SL/2017/0260
PARISH: Lower Holker Land to the west of the Dell, Cark in Cartmel
PROPOSAL: Single self-build dwelling
APPLICANT: Mr S Hodgkins, Go Developments
Grid Ref: E: 336067 N: 476593
Cark Manor Stables
Old
Coach
House
Cark Manor 21.6m Lodge
Cark Villa
Winder View Tank 7 22.6m GP Cark Manor Pp Dobbie Sunny
Bank Bank 1
6 Foxgloves Sunny
1 Bank Cottage
1 10.1m 9.4m 15.1m
Applegarth The Dell Mill Barn Sandwood
7.7m 1 7 Low Row 14 The Cark House Retreat Cott Cark 1 5.7m M C House I a L rk R L F iv 6.4m P e C at a r L h rm s id El Sub Sta O C e S o E tt idge Stoney Br Old Dans
1 High Beckside 8
2 7 The Duck Pool s Steps ne Barn or th Sand aw Yeat H he 6
Eeaside T Cark Farm 4
Pond
Century Barn Meadow k Barn ac Tr
E N" A L N O T A C
SL/2017/0260 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 to the west of The Dell, Licence No. 100024277 © Crown Copyright Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright south of Cark Manor, and and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings north of Cark House Cark in Cartmel GRANGE over SANDS Scale: Not to scale SUMMARY 1. Outline planning application with all matters reserved for the erection of 1no. self-build affordable dwelling. 2. The application site comprises a linear parcel of land located to the north of Cark House, Cark in Cartmel. 3. The primary issues comprise: the location of the site out with the development boundary of Flookburgh / Cark as defined in the Policy LA1.1 of the LADPD; the impact of the development upon the character of the settlement of Cark in Cartmel; the location of the application site within Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3; and, the impact of the development on existing trees. 4. A request was made by Councillor Gill Gardner that the application be determined by Planning Committee due to a high level of local interest.
RECOMMENDATION 5. It is recommended that the Outline Planning Application be refused for the reasons outlined within the report.
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL Site description 6. The application site comprises a linear parcel of land located to the north of Cark House, Cark in Cartmel. 7. The site extends to approximately 0.068Ha in area. The site is vegetated with dense scrub and a small number of broadleaf trees. The site is enclosed by a combination of post and rail timber fences and stonewalls. 8. The site is bounded by fragmented mixed woodland and a garden area to the north; public highways to the south and east; and, a detached amenity / garden area to the west. 9. The Grade II Listed Cark House and the Grade II Listed bridge / walls to River Eea are located to the south; and, the Grade II Listed Cark Manor is located to the north. 10. The site is located in Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3.
Proposal 11. The application seeks outline planning permission with all matters reserved for the erection of 1no. self-build affordable dwelling. 12. The application initially sought outline planning permission for the erection 1no. self-build dwelling; however, was subsequently amended by the applicant to comprise a self-build affordable dwelling. 13. Illustrative drawings, which does not form a formal part of the application submission illustrate the erection of 1no. detached dwelling to the east of the site and the creation of a vehicle parking area to the west. HISTORICAL CONTEXT 14. The site was not assessed in the preparation of the South Lakeland Land Allocations Development Plan Document (LADPD). 15. Outline Planning Permission with all matters reserved for the development of affordable housing (application ref. SL/2016/0850) was refused in November 2016 for the following reasons: • Reason (1) The proposed development comprises an exception site development for affordable housing in an area of open countryside as defined in Policy LA1.1 of the South Lakeland Land Allocations Development Plan Document. In respect of the proposed, the applicant has failed to demonstrate: clear evidence of local support for the scheme, having regard to the views of the Parish Councils within the Local Area Partnership; clear and robust evidence of housing need in Cark-in-Cartmel; and, clear evidence of the viability of the scheme contrary to the provisions of Policies CS1.1, CS1.2 and CS6.4 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy. • Reason (2) The application site is located within defined Flood Zone 2 and 3. The proposed development is a more vulnerable use; therefore, the Sequential Test and Exception Test are applicable to the development. The geographical area applied in the Sequential Test submitted in support of the application is too limited and does not relate the area for which the need for the affordable housing development has derived. Given the nature of the proposed development, development sites are not reasonably likely to be actively marketed and no evidence has been submitted that demonstrates that alterative comparable sites do not exist and that the owners of the developable alternative sites are unwilling to make these sites available for development. The applicant has therefore failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the Sequential Test and Exception Test have been passed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority control contrary to the relevant provisions of Policy CS8.8 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and Paragraphs 99 - 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework. • Reason (3) In the lack of evidence to the contrary, given the technical constraints existing on the application site including the form of the site; the presence of mature trees; and, flood risk, the resulting form of any scheme for the development of the site is likely to result in an unacceptable design and form of development that will adversely impact upon the character of Cark in Cartmel contrary to the provisions of Policy S2 South Lakeland Design Code of the South Lakeland Local Plan and Policies CS4, CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.
CONSULTATIONS Lower Holker Parish Council: 16. Recommend refusal of the application on the following grounds: • The site is not allocated for residential development; • The site is located out with the development boundary of Flookburgh / Cark as defined in the Policy LA1.1 of the LADPD; • The site is part of the setting of two Listed Buildings; • The site is located in an area of flood risk and if developed would increase flood risk at nearby properties; • The site is bisected by the Tail Race and if blocked would increase surface water flood risk; • The development would impede access on the adjacent highway; and, • The development does not accord with the requirements of Policy CS6.4 of the Core Strategy.
Cumbria County Council: Highways and Lead Local Flood Authority 17. No objection to the proposed development subject to the following planning conditions: • Demonstrate the achievement of visibility splays of 90m x 2.4m to any access; • A vehicle turning area allowing access and exit in a forward gear to be provided and retained; • Surfacing of the access with bituminous, cement or otherwise bound materials; • Access gates be hung to open inwards from the highway; • Existing highway boundary to be reduced and retained at 1m above the carriageway; • Dwelling shall not be occupied until means of access and parking has been constructed; and, • Full details of surface water drainage system to be submitted for approval, implemented as approved and retained thereafter.
Environment Agency : 18. Response April 2017: • No objection in principle to the proposed development. • The application site is located within Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3. The proposed development falls under the flood risk classification of ‘More Vulnerable’. • In accordance with Paragraph 101 of the National Planning Policy Framework, development in Flood Zone 2 should be the subject of the Sequential Test and should not be permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. The Exception Test must also be applied to development in Flood Zone 3. • If the Local Planning Authority is minded to approve the application, Planning Conditions should be utilised to secure the flood resistance and resilience recommendation outlined in the Flood Risk Assessment be applied. 19. Response October 2017: • No comments to make on the amended plans.
South Lakeland District Council: Arboricultural Officer 20. The submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment demonstrates that a development is technically achievable on the site by utilising cellweb type structures for the car parking hard standing and tree protection measures to ensure neighbouring trees are not significantly affected by the development. 21. The development would be constrained by the tree protection measures on one side and the flood zone on the other, so a development would be limited to a layout similar to the building positioning as shown on the AIA plan. 22. If granted outline consent, a reserved matters application would need to provide updated details of the tree protection measures for the building position applied for, given position and size is not agreed, only indicated, on this application.
Neighbours / Others: 23. The application has been advertised by way of a planning application site notice and notification letters sent to 31 neighbouring properties. 24. Twenty one representations have been received from18 interested parties. 25. The material planning matters raised comprise the following: Principle • The requirements of Policy CS6.4 of the Core Strategy are not achieved. • No explanation given in respect of the additional car parking. • A previous planning application for the development of a dwelling on the site has been refused and is a material planning consideration. Flood risk • The site is in Flood Zones 2 and 3. • Additional surface water run-off from the development will increase flood risk at adjacent properties.
Access • Access to the site is inadequate. • The development will impact upon the safe operation of the adjacent highway. Impact on character of Cark • The site is not visually part of Cark. • The development would comprise ribbon development and will impact upon the character of the local area. Biodiversity • The development will result in a reduction in biodiversity. Amenity • The development will result in adverse impacts upon the amenity of adjacent dwellings through overlooking.
POLICY ISSUES Development Plan: 26. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
South Lakeland Core Strategy (CS): 27. Policy CS1.1 Sustainable Development Principles Policy CS1.2 The Development Strategy Policy CS4 Cartmel Peninsula Policy CS6.4 Rural Exception Policy Policy CS8.1 Green Infrastructure Policy CS8.2 Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character Policy CS8.4 Biodiversity and Geodiversity Policy CS8.5 Coast Policy CS8.6 Historic Environment Policy CS8.8 Development and Flood Risk Policy CS8.10 Design Policy CS10.2 Transport Impacts of New Development.
Local Plan Land Allocations: Development Plan Document (DPD): 28. Policy LA1.0 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy LA1.1 Development Boundaries.
Saved Policies of the South Lakeland Local Plan (LP): 29. Saved Policy C6 Sites of International Nature Conservation Importance Saved Policy C7 National Sites Saved Policy C15 Listed Buildings and their Settings Saved Policy S2 South Lakeland Design Code Saved Policy S3 Landscaping Saved Policy S10 Parking Provision in New Development Saved Policy S18 Trees Close to Buildings Saved Policy S26 Sewage Treatment and Disposal.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): 30. Paragraph 14 sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay. Implicit is that development not proven to be sustainable or not in accordance with the development plan does not benefit from this presumption. 31. Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of- date, planning permission should be granted unless:- • any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole; or • specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. 32. Paragraph 47 outlines measures via which local planning authorities should boost significantly the supply of housing. 33. Paragraph 54 outlines how local planning authorities should be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local need, particularly for affordable housing, including through rural exceptions sites where appropriate. 34. Paragraph 55 states to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. 35. Paragraph 73 Access to high quality open spaces, sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and wellbeing of communities.
36. Paragraph 100 states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Paragraphs 101-104 detail the aims and application of the Sequential Test and Exception Test. 37. Paragraph 109 The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and minimise the impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains where possible. 38. Paragraph 128 states that where a development has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest developers should submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and where necessary a field evaluation. 39. Paragraph 129 requires that LPA’s consider that impact of a proposal on a heritage asset and avoid or minimise conflict between conservation and the proposal. 40. Paragraph 131 – 134 provide criteria for assessing the impact of development upon heritage assets. 41. Paragraph 204 Planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests: • necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; and • directly related to the development.
Council Plan 2014 – 2019: 42. 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.
Other Regulations: 43. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. 44. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990.
Localism Act: 45. 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 National Planning Policy Framework and the Development Plan are not altered by the Localism Act. 46. The Localism Act introduces local finance considerations as a planning consideration in so far as they are material to the application.
Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015; and, Self-build and Custom Housebuilding (Register) Regulations 2016: 47. The Regulations place a duty on relevant local planning authorities to keep a register of individuals and associations of individuals who are seeking to acquire serviced plots of land in the authority’s area in order to build houses for those individuals to occupy as homes. It is required that local planning authorities have regard to each self-build and custom housebuilding register that relates to their area when carrying out their planning, housing, land disposal and regeneration functions. Housing and Planning Act 2016: 48. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 came into law on the 12 May 2016. Section 10 of the Act places 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 in the authority’s area arising 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. 49. The regulations enacting the provisions of the Act are yet to be prepared, therefore, limited weight can as yet be given to the relevant duties.
ASSESSMENT Principle 50. Policy CS1.2 of the CS identifies Flookburgh / Cark collectively as a Local Service Centre, where approximately 21% of new housing and employment development will be located. The application site is located out with but adjacent to the development boundary of Cark / Flookburgh as defined in Policy LA1.1of the LADPD. Policy LA1.1 is clear that “Between 2010 and 2025 the development needs of these settlements [including Cark / Flookburgh] will be met within the development boundaries defined on the policies map”. The application site comprises an area of open countryside for the purposes of Policy CS1.2 of the CS. 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”. 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. The relevant criteria of Policy CS6.4 of the CS are considered below. There is clear evidence of local support for the scheme, having regard to the views of the Parish Councils within the Local Area Partnership 51. Lower Holker Parish Council have raised objection to the proposed development for the reasons summarised above. No representations have been received in support of the planning application. There is clear and robust evidence of housing need 52. The Housing Need Survey for Lower Holker Parish relates to the period 2008 – 2013 and is out of date. South Lakeland Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2014 (SHMA-2014) demonstrates evidence of net need for 71no. affordable houses per annum over the period 2014/5 – 2018/9 in the wider Cartmel Peninsular Housing Market Area. Details of parish level and settlement level need are not defined within the SHMA-2014. The Draft South Lakeland Strategic Housing Market Assessment July 2017 identifies evidence of net need for 12no. affordable houses per annum in the Cartmel Peninsular Housing Market Area over the period 2016 - 2025. The South Lakeland Choice Based Letting System demonstrates confirms a registered need for 1no. 1 bedroom affordable housing unit in the settlement of Cark in Cartmel and a registered need for 14no. 1, 2 and 3 bed affordable housing units in Flookburgh. A total of 3no. sites are allocated for residential development within the combined Local Service Centre of Flookburgh / Cark in the LADPD. The LADPD identifies an anticipated yield of 71no. dwellings from these sites including 25no. affordable dwellings. The identified yield will meet the identified need for affordable housing in Flookburgh / Cark. The housing will be affordable in perpetuity and for people with a local connection 53. The applicant has confirmed a willingness to enter into a Section 106 Planning Obligation to secure that the development remains affordable in perpetuity for people with a local connection. There is clear evidence of the viability of the scheme 54. The applicant states that the development of the site is viable; however, no evidence of the viability of the scheme has been submitted in support of the application.
Self-build 55. As of the 31 st November 2017, the Authority has thirty-one people on their Self Build Register. One person is registered as showing an interest in the Cark and Cartmel area. The Authority has reasonably approved sufficient development to meet the identified demand for self-build dwellings.
Communal vehicle parking area 56. The indicative drawings illustrate the creation of an off highway vehicle parking area. It is stated that this is proposed to resolve an issue highlighted by local people. The indicative drawings do not form part of the application; therefore, no weight can be given to these proposals in the assessment and determination of this current application. A separate planning application would be required for the creation of any vehicle parking area.
Flood risk and drainage 57. The site is located within Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3. Any dwelling would be located within the Flood Zones 2 and 3. The proposed development falls under the flood risk classification of ‘More Vulnerable’. In accordance with Paragraph 101 of the NPPF development in Flood Zones 2 and 3 should be the subject of the Sequential Test and should not be permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. The Exception Test must also be applied to development in Flood Zone 3. The Environment Agency (EA) has raised no objection in principle to the proposed development subject to achieving the requirements of the Sequential Test and implementation of the development in accordance with the flood resistance and resilience recommendations outlined in the Flood Risk Assessment. The proposed development would contribute toward meeting a wider need for affordable housing in the Cartmel Peninsular Housing Market Area as defined in the SHMA. The Cartmel Peninsular Housing Market Area therefore reasonably comprises the geographical area within which the Sequential Test is to be applied. The proposed self-build delivery of the dwelling does not distinguish the development from other means of affordable housing provision. Once complete the dwelling would remain an affordable dwelling the subject to the standard limitations in respect of tenure, occupancy and value etc. There are a number of suitable comparator sites for rural exception site development in the Cartmel Peninsular Housing Market Area that could deliver the proposed development. Exception sites for affordable housing of this nature are not reasonably likely to be actively marketed for development and are not allocated for development in the LADPD. No evidence has been submitted that demonstrates that suitable comparator sites out with Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3 are not deliverable or that the owners are unwilling to make these sites available for such development. In the context of the above, the Sequential Test has not been passed and the Exception Test has not therefore been fully engaged.
Amenity 58. Acceptable interface separation distances are reasonably achievable. Given this relationship, it is considered that dwellings could reasonably be accommodated on the site without adverse impacts through overlooking, loss of light, overshadowing or overbearing to neighbouring dwellings.
Drainage 59. Details of the proposed means of foul water and surface water disposal are reserved for consideration at reserved matters stage. The submitted FRA proposes that in principle an acceptable engineered scheme for the disposal of surface water is achievable. Cumbria County Council as LLFA initially objected to the application on ground of a lack of information; however, has subsequently revised this position, raising no objection subject to pre-commencement planning conditions seeking submission and agreement of such details in advance of the commencement of development and retention of the approved / implemented details thereafter. The submitted FRA identifies that a gravity fed connection to the public main exists and United Utilities have raised no objection to the development subject to the imposition of planning conditions.
Access 60. Cumbria County Council as Highway Authority initially objected to the application on grounds of a lack of information; however, has subsequently revised this position, raising no objection subject to a raft of pre- commencement planning conditions. The proposed planning conditions include a required to demonstrate the achievement of visibility splays of 90m x 2.4m to any access. This is clearly not achievable. The highway to the south is the subject of a 30mph speed limit and is the subject of low traffic volumes. In applying the provisions of the Manual for Streets 1 and 2, visibility splays of 1.05m x 2.4m x 43m would be acceptable and is reasonably achievable to any access located centrally with the frontage of the site.
Contamination 61. The application site comprises an area of vegetation. A water culvert is identified locally as being located below the site. Given the previous use of the site, the potential for contamination is considered to be low. A Planning Condition could be attached in respect of any contamination identified on the application site during construction.
Biodiversity and Geodiversity 62. A Tree Survey has been prepared in accordance with BS5837:2012. The Survey concludes that the trees within the will require removal in order to facilitate the development of the site and that these trees are not individually or collectively of significant site arboricultural value or habitat value. The survey demonstrates that a development is technically achievable on the site by utilising cellweb type structures for the car parking hard standing and tree protection measures to ensure neighbouring trees are not significantly affected by the development. A Phase One Habitat Assessment has been prepared in support of the application. The Assessment concludes that bats, badgers, birds and otters are known to occur in the local area; however, there was no conclusive evidence of any specifically protected species regularly occurring on the site or the surrounding area that would be negatively affected by the development subject to site mitigation including the protection of trees on the site boundary and the completion of landscaping. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 requires that consideration be given to the impact of any development on European Protected Species. As such species are not identified on the site; engagement with the Natural England Derogation Tests is not required. Planning Conditions could be attached to ensure acceptable mitigation works including landscaping is completed to compensate for any loss of habitat.
Design and Settlement character 63. Cark in Cartmel is located at the junction of three landscape character designations as defined in the CLCG, these comprising Sub Type 2c Coastal Plain; Sub Type 3a Open Farmland and Pavements; and, Sub Type 11a Low Fells. The settlement is principally characterised by intimate linear highway frontage development. A small number of modern developments exist, which do not follow and adversely erode this form. The site is located to the west of the settlement. Although a subtle distinction, the site is visually separated from the existing development to the east by virtue of the existing highway/junction and the changes in the relative ground levels, boundary treatments and extent of the vegetation. Dwellings exist to the south of the application site of which only an element is contained within the defined settlement boundary and an element is out with. The site is not allocated as an area of amenity open space in the LADPD. The site is however vegetated with dense scrub and a small number of broadleaf trees and thus has some amenity and visual value locally. The vegetation provides a visual screen between the settlement and Grade II Listed Cark Manor. The loss of the vegetation and open character of the site will adversely change the character of the site and thus this area of the settlement. The proposed form of any dwelling will be influenced by the recommendations of the FRA and Arboricultural Assessment (AA). The FRA includes limitations on the finished floor level in relation to the flood level. The AA outlines that technically a solution exists to develop the site without harm to the trees to be retained; however, at this requires a prescriptive developed form comparable to that outlined in the illustrative drawings submitted. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, significant concern exists regarding the potential to develop a dwelling on the site that would not be at odds with and result in harm to the prevailing character of the development within this area of the settlement. Adequate amenity space and parking could reasonably be delivered to serve 1no. dwelling. Impact on Listed Buildings / structures 64. The LBCA sets out a clear presumption that gives considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving a heritage asset and its setting. Section 66.1 requires that: “In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”. The NPPF requires that when considering the impact of development proposals on designated heritage assets such as listed buildings, great weight should be given to the conservation of the asset’s significance. The site comprises part of the setting of the Grade II Listed Cark House; Grade II Listed Bridge / walls to River Eea; and, Grade II Listed Cark Manor. Subject to an acceptable design the development is likely to have a neutral or slight impact on the significance of the identified heritage assets. In accordance with the tests outlined within the NPPF, it is considered that the resulting harm would be outweighed by the public benefits of delivering an affordable dwelling.
Financial benefits to Local Authorities from the development 65. 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 Levy Nil - subject to self-build exemption. Business Rates £1,400 SLDC element £150 (based on 1 Band D Equivalents). New Homes Bonus £690 SLDC element £550 (based on 0.48 Band D Equivalents).
66. New Homes Bonus only applies for four years and the first 40% of new dwellings are to be disregarded following the December 2016 autumn statement, with the money transferring to adult social care. Council Tax is an ongoing annual income, new home bonus for four years (currently). It is considered limited weight should be attached to the financial benefits arising from the proposed development.
CONCLUSION 67. The proposed development comprises an exception site development for affordable housing but the applicant has failed to demonstrate that it meets the criteria for such a site set out in Policy CS6.4. The site is located within Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3, the Sequential Test has not been passed and the Exception Test has not therefore been fully engaged. Given the constraints of the site the resulting form of any scheme for the development of the site is likely to result in an unacceptable design and form of development that will adversely impact upon the character of Cark in Cartmel.
RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reasons below:- Reason (1) The proposed development comprises an exception site development for affordable housing in an area of open countryside as defined in Policy CS1.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and Policy LA1.1 of the South Lakeland Land Allocations Development Plan Document. The applicant has failed to demonstrate clear evidence of local support for the scheme, having regard to the views of the Parish Councils within the Local Area Partnership; clear and robust evidence of housing affordable housing need in Cark in Cartmel for the development proposed; and, clear evidence of the viability of the scheme contrary to the provisions of Policies CS1.1, CS1.2 and CS6.4 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.
(2) The application site is located within defined Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3. The proposed development is a more vulnerable use and would be located within Flood Zones 2 and 3; therefore, the Sequential Test and Exception Test are applicable to the development. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the Sequential Test and Exception Test have been passed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority contrary to the relevant provisions of Policy CS8.8 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and Paragraphs 99 - 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
(3) In the lack of evidence to the contrary, given the technical constraints existing on the application site including the form of the site; the presence of mature trees; and, flood risk, the resulting form of any scheme for the development of the site is likely to result in an unacceptable design and form of development that will adversely impact upon the character of Cark in Cartmel contrary to the provisions of Policy S2 South Lakeland Design Code of the South Lakeland Local Plan and Policies CS4, CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.
P & P The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively Statement in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reasons for the refusal, approval has not been possible.