SL.2018.0490 Jutland Avenue

SL/2018/0490

PARISH: Lower Holker Parish Council Land adjacent to 55 Jutland Avenue Ravenstown GRANGE over SANDS LA11 7LQ

PROPOSAL: Erection of single dwelling, formation of vehicular access and connection to foul sewer (Outline Planning Application – with landscaping and layout reserved).

APPLICANT: Matthew Lambeth

Grid Ref: E: 336067 N: 475164

Committee Date: 9th January 2019

Orchard View

Storr House

13.6m

3 4

15.9m

2 1 1

6 3 4 1 19.2m

5 1

E 3 U 1 N E V A E N R A M

16.0m

3 2

1 8 8 3

3 9

4 E

3 U 1 4 0 N 5 0 E V A E M M 1 O S

15.0m 8 2

5 1 A

3 R

7 R

1 A Poachers 7 S

A 3 0 Rest 2 V 4 E

N 3 9 U

E 5 3

7 Ravenstown 6

E 4 U

1 6 VE A 2 4 El D N LA Sub T U J Sta

64 52

5 5 Club

12.8m

E N A L

R E D N I

SL/2018/0490 The material contained in this plot has been reproduced from an Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Land adjacent to Licence No. 100024277 © Crown Copyright Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright 55 Jutland Avenue and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Ravenstown GRANGE over SANDS LA11 7LQ Scale: 1:2500 SUMMARY

1. An outline application is submitted for a single dwelling with access, appearance and scale included. Matters of landscaping and layout are reserved.

2. The site is located on the southern aspect of Jutland Avenue with the details contained with the submission showing a parcel of land approximately 900m square metres in area, adjacent to the open boundary with no.55 and directly opposite 64-68 Jutland Avenue

3. The primary issues comprise: the principle of development; the design and impact upon settlement character; the impact upon residential amenity; and, the impact on highway safety.

4. The application is brought for consideration by Members of the Planning Committee as the proposal has been called in by a local ward member and the recommendation is to refuse the application.

RECOMMENDATION

5. The application is recommended for refusal

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL

Application Site Description

6. The Application Site comprises a parcel of open land set on the southernmost edge of Ravenstown, directly adjacent to boundary edge of No.55 Jutland avenue

7. The Site extends to an area of c 900m square metres.

8. The site currently consists of an open fielded area which is categorised as open countryside.

9. To the north of the site is the main Ravenstown settlement and a row of dwellings face out towards this fielded area.

10. The Site is enclosed by a combination of established hedgerows to the south of the site, established tree planting along the boundary with No.55 Jutland Avenue and a post and wire fence along the front aspect of the site bounding with Jutland Avenue.

11. The land slopes gently from north to south.

12. The Site is located in Environment Agency Flood Zone 1.

Proposal

13. This application seeks Outline Permission for erection of a two storey dwelling. Matters relating to the associated landscaping, parking, and layout are reserved.

14. Access is provided for consideration and is shown leading off Jutland Avenue.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

15. No formal planning applications have previously been submitted in respect of this site.

CONSULTATIONS

Town Council:

16. Recommend approval however do not wish to create a precedent for further development on the adjoining land.

Cumbria County Council – Highways:

17. No objection was raised in relation to the access as shown on the plans, however a number of conditions were recommended. These conditions related to the following;

a. The provision of visibility splays prior to the commencement of development. b. A reduction in height of any boundary treatment c. The provision of full details of any foul and surface water drainage. d. No occupation of the dwelling until the access has been provided e. The provision of the turning spaces within the curtilage of the site are to be provided prior to the first occupation of the dwelling

Cumbria County Council – LLFA:

18. Recognition was given to the proximity of the site to Flood Risk Areas 2 and 3, however there was no objection to the application subject to the site being appropriately drained.

United Utilities:

19. No objection subject to the imposition of three planning conditions requiring:

a. foul and surface water to be drained on separate systems; b. the submission of a surface water drainage scheme in accordance with the drainage hierarchy; and, c. a sustainable urban drainage management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development.

Neighbours / Others:

20. The application has been advertised by way of a planning application site notice and notification letters.

21. Seven representations in support have been received.

22. The material planning issues raised comprise the following:

- The provision of housing for local residents. - The development is small scale, infill and rounding off

POLICY ISSUES

23. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Development Plan:-

South Lakeland Core Strategy (CS):

Policy CS1.1 Sustainable Development Principles Policy CS1.2 The Development Strategy Policy CS4 Cartmel Peninsula Policy CS6.1 Meeting the Housing Requirement Policy CS6.2 Dwelling Mix and Type Policy CS6.4 Rural Exceptions Policy CS6.6 Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings Policy CS8.2 Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character Policy CS8.3a Accessing Open Space, Sport and Recreation Policy CS8.3b Quantity of Open Space, Sport and Recreation Policy CS8.4 Biodiversity and Geodiversity Policy CS8.7 Sustainable Construction, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Policy CS8.8 Development and Flood Risk Policy CS8.10 Design Policy CS10.2 Transport Impact of New Development

Local Plan Land Allocations: Development Plan Document (LADPD):

Policy LA1.0 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy LA1.1 Development Boundaries

Saved Policies of the South Lakeland Local Plan (LP):

Policy S2 South Lakeland Design Code Policy S3 Landscaping Policy S10 Parking Provision in new Development Policy S26 Sewage Treatment and Disposal

Other Material Planning Considerations:

South Lakeland Local Plan – Development Management Policies (DMDPD):

Policy DM1 General Requirements for All Development Policy DM2 Achieving Sustainable High Quality Design Policy DM4 Green and Blue Infrastructure, Open Space, Trees and Landscaping Policy DM6 Flood Risk Management and Sustainable Drainage Systems Policy DM9 Parking Provision, New and Loss of Car Parks Policy DM11 Housing Optional Technical Standards Policy DM13 Housing Development in small Villages and Hamlets

The DMDPD is in the process of preparation and latter adoption. On the 28 th February 2018 the DMDPD was submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination and a schedule of Main Modifications to the DM DPD has now been out for consultation.

In accordance with paragraph 47 of the NPPF, planning law requires that applications for planning permission shall be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. NPPF paragraph 48 goes on to state that Local Planning Authorities may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to the stage of preparation of the emerging plan and to the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies.

Therefore, moderate weight only can be given to the policies in decision making. Greater weight can be applied to Policy DM9 given that less significant unresolved objections exist to the policy.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):

Paragraph 11 outlines the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Paragraph 59 outlines that to support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay.

Paragraph 68 confirms that small and medium sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, and are often built-out relatively quickly. It outlines a range of measures to achieve this including the need for local authorities to give support to the development of windfall sites through their policies and decisions – giving great weight to the benefits of using suitable sites within existing settlements for homes.

Paragraph 117 promotes an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions.

Paragraph 122 details that decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land subject to specified criteria relating to the need for different types of housing, availability of land, market conditions and viability, availability and capacity of infrastructure and services, securing well- designed, attractive and healthy places and the desirability of maintaining an area’s settlement character.

Paragraphs 124 – 132 outlines the importance of achieving well-designed places. Paragraph 127 seeks that planning decision should ensure that developments will function well and add to the quality of the area; are visually attractive both in terms of architecture; layout and landscaping; are sympathetic to local character and history; have a strong sense of place, optimise the potential of the site in terms of amount and mix of development; and, create safe, inclusive and accessible places.

Paragraphs 155 – 165 outlines the need to prevent inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding with paragraph 157 setting out the need to apply a sequential test to development.

Paragraphs 174 – 177 outlines the requirement to protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity with paragraph 175 stating that planning permission should be refused if significant harm to biodiversity cannot be avoided, mitigated against or compensated for. Paragraph 175 goes on to state that schemes that provide for biodiversity improvements should be encouraged especially where it can secure measureable net gains for biodiversity.

Council Plan 2014 – 2019:

The Council has four priorities: the economy; housing; environment; and culture and wellbeing. It states that the Council will help deliver new affordable and open market housing and enhance and protect the district’s high quality environment.

Legislation:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended Housing and Planning Act 2016: The Housing and Planning Act 2016 was enacted on the 12 May 2016. Section 10 of the Act, which came into force on 31 October 2016, amended the Self-build and Custom Building Act 2015 (SBCBA). Section 2A of the SBCBA places a duty on a relevant local planning authority to grant permissions for enough serviced plots of land to meet the demand for self- build and custom housebuilding arising in the authority’s area in each defined base period. It is confirmed that the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding arising in an authority’s area in a base period is the demand as evidenced by the number of entries added during that period to the Self-build Register of the relevant local planning authority. Localism Act:

24. The Localism Act 2011 is aimed at empowering local agencies and people to deliver and better the Government agenda. It is not directed to deliver less, but to deliver at levels to maximise or exceed Government’s strategic objectives. The policies of the NPPF and the Development Plan are not altered by the Localism Act.

25. The Localism Act introduces local finance considerations as a planning consideration in so far as they are material to the application.

ASSESSMENT

Principle

26. The application site is located on the edge of Ravenstown, located to the south west of Flookburgh. Core Strategy Policy CS1.1 (Sustainable development) states that most new developments should be directed to existing service centres where there is adequate service and infrastructure capacity to accommodate the required levels of development

27. Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 (The Development Strategy) identifies the need to bring development forward within other small villages and hamlets throughout the district provided that new small-scale infilling and rounding off development will be permitted outside the service centres, in order to satisfy local need across the numerous smaller villages and hamlets scattered across the District.

28. The application site is located outside, but adjacent to, the recognised, but undesignated, development boundary of Ravenstown. It is relatively separated from nearby development. For the purposes of this report, officers therefore consider that the application site comprises an area of open countryside when assessed against Policy CS1.2 of the Core Strategy and it is not considered by officers that this location could reasonably be described as infill or ‘rounding off’.

29. Infill development would necessarily relate to a proposal which was set within a clear gap contained within the built environment, whereas a site which ‘rounded off’ a part of a village would need to clearly delineate the end of a row of units or fill a space where one would normally and reasonably expect a building to be sited. In this instance, the site fulfils neither category, and for reasons elaborated upon further within this report, it is clear that this proposal represents an extension to an existing row of units and is much more akin to ribbon style development.

30. As such, the application is considered as being located within the open countryside where Policy CS1.2 is clear that “Exceptionally, new development will be permitted in the open countryside where it has an essential requirement for a rural location” including providing “for exceptional needs for affordable housing”.

31. Policy CS6.4 of the CS provides site specific requirements in respect of the principle of exception site developments for affordable housing outside of the settlement boundaries in the Service Centres.

32. In this particular instance, the application relates to the erection of an open market dwelling and in no way fulfils any of the abovementioned policy exceptions. Although reference is made within the application to the applicant’s local ties to the area and the need for housing for young families, this does not alter the fundamental nature of the proposal and it is clear that a new, open market dwelling, located outside of the recognised development boundary of Ravenstown should be considered inappropriate.

33. The principle of development is therefore not supported.

Landscape Impact

34. Although the application is in outline only, the iterative details as submitted illustrate that an area of otherwise open parcel of land, set directly in front of the existing crescent of buildings will be formalised, with the effect of extending the existing domestic frontage associated with No.55 Jutland Avenue further along this road.

35. This extension made to the settlement will in effect continue the built form along Jutland Avenue, and the LPA considers that this particular location forms the start of the key character features of this small village.

36. Ravenstown is characterised by the large crescent feature with open views provided out to the open countryside, and encroachment upon this particular location would in no way preserve or enhance this feature. To extend along this crescent would formalise this otherwise key, open feature which is considered important to the overall character of Ravenstown and leads directly to a ribbon of dwellings located on the southern aspect of the village.

This position is further exacerbated by the incongruent nature of the building envelope which does not fully join up with the adjacent neighbour. The site plan shows a curtilage which leaves a large area of land set to the west of the application site and it is felt that this leaves the new dwelling and associated curtilage exposed from the main village and adjacent run of buildings.

37. The applicant has also provided detail in regard to the erection of Thyme House which is located on Jutland Avenue and has been used as an example of good design which illustrates how such a dwelling set along the southern aspect of Jutland Avenue would appear within the wider street scene and landscape character (Planning Application - 5912069, approved October 1991)

38. Officers recognise that there are some basic similarities between this application and the current proposal, however there is also a significant difference in terms of the two dwellings’ relationship to the main settlement of Ravenstown. The dwelling approved under 5912069 is set adjacent to a run of buildings which all face back towards the main settlement and there is a distinct building line apparent at this juncture.

39. Furthermore, there is an electricity substation set on the open side of this unit and the building is therefore book ended by the substation and the run of dwellings. The location of this dwelling closely relates well to the flow of the existing settlement, and although this could be classified as ribbon development, the visual impact is somewhat mitigated.

40. In regard to the current proposal this physical relationship to the main settlement is lacking. There are no definitive bookends between which the new unit can be sandwiched between, and the new unit and ancillary domestic curtilage would extend well into the field behind. The current proposal holds a much larger footprint than the example provided by the applicant and as such there are substantial differences which exist between these two buildings. All planning proposals should be considered on their individual merits and the LPA does not recognise the approval granted under 5912069 as setting a precedent for this development.

41. The above concerns are considered relevant in regard to assessing the proposal against the Core Strategy, however these concerns are also considered appropriate when the application is assessed against emerging DPD Policy DM13. In this regard, officers are further satisfied that the proposed development represents inappropriate development in that this policy provides further clarity in respect to development located on the edges of small villages and hamlets.

42. DM13 allows for edge of settlement proposals, provided that the scale and design of the proposal is appropriate for the host settlement, that the site would be well contained within existing landscape features that would be physically connected to the neighbourhood, would integrate well with the host settlement and would not lead to unacceptable intrusion to the countryside.

43. When measured against this policy it is clear that there are no physical connections which could be used to tie the development to the main settlement in any meaningful way, nor are there any landscape features which could be used to contain the building within the wider landscape. The new unit and its resultant domestic curtilage would appear as an abrupt addition to Ravenstown, at a location which is characterful specifically because of the openness which it affords to the host village and the proposal would represent an unacceptable intrusion into the open countryside as measured within the context of policy DM13.

To reiterate, officers consider that this outline application represents an unwarranted extension into the open countryside and would in no way be considered as being illustrative of an appropriate built addition to Ravenstown. Jutland Avenue forms an important architectural feature of this village which currently provides an open vista to the countryside beyond, and the resultant encroachment into the open countryside beyond the site in no way enhances this attractive feature. Officers are further concerned that any such approval along this important feature could lead to further attempts to build along this crescent and when taken on balance there are significant landscape and design impacts which counterbalance the benefits of granting planning permission in this particular instance.

Flood Risk

44. The application site lies within flood zone 1 which has the lowest risk of flooding. Although it is recognised that the site does sit adjacent to areas of higher flood risk (Zones 2 and 3) it is not felt that this proposal would run contrary to the provisions made under Core Strategy Policy CS8.8 which expects most new development to be located in flood risk zone 1.

Access and parking 45. Core Strategy Policy CS10.2 (Transport impact of new development) expects “Development will be designed to reduce the need to travel and to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport appropriate to its particular location”, objectives achieved in this case by the development being near the heart of Kendal, one of the District’s two Principal Service Centres.

46. Policy CS10.2 establishes a number of other criteria, aimed at ensuring that new development: provides for safe and convenient access on foot, cycle, public and private transport: is capable of being served by safe access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the locality; can be accommodated by the existing road network without detriment to the amenity or character of the surrounding area; and incorporates parking standards that are in accordance with any adopted local policy and guidance.

47. Saved Local Plan Policy S10 (Parking Provision in New Development) states that the requirement for off-street parking will be calculated on the basis of Cumbria County Council’s published guidelines, but relaxed in circumstances such as town centres and other locations which have good access to other means of travel than the private car.

48. In this instance the Highways Authority have not raised objection to the access provided, the space contained within the curtilage for vehicles to turn or the number of parking spaces that could be contained within the site. Conditions have been recommended which would ensure that highways safety is maintained and officer concur with this position taken. As such no objections are raised in this regard.

Residential amenity 49. Under the heading of “ Achieving well-designed places ” section 12 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should (amongst other things) ensure that development “create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users …”

50. In this instance the new dwelling could be set in a position which would not seriously impact upon neighbouring properties. Those dwellings set across the road from the site are located at a slightly higher elevation and there is adequate spacing between the front facing windows of these units and those within the proposed new dwelling. Further still, the dwelling set adjacent to the new building is angled in such a manner as to negate any overbearing or shadow cast upon this property.

51. Officers are confident that a dwelling could be erected on site without leading to amenity harm and, once more, no objections are raised in this regard.. Financial Benefits to the Local Authority from the Development

52. Financial Benefits to the Local Authority from the Development - In accordance with the requirements introduced by Section 115 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, the financial benefits of the proposed development are estimated below.

Source Benefit Community Infrastructure Nil – Based on assumed claim of self-build Levy exemption. Council Tax £ 3,060.21 – Estimate based on Band G Income equivalents

New Homes £3,060.21 - Estimate based on Band G Bonus equivalents.

Conclusion

53. Although there are recognised benefits which would accrue if a permission were granted, the overall harm caused by an approval at this particular location is significant. The provision of a self build unit for a local family weighs in favour of the application, as does the creation of economic benefits during the build and over the lifetime of the development. However, these benefits are considered minimal and could be achieved if the dwelling was to be erected at a more appropriate location, without landscape harm.

54. The impact made by the new dwelling upon this important aspect of Ravenstown is considered harmful and there are no mitigating circumstances, such as the provision of affordable housing, which would counter this position.

55. As the principle of development has not been justified, nor can the landscape impact be mitigated, officers consider that the application should be refused. RECOMMENDATION: Refuse for the following reason(s)

The proposed new dwelling, by virtue of its siting along this important open aspect of Jutland Avenue, would introduce a formalising element to this otherwise open aspect which would be considered intrusive upon the wider landscape character. The new unit and its associated domestic curtilage necessarily increases the footprint of the Ravenstown settlement into the countryside beyond and this extension beyond the settlement limit is therefore considered harmful and inappropriate. The application is therefore found to be contrary to policies CS4, CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the Core Strategy, policy LA1.1 of the Local Plan Land Allocations DPD, saved policies S2 and S3 of the SA Local Plan and policies DM1, DM2 and DM13 of the DMDPD.

The proposed new dwelling, by virtue of its siting on the edge of Ravenstown and outside of the formally recognised development boundary associated with this settlement, is considered by the Local Planning Authority as an open market housing unit, set within the open countryside. This type of development is not considered as representing either infill development or as ‘rounding off’ the existing built environment and the principle of development is therefore not accepted. Open Market housing within the open countryside runs contrary to policies CS1, CS1.2 and CS6.1 of the Core Strategy, policies LA1 and LA1.1 of the Local Plan Land Allocations DPD, and policy DM1 of the DMDPD.