends the full width of the original property and projects approximately 3.2m from the original rear wall with the roof cat-sliding from the original roof slope. The concrete patio area to the rear of the property shall be excavated and the extension built into the site to provide accommodation at a lower ground floor level – this is ground level at the rear (garden area) of the site. The extension, together with refurbishment and reconfiguration of the internal layout of the property, shall convert a one-up - one-down terraced property into a two-up – two-down dwellinghouse. The extension itself will accommodate a new kitchen and a second bedroom.

2.2 The extension shall be finished in stone, under a slate roof with timber windows and doors. The application also proposes the removal of the bay window and porch to the front elevation and the reinstatement of a traditional stone surround window and a smaller porch to match the fenestration of adjacent properties in this row of properties. The proposed porch is no more than 3 square metres and is less than 3m in height. As a consequence this element of the scheme is permitted development.

3.0 Site History

3.1 No relevant site history to report.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 This is a householder application with no requirement to carry out consultation with any specific statutory consultee.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 At the time of compiling this report, two letters of objection (in response to the original scheme submitted, which involved a single storey extension beyond the two-storey element) have been received from the occupiers of 2 Grasmere Road. Their reasons for opposition have been summarised as follows:

• Proposal is excessive, out of keeping and proportion with this Victorian Terrace; • Scale of the two-storey extension would have an adverse impact on residential amenity (living rooms) – extends beyond the building line of the original terrace by 7m at the full width of the property; • Due to the proposed changes in levels and the projection from the rear wall the extension will appear overbearing and disproportionate and will result in loss of light and over shadowing to two living rooms and the garden; • Concerns about the possible loss of the existing boundary hedgerows to build and maintain this extension. This is a problem which has already occurred when the applicant constructed an outbuilding last year; • Loss of views and outlook. Replaces views and outlook of gardens and natural vegetation with a blank wall running along the boundary; • Freehold is one of the few areas that mix family and smaller houses with large gardens. These long gardens are characteristic of the area and are of historical importance. The infilling of the this space would be damaging to the ecological balance of the area, would affect natural drainage and impact on this area of open space in an otherwise dense housing Page 69 area; • The conversion and extension of this one-bedroom house to a three bedroom property on a narrow plot would work against the principles of retaining a diverse housing stock to meet local needs; • The appearance of the extension would appear distinctly odd when viewed from Borrowdale Road (where it is visible) and would obscure views of the original building line of the terrace; • Increase in size of property to three bedrooms increases the potential of additional cars needing to park on Grasmere Road, which is already heavily congested; • Concerns relating to the construction process and potential risks to neighbouring properties; • Infilling of the garden is inappropriate and detrimental to the characteristics of the Freehold area.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 The following policies are specifically relevant to the determination of this application:

Lancaster District Core Strategy

Policy E1 ‘Environmental Capital’ seeks to improve and safeguard the District’s environment by resisting development which would have a detrimental effect on environmental quality and public amenity.

Lancaster District Local Plan

Saved policy H19 seeks to ensure new residential development does not have an adverse effect on the amenities of nearby residents; provides a high standard of amenity; and would not result in the loss of greenspace.

Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 12 ‘Residential Design Code’ provides further detailed design guidance to be used when assessing householder development and new residential development.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 Whilst the neighbouring resident has referred to the loss of green space and the loss of a small affordable dwelling in an area characterised by a mix of housing types and sizes, the main issue for Members to consider relate to the impact of the development on the neighbouring residential amenity and compliance with Policy H19 and SPG 12 of the Local Plan.

7.2 The proposal seeks to upgrade and remodel a small one-bedroom property enabling it to be brought up to modern standards of living, providing an additional bedroom and living room. From a planning point of view this raises no significant issues and should be supported in principle. The concerns raised by the neighbour regarding the loss of an affordable home in the Freehold area are, in planning terms, tenuous. The applicant retains the right to develop within their curtilage, subject to the proposal being acceptable in planning terms. Moreover, the revised application now only seeks one additional bedroom and as such it cannot be considered excessive for this plot.

7.3 Residential Amenity

The primary consideration relates to the impact of the development on neighbouring residential amenity. It should be noted that the application has been significantly amended to omit the single storey element of the scheme, which extended 4m from the two-storey element at a height of 2.7m (with a flat roof). This element of the scheme has been removed due to Officers concerns regarding the impact of the development on the neighbour’s lower ground floor dining room window and their rear garden area in terms of loss of light, loss of outlook, overbearingness and overshadowing.

7.4 The application property is located between No. 2 Grasmere Road and No 6 Grasmere Road. No.2 is a larger property with its rear elevation extending approximately 1.6m beyond the rear elevation of the application property. To the other side, No.6 has a rear outrigger which appears 1 ½ storey high due to the changes in land levels and extends up to the point where the existing raised patio of the Page 70 proposed dwelling steps down towards the garden. The proposed two-storey extension extends approximately 1.6m beyond No 2’s rear elevation and in line with the furthermost rear elevation of the neighbouring outrigger. The height of the extension is higher than the neighbour’s outrigger with the rear roof slope cat-sliding down to an eaves height of 5.9m, which is approximately 0.8m higher than the adjoining outrigger and slightly higher that No.2’s first floor window cill.

7.5 The extension shall be stone faced under a slate roof in order to match the materials of the existing and adjoining dwellings - rather than being rendered. There are other extensions in this location that are rendered however given the scale of the extension and the prominence of the rear elevation from Borrowdale Road and the neighbouring property, stone facing is considered aesthetically more acceptable. The extension proposes window openings on the rear facing elevation only with no openings facing directly into neighbouring gardens.

7.6 The neighbouring residents have raised concerns about the loss of light and loss of outlook from their living room oriel window as a consequence of the proposed development. Officers have visited this property and whilst there is likely to be a view of the extension from the splayed window pane facing the application site, this would not amount to a material loss of outlook or loss of light. This oriel window is approximately 1m from the party boundary. Only a small section, albeit at a two- storeys high, of the extension will be visible from the living room space itself; obviously if standing in the bay window more of the extension will be visible. However given that the main rear window pane and the other splayed window pane of this oriel window will be unaffected by the development, the extension is unlikely to significantly adversely affect their residential amenity to warrant a refusal of planning permission. The extension has been designed to comply with the Councils 45 degree rule in order to maintain and preserve their outlook and residential amenity and as a consequence the development is considered compliant with policy H19 and SPG 12 of the Local Plan.

7.7 Character of the Area

The Freehold area of Lancaster is particularly interesting in terms of the built form, layout and the characteristically long gardens which are generally uncommon in dense urban areas. The proposed development however is unlikely to adversely affect or undermine this character. There are numerous other extensions to the rear of the terrace which area arguable less appealing than the submitted proposal. Furthermore, the extension shall be constructed in stone under slate in order to reflect the traditional materials used on the original buildings in this locality, which is a marked improvement to the many render extensions in the immediate vicinity. The development therefore conforms to the policies listed in section 6.0 of this report and is acceptable from a planning point of view.

7.8 Other Matters

The neighbour has raised specific concerns regarding the boundary hedge. The applicant has confirmed it is their intention to maintain the privet hedge as it is an attractive feature that provides both properties with a pleasant outlook. The applicant also indicates that the extension (including foundations and guttering) is wholly on their land.

7.9 Highway Issues

The application seeks one additional bedroom to the property. Such an increase is unlikely to affect highway safety in the area or significantly increase on-street parking.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 None

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 Based on the amended plans, the above considerations and regard to the representations submitted by the adjoining neighbour, the proposed development is considered acceptable from a planning point of view and as such it is recommended that Members support the proposed development.

Page 71 Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard Time Limit 2. Amended Plans 3. Samples of stone and slate to be submitted 4. Precise details of windows, doors and rooflights to be submitted

Human Rights Act

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

Background Papers

1. None

Page 72 AgendaAgenda Item Item 14 Committee Date Application Number

A14 10 May 2010 10/00266/FUL

Application Site Proposal

Vale Of Lune R U F C Phased development of the new clubhouse building

Powderhouse Lane

Lancaster

Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

The Vale of Lune RUFC Mr Alan Varley

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

17 June 2010 None

Case Officer Petra Williams

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approve subject to the receipt of amended plans

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 This site is located at the southern most tip of the North Lancashire Green Belt adjacent to the rear (north) of properties fronting Ingleborough Road, Pendle Road and Powder House Lane. It is a large rectangular shaped site containing a club house at is southern end, a first pitch, with car parking and a small stand along its western side and two second pitches across its northern half. To the east of the site are open fields rising steeply over a small hill/ridge which runs north/south along that side of the site. To the north lies the crematorium and its open, landscaped grounds, while the west side is bounded by Powder House Lane and its roadside hedges with an even larger area of open and flat sports fields beyond.

1.2 To the east of the site are open fields rising steeply over a small hill/ridge which runs north/south along that side of the site. To the north lies the crematorium and its open, landscaped grounds, while the west side is bounded by Powder House Lane and its roadside hedges with an even larger area of open and flat sports fields beyond.

1.3 Halfway along the site frontage to Powder House Lane lies a small bungalow whose small curtilage projects into the side of the site. Although this site and that on the opposite side of Powder House Lane, project into the Green Belt, both geographically and visually, they do not actually form part of its designated area.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The proposal involves the replacement of the existing stand along the western side of the site in a three-phased approach in order to provide a new clubhouse and improved facilities at the Rugby Club.

2.2 The existing car park between the pitch and Powder House Lane would be formally laid out around the new building to create 68 spaces with access only from the southern (existing) access and exit Page 73 only via the upgraded access to the north of Powder House Cottage. A further 44 spaces would be provided in a grass covered overflow car park between pitches 1 and 2. The new parking will be built as part of the third phase of the development.

The existing club house will not be demolished until the third phase is complete.

3.0 Site History

3.1 The principle for a replacement clubhouse was established in 2007 following approval of 07/00726/HYB.

Application Number Proposal Decision 07/00726/HYB Outline application for redevelopment of existing land to Permitted include 19 dwellings, rugby clubhouse, squash courts, groundsman’s store and associated landscaping

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response Police No objections subject to advice provided, which includes adopting ‘Secured by Design’ principles and ‘Park Mark Award’ principles in relation to the car parking layout.

United Utilities No objections subject to standard advice notes.

Highways No objections subject to the previous highway conditions as imposed on application 07/00726/HYB relating to road markings to Powder House Lane; cycle storage; car parking layout and the retention of visibility splays

Environmental No objections – subject to conditions relating to hours of construction; noise; odour Health control and floodlighting details.

Access Officer Raised accessibility issues – it is anticipated that these points will be addressed by amended plans

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 82 letters of support for the development which will provide improved facilities.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 Saved Policy R1 of the Lancaster District Local Plan which states that:-

"The areas identified on the Local Plan proposals map as outdoor playing space will be protected from development. Exceptionally where there is clear justification for development which would result in the loss of such space, this will be permitted only where sport and recreation facilities can best be retained and enhanced through the re-development of a small part of the site or alternative provision of equivalent community benefit is made available”.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 This application has come forward due to funding constraints currently experienced by the Vale of Lune Rugby Club which prevent them replacing the clubhouse as originally approved by application 07/00726/HYB.

7.2 This is the reason for the phased approach being proposed now. It is proposed that the existing Page 74 clubhouse will remain in operation until completion of phase three. The existing spectator stand is in a very poor condition and the club has highlighted the need for improved, modern facilities as the existing stand and changing rooms are outdated and no longer fit for purpose.

In terms of highway issues there are no deviations from the already approved proposal regarding access and parking arrangements relating to the clubhouse which will not be implemented until the final phase. Therefore the existing parking provision on site shall remain until Phase 3 is implemented.

7.3 Materials and Finishes – All Phases

The application proposes a monopitched two-storey structure similar to that previously approved. The ground floor external walls of the clubhouse will be finished in rough cast render with a natural grey colour. The second floor external walls will be finished in timber cedar boarding with a stain finish. The proposed roof is slate grey coloured coated metal decking. The windows are white coloured slim section upvc. The second floor balcony will be a painted metal framework with stainless steel guarding and glass infill panels. The external doors will be painted metal with the entrance doors stained timber. Larger windows will be located on the eastern side of the building facing the pitch in order to eliminate potential for overlooking of Powder House Cottage.

7.3 Phase 1 of the Development

Phase 1 of the new clubhouse comprises approximately two thirds of the ground floor. The submitted plans indicate that Phase 1 will be 27.1 metres long by 16.55 metres wide. This phase is single storey and will be covered in a monopitch grey powder coated metal roof, similar to the roof design for the fully completed building. This phase will provide new changing and shower facilities for players.

7.4 Phase 2

Phase 2 of the clubhouse comprises a further ground floor extension to Phase 1. This extension is to the south elevation and increases the length of the building by a further 10.8 metres to 37.9 metres. The width of the building will remain unchanged and the roof to Phase 2 will match the Phase 1 roof. This phase will provide a bar/lounge area for club members.

7.5 Phase 3

Phase 3 comprises the addition of a first floor above the Phase 1 and 2 ground floor. It also comprises a staircase to the north and south elevations. The first storey will be roofed in a monopitch metal roof. This phase will include function room facilities. Phase 3 also includes the new parking layout. In terms of design the final phase would result in a new clubhouse which falls short of the standard put forward in the previous scheme.

7.6 Design

The key issue is one of design detail which in terms of quality differs significantly to the 2007 approval, which was for a new clubhouse building which was contemporary in design with an exposed steel frame in dark grey and dark grey rendered walls, a combination of timber and grey UPC cladding panels and a light grey standing roof with white structural supports for the overhangs at each end. The local planning authority considers the previous scheme to be superior in design terms that the current proposal.

This matter has been raised with the applicant who has agreed to the submission of amended plans in order to progress the application to a favourable conclusion. The applicant has indicated that the facilities need to be operational during the rugby season, and therefore there appears to be an urgency regarding this application. However, whilst the local planning authority remains supportive of the principle of redevelopment along the lines of the scheme previously approved, and is sympathetic to the requirements of the Rugby Club, this should not lead to an unsatisfactory reduction in the design quality of the finished proposal – either following completion of Phase 1 or following completion of the full scheme.

It is with this in mind that attempts to secure an acceptable scheme are continuing. This report Page 75 concludes that the phased approach will be acceptable where the design issues are appropriately resolved, and the report recommends approval on this basis, following the submission of amended plans. If these plans are submitted, Members will be verbally updated.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 There are no planning obligations to consider – this is an amendment to design and phasing only.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 The existing facilities, built in 1951 now in poor condition structurally and no longer meet minimum requirements, particularly for mini, junior and ladies teams, with very poor and ill equipped changing facilities. This prevents the club from providing the appropriate coaching and training, particularly for young people and restricts the use of the ground by the local collages and university all of whom currently use the clubs facilities for games and training. This proposal is therefore crucial to the regeneration of the club and the continued development of the use of the site as a sports/recreation facility. As such the local planning authority remains supportive of the principle of the proposal.

9.2 This proposal involves the redevelopment of an existing site and does not involve the loss of any area of the site designated in the Local Plan as Urban Greenspace or presently used as Outdoor Playing Space.

9.3 The demolition of the existing clubhouse will not take place until phase 3 has been completed. It is felt that the design issues can be successfully overcome through negotiation and subsequent receipt of amended plans. The applicants have agreed to submit amended [plans by 6th May 2010. It is considered therefore, that subject to the receipt of amended plans (which will be verbally reported to Members) the scheme can be supported.

9.4 Should amended plans not be received in time for the committee, then the application would either be determined as it presently stands or deferred until the next Planning Committee.

Recommendation

That subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended plans, Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard time limit 2 Amended plan condition 3 Development in accordance with approved plans 4 Samples of all external materials and finishes to be submitted and agreed 5 Surface Water Management Plan using sustainable drainage systems 6 Drainage on separate system 7 Phase 2 - Speed reduction markings to Powder House Lane 8 Visibility splay to north at site exit 9 Prior to occupation of Phase 1 - Cycle storage 10 Prior to commencement of phase 3 new car parking layout to be agreed 11 Retention of visibility splays 12 Details of floodlighting 13 Hours of construction 14 Desk top contamination study 15 Prior to commencement of phase 3 Details of roof construction 16 Prior to commencement of phase 3 Scheme for noise assessment and control 17 Maintenance of all plant, machinery and equipment 18 Prior to commencement of phase 3 Scheme for order control 19 The existing clubhouse to the southern end of the site shall not be demolished until the completion of phase 3. 20 Scheme to be submitted which incorporates on-site renewable energy measures to provide at least 10% of the predicted energy requirements arising from the development.

Page 76 Human Rights Act

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

Background Papers

None

Page 77 Agenda Item 15 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS

LANCASTER CITY COUNCIL

APPLICATION NO DETAILS DECISION

09/01114/FUL Littledale Scout Campsite, Littledale Road, Brookhouse Application Permitted Erection of a toilet block for Lonsdale District Scout Council (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

09/01162/FUL Gardenia Lodge, Haverbreaks Road, Lancaster Single Application Permitted storey rear extension and two storey side extension for Mr & Mrs Gary Hammond (Scotforth West Ward)

10/00008/DIS Orchard House, Sunnyside Lane, Lancaster Discharge Request Completed of conditions nos 4 and 7 on application 07/00519 for Mr And Mrs Martin (Castle Ward)

10/00057/FUL Old School House, Stoney Lane, Ellel Erection of Application Permitted replacement dwelling and replacement garage/light industrial workshop for Mr K Foxcroft (Ellel Ward)

10/00063/FUL The Cedars, Starbank, Bay Horse Erection of a porch Application Refused and first floor balcony above to the north elevation, new rooflight and window to the southern elevation for Mr And Mrs P Mulvenna (Ellel Ward)

10/00070/FUL 79 Sulby Drive, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection of single Application Refused storey extension to the side for Mr Al-Khaled (Scotforth West Ward)

10/00097/FUL Restarigg Farm, Kirkby Lonsdale Road, Arkholme Application Permitted Installation of a 5kW domestic scale Micro Wind Turbine on a 10m mast for Mr Robert Walker (Kellet Ward)

10/00121/FUL Silverdale Golf Club, Red Bridge Lane, Silverdale Application Permitted Renewal of temporary consent for a storage container for a further two years for Silverdale Golf Club (Silverdale Ward)

10/00122/FUL 1 St Michaels Crescent, Bolton Le Sands, Carnforth Application Withdrawn Demolition of existing garage and erection of a side workshop/utility extension with bedroom en-suite above for Mr Graham Richardson (Bolton Le Sands Ward)

10/00125/ADV 40 Penny Street, Lancaster, Lancashire Retrospective Application Refused application to retain fascia and projecting sign for The Money Shop (Dukes Ward)

10/00127/FUL 24 Redruth Drive, Carnforth, Lancashire Erection of a Application Permitted first floor bedroom extension over garage for Mr & Mrs D Mills ( Ward)

10/00137/FUL 1 Belle Vue Terrace, Lancaster, Lancs Erection of single Application Permitted storey extension to rear for Mr J Edmunds (Scotforth West Ward)

10/00142/CU 24 Hala Grove, Lancaster, Lancashire Change of use Application Permitted from class C2 (Childrens Home) to class C3 (Dwelling House) for Lancashire County Council (Scotforth East Ward)

Page 78 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS 10/00144/FUL Gibsons Farm, Bay Horse Road, Quernmore Erection of Application Permitted a roof over existing silage clamp for Mr J Pye (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

10/00148/FUL 20 Rose Grove, Galgate, Lancaster Erection of a single Application Permitted storey extension to the rear for Mr Peter Smethurst (Ellel Ward)

10/00165/FUL 23 Peel Crescent, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection of a Application Permitted single storey rear extension for Mr J Worden (Castle Ward)

10/00168/FUL 79 Scale Hall Lane, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection of a Application Permitted two storey extension to side with single storey rear extension for Mr & Mrs S. Gordon (Skerton West Ward)

10/00176/FUL 35 Hawthorn Road, Bolton Le Sands, Carnforth Erection Application Withdrawn of a garage, kitchen and lounge extension for Mr Tony Bleasdale (Bolton Le Sands Ward)

10/00178/FUL 49 Altham Road, Morecambe, Lancashire Erection of a Application Permitted single storey extension to the rear for Mr And Mrs Watson (Westgate Ward)

10/00181/FUL Storrs Barn, Silverdale Road, Yealand Redmayne Application Permitted Erection of a single storey side extension providing sunroom/occasional guest bedroom for Ms C D Rushwaldy (Silverdale Ward)

10/00182/FUL 16 Artlebeck Road, Caton, Lancaster Erection of a Application Permitted ground floor extension to the rear for Mr And Mrs R Royle (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

10/00191/FUL 38 Altham Road, Morecambe, Lancashire Erection of an Application Permitted extension to the rear for Mr N. Moss (Westgate Ward)

10/00199/FUL 94 Lancaster Road, Morecambe, Lancashire Erection of Application Permitted a 2 storey side extension set on stone faced piers and incorporating a dormer type window to the rear for Mr R Hannam (Poulton Ward)

10/00204/FUL Skerton Hotel, 2 Owen Road, Lancaster Replacement of Application Permitted windows with uPVC and timber external doors for Mr R Whitehead (Skerton East Ward)

10/00206/FUL 10 Rothesay Crescent, Heysham, Morecambe Erection Application Permitted of a garage for Mr H Norris (Overton Ward)

10/00211/FUL 14 Hest Bank Lane, Hest Bank, Lancaster Erection of a Application Permitted new porch and extension of existing single garage to form double garage with accommodation over for Mr And Mrs Collins (Slyne With Hest Ward)

10/00216/FUL 3 Dalton Square, Lancaster, Lancashire Installation of Application Permitted evacuated tube solar thermal collectors to east side of the roof for Mr Martin Horner (Dukes Ward)

10/00217/LB 3 Dalton Square, Lancaster, Lancashire Listed Building Application Permitted Consent for installation of evacuated tube solar thermal collectors to East side of the roof. for Mr Martin Horner (Dukes Ward)

Page 79 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS 10/00218/FUL Holme Head, Melling Road, Hornby Erection of a Application Permitted agricultural building for dairy, milking and collecting yard for Mr E Towers (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

10/00227/ELDC 26 Hanging Green Lane, Hest Bank, Lancaster Application Permitted Application for a Lawful Development Certificate for a 2nd access for Mrs C Turver (Slyne With Hest Ward)

10/00233/FUL Burton House, Aughton Brow, Aughton Demolition of Application Permitted existing single storey extension on South West elevation and replace with new larger single storey extension and erection of a two storey extension on North East elevation for Mr T Keeler (Halton With Aughton Ward)

10/00263/FUL 8 Bankhouse Lane, Silverdale, Carnforth Erection of Application Permitted two storey extension to side and single storey extension to rear for Mr And Mrs Clarkson (Silverdale Ward)

10/00278/ADV Crossroads Garage, Kirkby Lonsdale Road, Arkholme Application Refused Retention of 2 internally illuminated free standing display units for Mr Matt Swindles (Kellet Ward)

10/00281/AD Moss House Farm, Gulf Lane, Cockerham Prior Prior Approval Not notification for erection of a timer clad agricultural Required building to replace existing for GAIL CROOK (Ellel Ward)

10/00304/FUL 2 Shefferlands Cottages, Foundry Lane, Halton Erection Permitted Development of a single storey gable extension and porch to front elevation for C Lineham And D Powell (Halton With Aughton Ward)

10/00314/AD Oak Bank, Mewith Lane, Tatham Erection of a silo Prior Approval Not storage clamp for Mr And Mrs Lawson (Lower Lune Required Valley Ward)

10/00339/FUL 8 Scott Grove, Morecambe, Lancashire Erection of Permitted Development kitchen and study extension for Mr & Mrs S Care (Harbour Ward)

10/00374/FUL 74 Ullswater Road, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection of a Permitted Development single storey extension to the rear for Mr Stephen Clarke ( Ward)

Agenda Item16 PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE

DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT No. FILE REF. NATURE OF BREACH PRESENT POSITION PROPERTY S16 Requisition for information issued 18 June Cuba, Mary Street, Lancaster 1. 109/2/193 Unauthorised advertisements 2007. Not returned - considering appropriate Lancaster action. S330s issued. Sign removed. Application Installation of a new shop front received for a new shop front. A new owner has 2. 109/2/214 66 Penny Street, Lancaster & display of unauthorised sign been revealed - he is seeking compliance from his tenant. EN issued. Compliance achieved. Retrospective application refused. Appeal dismissed. S330s issued. Considering E.N. West Bank Stables, 3. 109/2/206 Construction of decked area Agent in negotiations. EN issued. Appeal against Greaves Park, Lancaster EN in progress. Appeal dismissed - agreement

reached. Amended Enforcement Notice issued. Page 80 S330 issued. Planning application refused. EN Replacement UPVC windows at 4. 109/2/213 58 North Road, Lancaster issued. Appeal pending. Appeal dismissed. first floor level Awaiting compliance with notice. Windows replaced at 1st floor 5. 109/2 1 George Street, Lancaster S330 issued. Awaiting application. level in UPVC Enforcement Notice issued. Partial compliance. Land adjacent to 120 Siting of a caravan for Application received for erection of a dwelling 6. 109/2/215 Newlands Road, Lancaster residential purposes invalid. Owner advised to remove rubbish from site. Site cleared of rubbish. Unauthorised use from restaurant to restaurant/take- Application refused at Committee. Monitoring 7. 109/2/196 21 Brock Street, Lancaster away and breach in opening situation while considering action. hours Lara Nichols, Unit 17a S330 served. Application submitted but currently 8. 109/2 Lansil Industrial Estate, Siting of a diesel tank invalid. Lancaster

Last updated: 26 April 2010 - 1 - E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\3\6\AI00020635\EnforcementSchedule2.doc

PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE

DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT No. FILE REF. NATURE OF BREACH PRESENT POSITION PROPERTY Enforcement Notice served 24 October Morecambe 9. 109/3/308 10 Queen Street, Morecambe Unauthorised roller shutters 2005. Appeal dismissed. Preparing Witness & Heysham Statement for Prosecution. S330 issued and returned. Considering Unauthorised works to Listed what further action is required. Planning 10. 109/3 221 Marine Road, Morecambe Building - works not in Permission granted - awaiting accordance with approved plan implementation but continue consideration of formal action. S215 Notice served. Not complied with. 11. 109/3/326 29 Green Street, Morecambe Untidy land Successful prosecution in absence - fined £500 - costs £300. Considering action. S330 issued. Application submitted. Construction of raised patio area 12. 109/3/331 35 Heysham Road, Heysham Approved but appeal against condition Page 81 and balconies submitted. S330 issued - planning application refused but amended re-submission received. EN 13. 109/3/329 33 Albert Road, Morecambe Insertion of two windows issued. Second application refused ~ appeal dismissed. 19 Beecham Street, S330 served. S215 Notice served. Appeal 14. 109/3/332 Untidy land Morecambe in Court 23 April 2010. 238 Marine Road Central, Installation of a flue and erection S330 issued. EN issued. Awaiting 15. 109/3/335 Morecambe of screens compliance. Fairview, 76 Slyne Road, S330 served. SV needed as owner 16. 109/3 Untidy land Morecambe confirms he will tidy up. EN issued. Application submitted in an Siting of 2 units for use as shop 17. 109/3/330 Christie Park, Morecambe attempt to regularise, but refused. facility Appeal dismissed full compliance achieved. Replacement of windows and 18. 109/3 4-6 Green Street, Morecambe S330 issued. Enforcement Notice drafted. door ~ works to change the use

Last updated: 26 April 2010 - 2 - E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\3\6\AI00020635\EnforcementSchedule2.doc

PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE

DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT No. FILE REF. NATURE OF BREACH PRESENT POSITION PROPERTY PCN served. No work currently taking Morecambe 64-66 Clarendon Road, 19. 109/3/334 Works to change the use place. Owner agreed to make application in & Heysham Morecambe future. Empire Carpets, Southgate, 20. 109/3/336 Display of illegal signs S16 served. Morecambe Mr & Mrs Forde, Unit 4, Creation of a residential flat on 21. 109/3 S330 served. Application received. Penrod Way, Heysham upper floor Page 82

Last updated: 26 April 2010 - 3 - E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\3\6\AI00020635\EnforcementSchedule2.doc

PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE

DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT No. FILE REF. NATURE OF BREACH PRESENT POSITION PROPERTY Non-compliance with Condition Prosecution successful - still no compliance Carnforth 22. 109/4/28 9 Grosvenor Court, Carnforth re: obscure glazing and opening - in discussion and awaiting compliance. windows

Page 83

Last updated: 26 April 2010 - 4 - E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\3\6\AI00020635\EnforcementSchedule2.doc

PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE

DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT No. FILE REF. NATURE OF BREACH PRESENT POSITION PROPERTY Enforcement Notices issued. Appeal submitted - Inquiry held. Notice upheld - Removal of hedgerow. non compliance. Application for caravan Lot 2, Hampson Farm, Stoney Rural Areas 23. 109/5/320 Unauthorised works and refused, prosecution proceedings Lane, Galgate unauthorised use commenced. Court 19 August 2009 successful prosecution but sentence reduced on appeal. Near Moss Farm, Gulf Lane, Breach of condition re: limit of 24. 109/5 S330 issued and returned. Cockerham season for caravan occupancy Failure to return S330, instructions sent to Legal to prosecute re non-return.

Kilross House, Flat Lane, Instructions sent to issue Breach of Page 84 25. 109/5/352 Columns and window frames Yealand Conyers Conditions notice. Notices served. Appeal lodged. Awaiting full compliance (delayed due to illness). Section 330 issued - Not returned - Letterbox Field, Erection of building not in Application received. Application approved. 26. 109/5 Ford Lane, Silverdale accordance with approved plans Enforcement Notice issued awaiting compliance. Bainsbeck Farm, Kirkby Beach of condition – works taking Application approved. Monitoring 27. 109/5/361 Lonsdale Road, Arkholme place outside of buildings conditions. Mr Fairhurst, Unit 4, Old Application submitted – deferred by 28. 109/5/371 Station Yard, Kirkby Lonsdale Use of unit as a stone yard planning committee re concerns. Road, Burrow-with-Burrow

Last updated: 26 April 2010 - 5 - E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\3\6\AI00020635\EnforcementSchedule2.doc

PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE

DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT No. FILE REF. NATURE OF BREACH PRESENT POSITION PROPERTY S330 issued 4 January 2006. Planning Application refused 26 June 2006. Higher Moorhead, Erection of a building & Rural Areas 29. 109/2/194 Enforcement Notice issued. Appeal Quernmore unauthorised use dismissed - awaiting compliance, but new application approved. E. Notice to be issued shortly for removal of caravan & demolition of dwelling. EN Vianova formerly Tillery Siting of a caravan & erection of a issued. Appeal lodged. Public enquiry to 30. 109/2/207 Garth, Quernmore bungalow be held 13 August 2009. Appeal dismissed ~ building to be changed back to agricultural barn. Checking for compliance. Brooklands Building, EN served and awaiting compliance – need 31. 109/5/349A Non-compliance with conditions

Addington Road, Halton to undertake SV. Page 85 Unit 14, Heysham Business S330 issued. Details now submitted - 32. 109/5 Park, Middleton Road, Non-compliance with condition awaiting agreement. Middleton Hayloft Barn, Ashton Road, Breach of condition ~ use of 33. 109/2/218 BCN issued. Ashton-with-Stodday holiday accommodation 26 Hanging Green Lane, EN served. Appeal withdrawn as Certificate 34. 109/2/205 Creation of an additional access Hest Bank of Lawful development granted. CLU part approved. Part refused. Gibraltar Farm, Lindeth Use of land as a caravan site and 35. 109/5/374 EN served. Appeal submitted. Further CLU Road, Silverdale creation of hardstandings application submitted. 1. Use of property as additional Instructions sent for PCN. 36. 109/5 32 Wallings Lane, Silverdale living accommodation EN served. Awaiting compliance. 2. Erection of a wall Pure Bowland, Far Lodge, Breach of Condition re 37. 109/5 S330 served. Quernmore landscaping Mr Gardner, Field 1563, 38. 109/5 Creation of a pond S330 served. Wyresdale Road, Quernmore

Last updated: 26 April 2010 - 6 - E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\3\6\AI00020635\EnforcementSchedule2.doc