Public Document Pack

SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL South Lakeland House Kendal, Cumbria LA9 4UQ www.southlakeland.gov.uk

You are requested to attend a meeting of the Planning Committee on Tuesday, 31 July 2012, at 10.00 am in the District Council Chamber, South Lakeland House, Kendal Committee Membership

Councillors

Brian Cooper Joss Curwen Philip Dixon Sheila Eccles (Vice-Chairman) Sylvia Emmott David Fletcher Clive Graham Brenda Gray John Holmes Janette Jenkinson Sonia Lawson Ian McPherson (Chairman) Mary Orr Bharath Rajan David Ryder Sue Sanderson David Williams Mary Wilson

Monday, 23 July 2012 Debbie Storr, Director of Policy and Resources (Monitoring Officer)

For all enquiries, please contact:- Committee Administrator: Janine Jenkinson Telephone: 01539 717493 e-mail: [email protected] AGENDA

Page Nos. PART I

1 APOLOGIES To receive apologies for absence, if any. 2 MINUTES 1 - 8 To authorise the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 28 June 2012 (copy attached). 3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive declarations by Members and/or co-optees of interests in respect of items on this Agenda.

Members are reminded that, in accordance with the revised Code of Conduct, they are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or other registrable interests which have not already been declared in the Council’s Register of Interests. (It is a criminal offence not to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest either in the Register or at the meeting.)

Members may, however, also decide, in the interests of clarity and transparency, to declare at this point in the meeting, any such disclosable pecuniary interests which they have already declared in the Register, as well as any other registrable or other interests.

If a Member requires advice on any item involving a possible declaration of interest which could affect his/her ability to speak and/or vote, he/she is advised to contact the Monitoring Officer at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. 4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - EXCLUDED ITEMS To consider whether the items, if any, in Part II of the Agenda should be considered in the presence of the press and public. 5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Any member of the public who wishes to ask a question, make representations or present a deputation or petition at this meeting should apply to do so before the commencement of the meeting. Information on how to make the application can be obtained by viewing the Council’s Website www.southlakeland.gov.uk or by contacting the Democratic and Electoral Services Manager on 01539 717440.

(1) Planning Applications

Planning applications for which requests to speak have been made.

(2) Deputations and Petitions

Agenda items for which requests to speak have been made. 6 REPORT OF THE INTERIM CORPORATE DIRECTOR 9 - 154 (COMMUNITIES) To determine planning applications received. 7 A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 5 May - 31 May 155 - 160 2012 To inform Members about enforcement activity between 5 May and 31 May 2012. 8 APPEALS UPDATE AT 31 July 2012 161 - 166 To provide Members with information about the receipt and determination of planning appeals. 9 FOX ROCK, ALLITHWAITE ROAD, GRANGE -OVER -SANDS 167 - 170 To consider the time taken to complete a Section 106 Agreement in relation to Fox Rock, Allithwaite Road, Grange –over-Sands. PART II

Private Section (exempt reasons under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, specified by way of paragraph number)

There are no items in this part of the Agenda. This page is intentionally left blank Item No.2 13 28.06.2012 Planning Committee

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the proceedings at a meeting of the Planning Committee held in the District Council Chamber, South Lakeland House, Kendal, on Thursday, 28 June 2012, at 10.00 am.

Present

Councillors

Ian McPherson (Chairman)

Brian Cooper John Holmes Sue Sanderson Joss Curwen Janette Jenkinson David Williams Sylvia Emmott Bharath Rajan Mary Wilson Brenda Gray David Ryder

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Philip Dixon, Sheila Eccles (Vice - Chairman), David Fletcher and Clive Graham.

Officers

Zaheer Bashir Solicitor Kate Bellwood Planning Officer (part) Barry Jackson Development Management Team Leader Janine Jenkinson Assistant Democratic Services Officer Kate Lawson Planning Officer

P/16 MINUTES

RESOLVED – That the Chairman be authorised to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 31 May 2012.

P/17 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

RESOLVED – That it be noted that the following declarations of interest were made :-

(1)Councillor Brian Cooper - Minutes P/22 (Planning Application) No. SL/2012/0026/; and

(2)Councillor Sylvia Emmott - Minute P/20 (Planning Application) No. SL/2012/0383.

P/18 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - EXCLUDED ITEMS

RESOLVED - That it be noted that there were no items in Part ll of the Agenda.

Page 1 14 28.06.2012 Planning Committee

P/19 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

7.SL/2012/0289 NEW HUTTON: Hawkrigg Hill, Hawkrigg Lane, New Hutton LA8 OAL. Erection of single wind turbine (79.6 M to blade tip) and associated metering units. (Mr Peter Ellis).

Arthur Robinson spoke on behalf of New Hutton Parish Council in objection to the proposal on the grounds that it would have a detrimental impact on the local economy, public and private amenity and would set a precedent. A full copy of his representation has been placed on the Democratic Services file.

Richard Sharp spoke on behalf of Hawkrigg Turbine Group in objection to the application. He stated that there was strong opposition to the application in the local area. Concerns were raised in relation to precedent, cumulative impact and detrimental impact on the local economy, landscape and community sustainability. A full copy of his representation has been placed on the Democratic Services file.

Suzie Hayman spoke on behalf of Ashes Caravan Park. She argued that if approved the turbine would significantly damage the landscape, local amenity and the local economy. She stated that tourism was a key source of income in Cumbria and the attraction of the countryside was the single most important factor in attracting visitors to the area. Members were urged to reject the application. A full copy of her representation has been placed on the Democratic Services file.

The Development Management Team Leader reported on consultee responses received. The National Trust had no objections to the proposal and had concluded that there would be no significant impact upon their interests. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) had stated that insufficient information had been provided for them to confirm that there would be no significant adverse impact.

165 letters objecting to the turbine had been received together with six letters supporting the proposed development.

Members considered that the proposed turbine would exert a significant adverse visual effect on the surrounding area and the benefits of renewable energy generation was outweighed by the harmful effect of the turbine on the landscape and on residential amenity.

REFUSE – due to the reasons detailed in the Schedule and an additional reason relating to the lack of insufficient information to determine the impact on bird species.

10. SL/2012/0350 KILLINGTON: Land North of Killington Lake, Sedbergh. Erection of an 80 metre high wind monitoring mast. (Banks Renewables (Killington Windfarm) Ltd).

Tanya Hoare spoke on behalf of Friends of Eden, Lakeland and Lunesdale Scenery (FELLS), in objection to the application. She stated that although the

Page 2 15 28.06.2012 Planning Committee application was for a monitoring mast, it was inseparable part of a wind farm proposal. She asserted that another mast for a wind farm in this part of Cumbria was unsustainable. Members were urged to stop the proliferation of turbines. A full copy of her representation has been placed on the Democratic Services file.

Peter Sugden spoke on behalf of Stop Turbines at Killington (STAK), in objection to the application. Concern was raised regarding the short consultation period with local residents. In addition he stated that the benefits would not outweigh the unacceptable harm to the local landscape. A full copy of his statement has been placed on the Democratic Services file.

Edmund Hoare spoke in objection to the application. He acknowledged the need to reduce carbon emissions, however asserted that the small amount of energy produced by the turbine would not outweigh the detrimental impact to the landscape.

Will Bashall spoke on behalf of Mr and Mrs Schools, in objection to the application. Concerns were raised regarding the lack of consultation with local residents, the impact of the local leisure and tourism businesses and cumulative detrimental impact.

Martin Earl, the applicant’s agent responded to the points raised. He stated that consultation with local residents had taken place and that he would be happy to provide further information to allay any remaining concerns. With regard to design he stated that the turbine would be a slim structure located in a suitable location for a limited period of 18 months. He reported that the mast was linked to a potential wind turbine proposal, however advised that the two were separate applications and the approval of the mast would not prejudice any future decision.

New Hutton Parish Council had confirmed that they had no objections to the application. An ambiguous response had been received from the Highways Agency, it was reported that further clarification would be sought. The Ministry of Defence had recommended that aviation lights be fixed to the mast. No response had been received from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

Ten additional letters of objection had been received.

Members were advised that if minded to approval the proposal, they would not be expressing any view as to the suitability or otherwise of this locality to accommodate any future wind turbine development.

On balance, the Committee concluded that the proposal was acceptable on the grounds that the mast was a slender structure required for a temporary period and would have minimal visual impact.

The Director People and Places be authorise to GRANT for a limited 18 month period, subject to satisfactory responses from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Highways Agency and a condition requiring the installation of aviation lighting.

Page 3 16 28.06.2012 Planning Committee

P/20 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR (PEOPLE AND PLACES)

8. SL/2012/0326 URSWICK: Bank End, Great Urswick, Ulverston LA12 OSW. Two dwellings. (Mr and Mrs N Howker).

One additional letter of objection and one of support had been received.

A site visit had been undertaken and Members had now had the opportunity to view and assess the location.

The applicants’ agent had stated that the site was located within an established group of dwellings and should be regarded as being within a hamlet on the edge of Great Urswick. Thereby the development could be considered as appropriate infilling or rounding off.

Members were advised that the site was located outside the development boundary for Great Urswick and as such there was a policy presumption against any new residential development in this location, unless there was an exceptional local need, or the development was for affordable housing. No such case had been put forward.

On balance, the Committee felt the principle of development in this location was acceptable.

Some discussion took place regarding the access to the site and the two unsatisfactory pinch points between Nos 1 and 3 The Barns. It was felt a condition should be attached to address the access constraints and the positioning of the boundary wall.

GRANT – subject to suitable conditions to address the access constraints and the positioning of the boundary wall.

6. SL/2012/0241 URSWICK: Bolton Manor Farm, Little Urswick LA12 OPX. Siting of single wind turbine (34.2 M to blade tip) (M & D Stable).

It was reported that the Ministry of Defence had no objections to the application.

Overall it was felt that the proposed turbine would appear as an isolated and prominent vertical structure which would be incongruous in its surroundings and would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the landscape.

REFUSE

Note – Councillor Sylvia Emmott declared a personal interest in the following item of business, by virtue of being the Ward Councillor.

Page 4 17 28.06.2012 Planning Committee

11. SL/2012/0383 KENDAL: Kendal Arms Hotel, 72 Milnthorpe Road, Kendal, LA9 5HG. Siting of play equipment with fabric sail structure over. (Mr Richard Berry).

The proposed play equipment and associated time restrictions were deemed appropriate in this location and would not harm the amenity of neighbouring residents.

Members supported the application and felt it would improve the area and benefit the operation of the business.

GRANT

5. SL/2012/0221 KENDAL: Kendal Golf Club, The Heights, Kendal LA9 4PQ. Golf driving range (revised scheme SL/2011/0219). (Kendal Golf Club).

The main issues for consideration related to visual impact, noise, car parking, loss of green space and impact on the biodiversity of the site.

A site visit had been undertaken and the Committee had now had the opportunity to view the site and assess the application within the proposed location.

Members considered that the proposal would be visually intrusive and over- prominent in the landscape, appearing elevated above other buildings, and by reason of proportions and materials, appear incongruous in the setting.

REFUSE

1.SL/2011/0280 LAMBRIGG: Todds Farm, Lambrigg, Kendal LA8 ODJ. Conversion of Barn and Lean – to stables to three dwellings with open fronted garages and installation of a septic tank. (Mr R and Mrs J Knipe).

The main issue to be considered in determining the application related to the principle of whether conversion was acceptable.

A response from the Council’s Housing Strategy Team was reported. The Strategic Housing and Enabling Team Leader had confirmed that permission should be refused for a conversion that was not restricted to affordable accommodation.

Policy Cs6.4 clearly stated the requirement that new dwellings outside settlements in the countryside be restricted to affordable accommodation only.

On balance, the Committee considered that the proposed conversion of the barn range to three dwellings in a remote location in the open countryside would not be in accord with the policies of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy in relation to rural exception sites.

REFUSE

Page 5 18 28.06.2012 Planning Committee

P/21 ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING

The Committee adjourned for luncheon at 1.15 p.m. and reconvened at 1.45 p.m. when the same Members were present, with the exception of Councillors Janette Jenkinson, Bharath Rajan and David Williams.

P/22 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR PEOPLE AND PLACES

2. SL/2012/0024 GRANGE OVER SANDS: 7 Priory Lane, Grange over Sands LA11 7BH. Demolition of existing Bungalow and erection of a pair of semi- detached dormer bungalows. (Mr John Stephenson).

A revised report had been circulated to Members prior to the Committee meeting.

Overall, the proposal was considered to be appropriate in terms of scale, design, materials of construction and parking arrangements.

It was considered that the impact to neighbouring properties by reason of loss of light or loss of privacy would be minimal and the increased distance in the boundary was considered to be acceptable.

GRANT – subject to the conditions detailed in the revised report.

Note – Councillor Brian Cooper declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item of business, by virtue of being a member of the Golf Club. He left the Chamber during the discussion and voting thereon.

3. SL/2012/0026 KENDAL: Carus Green Golf Club, Burneside Road, Kendal LA9 6EB. Installation of external lighting. (Mr Graham Curtin).

During the discussion concern was raised regarding the lights having been installed in advance of planning permission being granted and that the application was retrospective, despite the Committee having stipulated that a condition be placed on all consents that required a planning application for all external lighting.

In addition, it was highlighted that the Council had hired the venue for an event and that this created a very poor public perception. Members requested that the Committee’s disapproval of the Council’s hiring of this venue be highlighted to the Chief Executive.

Overall, Members felt that the lighting was appropriate, and that the building would not be illuminated to an extent that it would be harmful to the character of the area or cause harm to amenity.

GRANT

Page 6 19 28.06.2012 Planning Committee

4. SL/2012/0079 KENDAL: 8 Castle Park, Kendal LA9 7AX. Sub-division, alteration and extension of dwelling to form two dwellings. (Mr Stuart Richardson).

The site was within a sustainable location within the Key Service Centre of Kendal. The proposal would provide an additional dwelling of a suitable design without causing harm to the amenity of neighbouring residents.

GRANT

9. SL/2012/0329 PENNINGTON: Channel House Farm, Pennington, Ulverston, LA12 7NY. Erection of one wind turbine (17.75 M to blade tip) (Mr Michael Wood).

The wind turbines were compatible with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS7.7 and CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy7 C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan in that the benefits of renewable energy outweigh the adverse impact of the installation on the landscape.

GRANT

P/23 A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 9 APRIL - 4 MAY 2012

Members were presented with a report on enforcement activity between 9 April and 4 May 2012. Twenty-eight outstanding cases from the caseload had been resolved. Twelve new complaints had been recorded and were presently being investigated of which none had been resolved.

It was noted that of the 401 outstanding cases, 139 related to individual ‘A’ board investigation in Kendal.

10/0124 Woodbine Cottage

A small section of decking remained. It was not considered expedient to pursue this case any further and Members’ authorisation to close the case was sought.

RESOLVED – That

(1) the report and appendix be noted; and (2) in respect of 10/0124 Woodbine Cottage the update be noted and the case closed.

P/24 A QUARTERLY REPORT ON THE OUTSTANDING ENFORCEMENT CASES AT 4 MAY 2012

Members considered a summary of the number of enforcement cases currently unresolved and a brief description of the selected priority cases currently being dealt with.

Page 7 20 28.06.2012 Planning Committee

RESOLVED -That the report be noted.

P/25 APPEALS UPDATE AT 28 JUNE 2012

Members were provided with information about the receipt and determination of planning appeals from the start of the financial year in April 2012.

National Indicator BVPI 204 set a target of a maximum number of appeals allowed as 33 %. The current performance, calculated from decisions received since 1 April 2012 was 100% success to date in defending appeals against refusal.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

P/26 NATIONAL GRID NORTH WEST COASTAL CONNECTIONS PROJECT: CONSIDERATION OF STRATEGIC ROUTE OPTIONS

Consideration was given to a consultation document which had been received from the National Grid regarding the options to upgrade the electricity transmission network in the North West.

Members were presented with a proposed response to the consultation on the Preliminary Strategic Options Report and asked to convey any comments or observations to the Planning Officer.

The nuclear new build and National Grid connections project were major infrastructure projects for South Lakeland, Cumbria and Lancashire communities.

It was considered important that the District Council continued to work with the National Grid to ensure that the option or options taken forward were developed in such a way as to minimise any adverse impact upon the South Lakeland area.

RESOLVED – That

(1) the report be noted; and (2) Members forward to the Planning Officer any comments they wished to be conveyed to Cabinet.

The meeting ended at 2.55 pm

Page 8 Item No.6

SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

From: Director (People and Places) To: Planning Committee – Tue 31 st July 2012

REPORT OF CORPORATE DIRECTOR (PEOPLE and PLACES)

PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION Page No

Index

Schedule A - Complex planning applications 13 - 154

Schedule B - Planning applications where the Interim Corporate None Director (Communities) is seeking authority to determine

Schedule C - Applications relating to Listed Buildings

Schedule D - Advertisements None

Schedule E - Development by South Lakeland District Council and Cumbria County Council

Schedule F - Straightforward planning applications None

Schedule G - All other submissions None

Background papers relating to the subject matter of the report For all items the background papers are contained in the files listed in the second column of the schedule index.

Note: The background papers may be inspected at the offices of the Corporate Director (People and Places), Lowther Street, Kendal, Cumbria

Page 9 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 10 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE – 31 July 2012

SCHEDULE REFERENCE SECTION SITE ADDRESS NUMBER NUMBER

ALDINGHAM 6 SL/2012/0268 A(63-68) Land at Scales (Gales Farm)

BEETHAM 10 SL/2012/0348 A(101-106) Lancaster Bros., Elmsfield Park, Holme

EGTON WITH NEWLAND, MANSRIGGS AND OSMOTHERLEY 8 SL/2012/0297 A(77-84) Coal Yeat Farm, Broughton Beck

GRAYRIGG 14 SL/2012/0460 A(127-132) Green Acres

HELSINGTON 9 SL/2012/0327 A(85-100) High House Farm

KENDAL 17 SL/2012/0441; C(145-150) The Castle Dairy Restaurant, Wildman SL/2012/0442 Street (CAC); and SL/2012/0443 (LBC) 18 SL/2012/0492 E(151-154) Nobles Rest bungalow, Maude Street (CAC)

KIRKBY LONSDALE 12 SL/2012/0420 A(113-118) Lane House Barns, off the A65 13 SL/2012/0425 A(119-126) Tram Lane / Dodgson Croft

LEVENS 16 SL/2012/0547 A(139-144) Whinfield, Force Lane

LOWER ALLITHWAITE 11 SL/2012/0412 A(107-112) The Pastures, Templands Lane

LUPTON 7 SL/2012/0290 A(69-76) Lupton High Farm

MILNTHORPE 15 SL/2012/0461 A(133-138) Bela House, Beetham Road

PENNINGTON 5 SL/2012/0255 A(49-62) Land near Sea View

1 Page 11

ULVERSTON 1 SL/2011/0812; A(13-18) Old Freezer Centre, Stockbridge Lane SL/2012/0366 3 SL/2012/0100 A(29-40) The Lakes Glass Centre, Oubas Hill

URSWICK 2 SL/2011/0961 A(19-28) Town End, Bardsea 4 SL/2012/0225 A(41-48) Longrigg Service Station, Hooks Lane

2 Page 12 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 1 SL/2011/0812 (FPA) and SL/2012/0366 (CAC) ULVERSTON: OLD FREEZER CENTRE, STOCKBRIDGE LANE, LA12 7BG

PROPOSAL: DEMOLITION OF WAREHOUSE BUILDING AND ERECTION OF THREE DWELLINGS

MR ROSS O'CONNELL

E328443 N478368 31/07/2012

SUMMARY: Proposed redevelopment of storage building within the Ulverston Conservation Area to form three dwellings. Scheme has been amended from the original submission to address concerns previously made.

ULVERSTON TOWN COUNCIL: Objected to the original scheme for four dwellings. Concerns about the lack of detail on the submitted plans and the overall height and intensity of the development. Comments regarding the amended scheme to be reported.

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: Details of the surface water drainage should be provided.

CONSERVATION OFFICER: The application to demolish the current building on the site is not considered to be problematic. Although historic map analysis suggests that that the building may have late C18th origins, it has been subject to extensive and disfiguring alterations and extensions in the late C20th such that, other than for one of two features, such as the door arches to the front, it now retains very little architectural or historic significance Demolition is therefore supported, subject to conditions being attached to ensure that the new development will proceed after the loss of the heritage asset has occurred, and that the building is recorded to an appropriate level prior to any demolition commencing.

Page 13 Although the Conservation Officer supported the original submission in principle, any comments received regarding the amended scheme will be reported at the meeting.

ARBORICULTURIST: I am concerned that the proposed elevations will be very close to, if not into the crowns of Trees T3 to T10. A two storey elevation, no higher than the existing roof line would be suitable and would not require any works to the crowns of the trees to implement. The actual rooting areas of the trees have been restricted because of the existing commercial building and the rear retaining wall of this building. The proposal would not (or should not) have any impact upon the trees’ roots providing the retaining wall is not demolished and rebuilt. If it is proposed to remove and replace the retaining wall, then a Method Statement detailing how the trees roots will be protected will be required. Tree protection measures will also be required for T1 and T2 in the form of a Tree Protection Plan. My greatest concern with this proposal is what happens (if the trees are retained) once the development is complete. Any resident of the dwelling closest to the trees will no doubt be contacting the trees’ owners asking for the trees to be felled or severely cut back as the branches will be completely over the roof of this dwelling. There is also the risk that any damage to the retaining wall may be blamed upon the retained trees, resulting in claims against the trees’ owners for damages. The removal of T3 to T10 and replacement planting may be a suitable solution providing this is conditioned by the Planning Permission and agreed between the tree owners and the development site owners. This would serve to prevent long term issues between the dwellings and the trees, and would probably serve to improve the chances of the developer being able to sell the dwelling closest to the existing trees. The Yew trees and other broadleaves present within the grounds of Stockbridge could be retained, along with T1 and T2 on the development site, and this would provide some screening from the development as well as breaking up the appearance of views from Daltongate.

OTHER: Five letters of objection have been received in respect of the original submission, concerning the scale, design and unneighbourly impact of the proposal which was for four dwellings. The neighbouring residents have been re-consulted on the amended scheme and any responses will be reported at the meeting.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The report relates to both the application for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the existing buildings and the application for Planning Permission to construct three dwellings on the site. The site is located towards the southern end of Stockbridge Lane where it joins Daltongate. It comprises an irregular shaped piece of land, most of which is occupied by a large two storey warehouse building and until recently was used as a freezer storage facility for a fish, poultry and game suppliers. Most of the site has a frontage onto Stockbridge Lane and the site slopes down the hill generally from north

Page 14 to south. A three storey residential block of flats is positioned on lower land adjoining the southern side of the site. To the north west is Stockbridge House, a Grade II listed building, set in mature grounds bounded by a high stone wall which is a distinctive and attractive feature of Stockbridge Lane. A number of mature trees are located close to / and overhang the north western boundary of the site. Opposite the site is a Council owned car park and a driveway entrance to small group of dwellings at Daltongate Court. The southern part of the site wraps around a smaller public parking area also owned by the Council. The proposal involves the demolition of the existing building and the construction of three two and a half storey dwellings along the north east frontage of the site. The scheme has been amended from the original submission for four dwellings following concerns raised regarding the overall scale and design of the proposal. The scheme now takes the form of a terrace of three, three-bedroomed cottages, incorporating a bedroom within the roofspace. The properties would have a rendered finish with pitched slated roofs stepping down the slope of the site. Although retaining a conventional traditional form, the development would incorporate contemporary features, particularly on the rear elevation which would incorporate larger glazed areas and timber panelling. Each dwelling would have a raised stack feature on the roof, similar to a chimney stack which would incorporate a roof light. The applicant wishes to incorporate green technology into the development by the provision of solar panels, solar gain glazing and high levels of insulation. The cottages would be stepped back from the road frontage to provide a small forecourt and bin store area enclosed by a dwarf stone wall. Each property would have an enclosed rear garden area. No off road parking is provided although the site is located near to public car parks on Daltongate and Stockbridge Lane. A land contamination desk study report has been provided which recommends that a CCTV survey of the drains is undertaken together with sampling before any demolition or construction work is undertaken to determine if there are any contaminants on the site. A tree survey report has also been submitted which concludes that the difference in levels between the site and the grounds of Stockbridge House to the north west provides an effective root barrier so that no roots would be affected by the proposed development. It recommends that the retained trees should be protected with fencing during construction work.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework The site is located within the Ulverston Conservation Area. Section 12 states that Local Planning Authorities should look for opportunities for new development in conservation areas which enhance the setting of the heritage asset. There is a statutory duty to preserve and enhance the special character of conservation areas. Section 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumptions in favour of sustainable development. It also states that Planning Authorities should normally approve

Page 15 applications for change to residential use from commercial buildings where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area. Section 7 states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy seeks to concentrate development in Kendal and Ulverston, and Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy seeks significant residential development with priority to previously developed sites in the urban area. Policy CS8.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy seeks to safeguard and, where possible, enhance heritage assets including conservation areas.

South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Policy C16 of the South Lakeland Local Plan seeks to preserve and enhance the special character of conservation areas. Saved Local Plan Policy E6 relates to the protection of existing employment sites and states that: “proposals to change the use of existing employment land and buildings to a non employment use will not be permitted except where; the existing use is un neighbourly, or the change of use could assist a move to alternative and more suitable premises in the vicinity.”

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The existing buildings on the site currently detract form the character and appearance of the conservation area and this is acknowledged within the adopted Conservation Area Character Appraisal report. The site is also located within a predominantly residential area whereby it could be argued that the continued use of the site for employment purposes could generate unneighbourly activities. It is therefore considered that the principle of demolishing the existing buildings and redeveloping the site for residential use is considered to be acceptable. The number of units proposed falls below the threshold of requiring an affordable housing element. The form of the proposal incorporates contemporary design features using a traditional palette of materials and as such the overall scale and design of the amended scheme is considered to be appropriate for this site. The amended scheme has addressed the issues of scale and un-neighbourliness in relation to the adjacent residential flats.

Page 16 The Council’s arboriculturist considers that the issue of the overhanging trees from the neighbouring property can be addressed by attaching appropriate conditions. Some of the trees in question are in need of management work and it is understood that the applicant has been in discussion with the neighbouring owner to agree a future management plan for the trees. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable and will result in an overall improvement to the appearance of this site and the setting of the Ulverston Conservation Area.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT Planning permission subject to: (1) Standard time limit. (2) Amended plans. (3) Materials. (4) Boundary wall treatments. (5) Levels. (6) Tree management plan. (7) Construction management plan.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT Conservation Area Consent subject to:

(1) Standard time limit. (2) Demolition Management Plan. (3) Link to new development following demolition.

Page 17 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 18 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 2 SL/2011/0961

URSWICK: TOWN END, BARDSEA, ULVERSTON LA12 9QJ

PROPOSAL: CHANGE OF USE OF AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS TO BUSINESS UNITS WITH TWO LIVE / WORK UNITS

MR M TOWERS

E330155.5 N475264.2 31/07/2012

SUMMARY: Overall the scheme will improve the appearance of the existing buildings and will result in additional screening which will be beneficial to the character of the area in general. It will also lead to an improved access and a reduction in speed limit which will benefit all users of the highway.

URSWICK PARISH COUNCIL: The proposed workshops are very close to residential properties. If planning permission is granted, noise limits and restrictions on working times should be placed as conditions on the development. Moreover, as the site is in a prominent position in Bardsea village, it is felt inappropriate to use anything other than traditional roofing materials, as this would be out of place in a village setting. Regarding the sight lines at access . The site plan shows a relatively straight road past the access to the site, but does not take account of gradients. On the approach from Ulverston a steep hill, coupled with the high hedge on the nearside, obscures the entrance. Response to amended plan – alteration to access Would like to raise the following objections to this application: The roofing materials proposed are not in keeping with the village location. Access - the sight lines from the proposed new entrance to the site are poor. On the developers' plan no account is taken of contours, bends in the road, gradient, or walls and hedges. This presents problems for visibility for drivers accessing the site, or leaving it. The amended plan moves the entrance nearer to the junction with Red Lane, which is not an improvement.

Page 19 The amended plan results in the loss of four parking spaces within the site. To achieve the new design will mean the removal of a length of roadside hedge and a number of the trees on the north side of the site. There is the question of whether the barns are inhabited by Barn owls and Bats. The results of the owl and bat survey undertaken by the agent have not been made available for public scrutiny.

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: As I am unaware of any mains foul drainage in the vicinity, the applicant should submit details of the proposed foul drainage. Details should also be submitted of how surface water drainage will be disposed of. Due to the type of end use, residential over commercial, there may be noise issues relating to the comfort of the occupiers above. Details of any proposed business and the necessary sound insulation provided should be submitted. A condition should be applied relating to the hours of business.

SLDC ARBORICULTURIST: T4 a Cherry is heavily covered in ivy and very close to the existing building. T4 is proposed to be removed for the development, and in my view, would need to be removed regardless of this proposal to prevent further damage to the existing buildings. Trees numbered 5 to 9 inclusive are shown as retained for the development. A Tree Protection Plan in accordance with BS5837:2005 should be submitted (under condition) showing the location of protective fencing for the retained trees. There is some tree growth in the area to the west of the proposed business units between the existing buildings to the south of the site and the main road. Many of these trees are damaging the existing building and would need to be removed regardless of this proposal. I have no objection to the trees between the existing building to the south of the site and road being removed. The proposal shows the existing buildings converted to a number of business units and two live / work units to the north of the site. The northern elevation of the proposed buildings will be extremely close to the three Beech trees growing in the locations shown as 1, 2 and 3 on drawing no 615/03. These three Beech trees do provide a screen to the appearance of the existing building when approached from the north, however, other trees and the boundary hedge proposed to be laid in this area break up views of these buildings. The proposed layout shows windows to the north of the live / work units, which would be obscured by the existing Beech trees. The existing building and proposed development is within the Root Protection Area of these trees. For the current building layout to be acceptable, Trees T1, T2 and T3 would need to be removed to provide sufficient clearance from the new dwellings and to prevent damage to the crown and roots of the trees. If the trees are proposed to be felled, we would require some replacement planting to replace the screening provided by these trees to the buildings. Any replacement screening should be further away from the building than the location of the existing Beech trees.

Page 20 The applicant should supply a tree survey to BS5837 2005 for this application. Response to amended plan – alteration to access The buildings will become more exposed when approached from the north of the site, as a result of the tree removals to permit the visibility splays for the new road access. The site is already visible from Red Lane and the A5074 Bardsea coast road, and to screen the site (and also provide a good wind break in this exposed location); I would recommend that a shelter belt of approximately 10 metres wide (more if they can afford it) is planted along the western boundary within the adjacent agricultural field in the location indicated in the plan no 615/05. Species should be native broadleaved trees such as Silver Birch, Oak, Holly, Maple / Sycamore, Hawthorn and Ash. Whilst it may be possible to retain a couple of trees to the north of the site, I suspect most will need to be removed to attain the required visibility splays for the new access point. The area to the north of the proposed new road into the site could also be planted up as a screen / shelterbelt. Unfortunately the establishment of the planting as an effective screen for the site will take between 10 and 15 years, so the development would be prominent in the landscape for around this period. However, longer term, providing the screen planting is maintained and retained, the site will become less conspicuous in the landscape. I think the addition of vehicular access to all the units is a great improvement in the scheme. The areas proposed for tree and shrub planting are sufficient to increase the screening of the site, but we will need to have details of the species proposed and spacing’s for the trees along the eastern field boundary to ensure the trees planted will actually screen the site. The plantings along the road entrance and boundary to the western side of the site should be arranged with the smaller, slower growing species close to the roadside with larger faster growing trees further back from the road. Please condition that details of species, size, number and planting locations of trees and shrubs should be submitted prior to the commencement of development.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: The access is onto a road subject to the National Speed Limit of 60 mph; by reputation it can be a fast road. The visibility splay in the Cumbria Design Guide for 60mph is at least 4.5m by 215m and I do not think that this is achievable here. In their transport form the developers said that "improved visibility splays could be provided if deemed necessary." They should demonstrate what visibility splays they can achieve. Response to amended plan – alteration to access This seems to be the optimum visibility splay achievable with this development. The developer is required to fund the process, and necessary works if implemented, for installing an urban speed limit buffer zone on the highway. The costs are estimated at £5,000. Further formal comments are anticipated and will be reported.

Page 21 UNITED UTILITIES: No comments received.

NATURAL ENGLAND: The application is in close proximity to Sea Wood, and Morecambe bay Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). However, given the nature of this proposal, Natural England raises no objection to the proposal being carried out. However the Local Planning Authority should assess and consider the possible impacts, resulting from this proposal, on protected species, local wildlife sites and biodiversity enhancements.

WORLD OWL TRUST: On 11th January 2012 I carried out a Barn owl survey of Town End Farm, Bardsea for Mr and Mrs Towers and at the time found no evidence that Barn owls were using the site so far as I could see at the time. I could only report on what I could see at the time. However, these birds can hide away and the fact that I found no evidence in January, does not necessarily mean that they are not using the site now, as things change. Last week I was joined by a local volunteer and we visited some known Barn owl breeding sites in the Bardsea / Ulverston area. 2012 is proving a poor breeding year for Barn owls in South West Cumbria, but in 2011 there were successful broods at a site in Tebay Lane, Ulverston (where 7 young fledged), and also in the Mansriggs area. The young of breeding Barn owls need new sites to disperse to for winter shelter and roosts, apart from breeding. It is possible to incorporate owl lofts into new building designs and I would like to think that this is considered within the planning process.

OTHER: One letter of objection has been received which raises the following concerns: • The crossroads near to the proposed development are highly dangerous with limited visibility. Many accidents have been witnessed at the Red Lane Junction and the Priory Lane Junction. These narrow lanes are already overburdened serving the Oxleys site. • The barns in question (earmarked to be demolished) are the site of Barn owls which are endangered. These are observed flying to and from the barns every summer. • There is also a healthy bat population and a survey should be carried out to ensure these are not disturbed.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: A planning application was submitted in 2010 for the demolition of the agricultural buildings and their replacement with live-work units. The application was withdrawn following several concerns regarding the scheme.

Page 22 DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: This application relates to a small group of agricultural buildings which are located next to a row of residential properties, approximately 300 metres to the north of the village of Bardsea. There are six dwellings immediately to the south of the site, one of which shares a boundary. Approximately 120 metres to the north east is a row of dwellings on Red Lane. These are separated from the site by an agricultural field and a road. To the south, beyond the adjacent dwellings, and to the east are agricultural fields, and to the west, on the opposite side of the highway, is Ulverston Golf Club. There are three main buildings on the site which are used for winter storage of cattle and associated fodder and straw storage, and have a total floor area of 1750 square metres. The site is surfaced in concrete, slopes downwards away from the highway, and is enclosed with walls to the boundaries with the adjacent agricultural land and a hedge adjacent to the highway. The building to the north of the site is open on two sides, measures 18 metres by 9.2 metres and has a height of 7 metres. To the south of the site are two buildings, the one to the west having an additional lean-to. The walls of these consist of concrete panels on the lower section with metal sheeting above and for the roof. The building to the east has a height of 5.2 metres, and the one to the west has a height of 6.1 metres, although this varies slightly depending on where the measurements are taken given the slightly sloping nature of the site. The access from the highway is between the northern and southern buildings. The two buildings to the south of the site are proposed to be converted and upgraded to workshop accommodation that will fall within Use Class B1, light industrial. The smaller lean-to close to the highway is proposed to be demolished. The buildings will be subdivided into six work spaces of varying sizes, with toilet and kitchen facilities in each building. The northern elevations, facing into the site, are proposed to be faced in stone with the other elevations clad in cedar boarding with windows in the two outer side elevations. The corrugated roofs will be clad in dark grey composite sheeting and will have roof lights within them. The building to the north of the site is proposed to be converted into two live / work units. It is likely that the building would be demolished and rebuilt in order to achieve this. It will be on the same footprint, but the height will be increased from 7 metres to 8.5 metres. It was originally proposed that the building would be finished in render, however this has been amended. The walls are proposed to be finished in render to a height of 2.5 metres, above which will be horizontal cedar boarding. The roof will be composite metal sheeting. On the south elevation will be a small projection at ground floor of 1.2 metres, with the doorways recessed. Part of this elevation will be faced in stone at ground floor. In the north elevation, the only windows are proposed at first floor, and there two windows in both side elevations, with more openings in the southern wall. Both ground floor work spaces have a separate door to that serving the first floor accommodation. Both residential units at first floor consist of two bedrooms, a lounge, a kitchen and a bathroom. The window and door frames will be timber. There is no outdoor amenity space provided with the units. It was originally proposed to use the existing access into the site. However, following concerns raised by Cumbria Highways, a new access has been proposed to the north of the buildings in order to increase visibility splays. As a result of this, several trees will need to be removed. Additional screening has been proposed to the north of the access and to the east of the site. There are also three sections of planting

Page 23 proposed close to the western boundary. Parking for 12 vehicles is proposed next to the eastern boundary of the site. Surface water will be directed to soakaways within the land holding. There is currently no foul drainage on the site, however the applicant has an agreement with United Utilities that the buildings can be connected to the mains sewer which crosses the applicant’s land to the east of the site.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Section 3 states that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local plans should support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through the conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings. Section 6 states that in order to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Local Planning Authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as: the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; where development would represent the optimal use of a heritage asset; where it would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 sets out the Development Strategy for the District outside the National Parks. It states that new residential development will only be permitted in the open countryside where it has an essential requirement for a rural location, is needed to sustain existing businesses or provides for exceptional needs for affordable housing. Policy CS6.4 states that proposals for housing development which are located outside the settlement boundaries in the Service Centres, or where they do not constitute infilling or rounding off in the smaller villages and hamlets, will only be considered where they provide 100% affordable housing. CS7.4 states that support will be given to the economic needs of rural communities by encouraging the re-use of suitable rural buildings for employment generating uses and the provision of live / work units and the development of rural business hubs in appropriate locations. Favourable consideration will be given to proposals to convert redundant buildings for employment uses where: the buildings are structurally sound and capable of conversion without major rebuilding, extension or modification to the existing structure; such a use would not detract from the character or appearance of the landscape or settlement and would not be detrimental to residential amenity; the building is served by satisfactory access; and services are readily available on site. In particular relation to live / work units, the policy states that new build units, which do not involve the conversion of an important rural building, will generally only be acceptable on infill sites and where it constitutes rounding off.

Page 24 Policy CS8.2 states that development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area and the distinctive settlement character. Policy CS8.4 relates to biodiversity and geodiversity and states that all development proposals should protect, enhance and restore the biodiversity and geodiversity value of land and buildings. It also states that development proposals that would have a direct or indirect adverse effect on nationally, sub-regional, regional and local designated sites will not be permitted unless they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm; the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of the site and the wider network of rural habitats; and prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are provided. Policy CS8.10 states that the siting, design, scale and materials of all development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with local vernacular tradition. Policy CS10.2 relates to the transport impact of new development. Development proposals should be capable of being served by safe access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the locality, and should incorporate parking standards that are in accordance with any adopted and emerging policy or guidance.

South Lakeland Local Plan Policy S2 states that design should take account of existing distinctive local character. This should not exclude good local contemporary architecture. Attention should be paid to public views onto, over or out of the site. Views should not be significantly harmed and opportunities should be taken to enhance them. The design and materials of new buildings should relate to those around them and be well proportioned with appropriate architectural detail and decoration.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: There are two main aspects to this proposal. These are the conversion of the two agricultural buildings to business use, and the erection of a live / work unit on the footprint of another agricultural building. The buildings on the site are large and are particularly visible from Red Lane, to the south east, given their elevated position. The alterations proposed to the buildings to the south, will improve their appearance and should therefore enhance the character of the area. Although the building to the north is smaller, it is much higher than the other buildings. The amendments to the design have improved its appearance,

Page 25 however the increase in pitch will increase the amount of roof which is visible and this will be dark grey sheeting. The Parish Council has raised concerns regarding the roofing materials to be used on the buildings. The reason that this material was proposed was so that the buildings retained a certain amount of their appearance as agricultural buildings. The change of use of the buildings to work units is appropriate in this location. The section closest to the neighbouring properties to the south will be the kitchen and toilet area. The use proposed is that of B1 and as such it should not be detrimental to the amenities of the adjacent properties. The site has previously been used to store cattle and is likely to have involved vehicle movements early in the morning. The time can be controlled by way of condition and as such, the proposal may even improve the situation to neighbouring residents. It will however result in increased traffic movements. One of the main concerns with regard to the proposal is the two live / work units. Policy CS7.4 of the Core Strategy states that new build units, which do not involve the conversion of an important rural building, will generally only be acceptable on infill sites and where it constitutes rounding off. This site is adjacent to a small group of residential properties and is approximately 300 metres from the edge of the village of Bardsea. If the policy in relation to infilling and rounding off was being applied in relation to a new dwelling, this site would not be considered to be appropriate. However, the residential units proposed will be ancillary to the business units below. On balance, given its proximity to other residential properties, and the improvements that will be made to the appearance of the site, this aspect of the proposal is acceptable. It is considered that this is a good example of the principle of enhancing the setting as stated in the National Planning Policy Framework. Following concerns by Cumbria Highways, the access is proposed to be relocated to the north of the buildings. This will provide visibility splays of 2.5 x 60 metres. This is not adequate for the speed of the road, which is 60 miles per hour, however the Highways Officer has advised that the applicant could apply for the speed limit to be reduced to 30 or 40 miles per hour which would make the scheme acceptable. The applicant has agreed to go through this process despite the cost. The Highways Officer has advised that this can take up to 6 months, and it is not guaranteed that they would be successful and the speed limit would be reduced. If the speed limit is not reduced then the scheme would not be acceptable as it would result in potential danger to users of the access and the highway adjacent to the site. This can be controlled by way of a Grampian condition which would require this reduction in speed limit to be in place before the development is commenced. If the speed limit cannot be reduced then the applicant would not be able to commence the development. The site is currently surfaced in tarmac, with the exception of the triangular piece of land to the north of the buildings which contains several trees. The new access is across this piece of land and would result in the removal of the trees. This would result in increased visibility of the building when approaching from the north. The applicant has proposed to plant a significant amount of trees in the field to the east of the site, with smaller areas of planting to the north and close to the eastern boundary, following advice from the arboriculturist. This will take a significant length of time to mature, however it will afford the buildings more screening in the long term, especially when viewed from the west.

Page 26 Bat and barn owl surveys have been undertaken following concerns raised by a neighbouring resident. There was no evidence of barn owls found in the buildings. However, a letter has recently been received from the World Owl Trust who carried out the survey. This states that usage by barn owls can vary throughout the year and that it is often possible to incorporate owl lofts into new buildings. The agent has been contacted and the applicant has agreed that roosting facilities can be provided in the building. Appropriate mitigation can be ensured by way of a condition. The bat survey concludes that there is no evidence of a large or significant bat roost within the buildings and trees surveyed. In order to minimise risks of disturbance or harm to single or itinerant bats that may occasionally roost amongst the ivy of one of the barns, several recommendations for mitigation have been made, such as timing of works, careful works methods and provision of new bat roosting opportunities. Overall the scheme will improve the appearance of the existing buildings and will result in additional screening which will be beneficial to the character of the area in general. It will also lead to an improved access and a reduction in speed limit which will benefit all users of the highway.

RECOMMENDATION: Subject to no adverse comment being received from Cumbria Highways it is recommended that delegated authority be given to the Director (People and Places) to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

(1) Standard time limit. (2) Amended plans. (3) Reduction in speed limit of highway before any works commence on site. (4) Creation of access before building works commence. (5) Parking provision in accordance with submitted plan. (6) Creation and retention of visibility splays. (7) Surfacing of access. (8) Landscaping scheme. (9) Agreement of materials. (10) Surface water drainage scheme. (11) Limited to B1 use. (12) Hours of operation. (13) Restriction of live / work unit to B1 use and residential unit not to be occupied independently of work unit. (14) Bat mitigation. (15) Barn owl mitigation.

Page 27 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 28 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 3 SL/2012/0100

ULVERSTON: THE LAKES GLASS CENTRE, OUBAS HILL, LA12 7LB

PROPOSAL: SUBDIVISION OF FORMER CRAFT WORKSHOP TO CREATE TWO CLASS A1 (RETAIL) UNITS AND ONE CLASS B1(BUSINESS) UNIT

E329558 N478609 31/07/2012 E H BOOTH and CO LTD

SUMMARY: Sub division and change of use of former glass manufacturers and associated retail and café use to form two specialist retail units, including the erection of a garden compound. Scheme has been amended to remove a third retail unit. Policy issues relating to the introduction of retail uses to this site. Subject to appropriate conditions controlling the retail element, considered acceptable.

ULVERSTON TOWN COUNCIL : Approve subject to the views of neighbours being taken into consideration.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: To be reported.

HIGHWAYS AGENCY: No objections.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: The Environment Agency has no objection in principle to the development as submitted.

Page 29 UNITED UTILITIES: No objections provided that the site is drained on a separate system, surface water should not be allowed to be discharged to a foul combine sewer, and permeable forms of paving and other landscaping should be fully utilized.

DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY GROUP MANAGER: This is a finely balanced decision. The site is not allocated for retail use and is out of town so it is technically not in line with existing local and national policy. It is however considered that there are no available and viable sequentially preferable sites that could accommodate the whole or a substantial proportion of the proposed development . In particular it is considered that West Cumberland Farmers requires the large scale format offered by the proposal. Given the emphasis in the NPPF on positive planning, the fact that a large unmet comparison need is identified, that it would be difficult to accommodate the proposal on a sequentially preferable site and the proposal will lead to wider local consumer choice, the revised proposal can be supported. Accordingly in balancing existing and emerging local and national policy the proposal is supportable subject to the control of the range of goods sold to regulate impacts on the town centre.

ULVERSTON TRADERS ASSOCIATION: The UTA object to the section of the application which involves the change of use to a Class A1 retail use, as this would endanger the vitality and viability of Ulverston Town Centre. Various efforts have been made over the years for such a change of use which has always been resisted. The UTA are always fearful of a precedent being established should there be any variation of the existing planning permission to include A1 retail. There are several shops in the town centre standing empty which should be considered by any businesses wanting to establish in the town.

CUMBRIA CONSTABULARY: I would request that Secured by Design principles are followed wherever possible within the development. From a police perspective, issues to be considered are the vulnerability of the building / site after business hours, anti-social behaviour at the rear of the site and shoplifting. A number of security recommendations are incorporated in the response and have been forwarded to the agents.

OTHER: A letter from the adjacent business has been received which generally supports the proposal, but has concerns about possible disruption during the construction phase and requests that safeguards are put in place.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Permission was granted in 1998 for the construction of a large craft workshop building, to accommodate Cumbria Crystal and Heron Glass. Although the use was restricted to Class B1 (light industrial / office uses), the permission incorporated a

Page 30 retail element relating to the sale of goods manufactured on the site, an exhibition area and a restaurant. In 2008 permission was granted for the change of use of Heron Glass to incorporate the Laurel and Hardy Museum, which was to relocate from the town centre; an increased area of retail floorspace; and craft workshop areas, retaining the existing restaurant area. This consent was not implemented and Heron Glass ceased trading in December 2009.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The Lakes Glass Centre building is located along the eastern side of the Booths supermarket car park. The building is split into two, the northern part occupied by Cumbria Crystal which does not form part of the current application, and the former Heron Glass business which occupied the larger southern part of the building. The building and associated parking and servicing areas are all within the applicants’ ownership. The application relates to the former Heron Glass Premises and the area of land immediately to the south. It is proposed to subdivide the existing building into three separate units, construct a garden centre compound to the southern side of the building and undertake a number of external alterations. Unit 1 would occupy the southern end of the building at ground floor level and have a gross floorspace of 431 square metres. It is proposed that this unit would be operated by West Cumberland Farmers (WCF) to replace the existing unit at Lindal in Furness. The company specialises in agricultural, equestrian, pets and garden related products. It is proposed to incorporate a garden compound to the southern end of the building, amounting to 377 square metres. This would be enclosed by a 2.1m high timber fence. Additional areas of glazing and a new entrance would be created on the front elevation of this unit, of a similar style to the existing glazed areas on the building. Unit 2 would occupy the central ground floor part of the building and have a gross floor space of 387 square metres. It is proposed that this unit would be operated by Mountain Warehouse which specialises in outdoor and camping goods. Unit 3 would be the largest unit occupying the northern end of the building; at ground floor level amounting to 244 square metres and the first floor accommodation which amounts to 589 square metres. The application has been amended so that it is not proposed to change the use of this unit which, would remain a class B1 (office and light industrial) use. At this stage the applicants have not secured an end user for unit 3. The front elevation to these two units would remain unaltered, retaining the main entrance to the building and common entrance lobby. The application also includes the relocation of the recycling facility, which is currently sited to the south of the building, to an area at the southern end of the supermarket building, and the relocation of the coach parking spaces to the rear of the site. The site layout plan also refers to the construction of a Travel Lodge on an area of land to the south of the site within the applicants ownership, but outside the current

Page 31 application boundary. It is understood that the applicants intend to submit a separate application for the construction of a hotel on this site at some time in the future. A planning and retail statement has been submitted in support of the application. This states that the proposal will enable the re-use of an existing vacant building, which is accessible by a choice of means of transport, it will not lead to a significant increase in traffic, and will result in the creation of a number of jobs. In the case of WCF and Mountain Warehouse this would be 14 full time and 6 part time jobs. It will also have a positive impact on the regeneration of the area. The retail statement concludes that there are no sequentially preferable sites which are suitable, viable or available for the development; the development would have a modest effect upon shopping patterns and would not have a detrimental impact on Ulverston Town Centre. It will enhance consumer choice within the town and the overall benefits of the proposal would outweigh the retention of the units for employment use. The site is located within a flood risk zone and as such a Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted with the application. Given the proposal relates to a change of use to retain a “Less Vulnerable use” and will not result in the loss of permeable surfacing or affect surface water, it would not raise any issues in this respect. The Environment Agency have not objected to the proposal.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) One of the defined aims of the document, aimed at delivering sustainable development, is planning for prosperity, using the planning system to build a strong, responsive and competitive economy specifically stating: “an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure”; Section 2 - Ensuring the vitality of Town Centres States that when assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres, and which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, Local Planning Authorities should: 1. Apply a sequential test. Only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. 2. Require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold or if there is no locally set threshold, 2,500 square metres. This should include an assessment of: • the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre; and

Page 32 • the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time when the application is made. Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused.

Adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy Policies CS1.1 and CS1.2 promote sustainable development and the Development Strategy for the District. Ulverston is designated as a Principle Service Centre where development will be dependant upon the character, environmental capacity and infrastructure provision. Policy CS3.1 seeks to promote the vitality and viability of Ulverston town centre and support the development of new retail provision in the town centre to accommodate both convenience and comparison shopping. Policy CS7.5 seeks to enhance local provision within centres and encourages local sustainable shopping patterns by addressing high levels of leakage to outside areas. Support will be dependant on how the development reflects the needs identified in the retail study. The development of additional retail floor space outside town centres will normally be resisted, particularly where vacancy rates are high. Policy CS8.8 requires that development will not impact on flood storage capacity, will manage flood risk and that provision is made for maintenance of mitigation measures. Policy CS8.10 is the design policy and ensures that design and materials maintain or enhance the character of the locality. Policies CS10.1 and CS10.2 relate to the transport Impact of New Development, indicating that developments will need to be designed to reduce the need to travel and maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport appropriate to its location.

South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Policies within the South Lakeland Local Plan remain relevant. Policy R5 states that further proposals for new, large scale retail development outside Ulverston Town Centre will not be allowed, unless the proposal is accompanied by evidence to demonstrate that the development would not have an adverse effect on the vitality and viability of Ulverston Town Centre. Proposals will need to provide evidence of a demonstrable need for the development, and undertake a sequential test. For proposals for the sale of bulky comparison items, the applicant must demonstrate the lack of suitable town centre and edge of centre sites, the site must be accessible by a choice of means of transport, and provide adequate parking and servicing arrangements. The current lawful use of the site is for Class B1 business uses, with ancillary retail and café elements. Policy E6 states that the change of use of employment land will not be permitted except where the existing use is unneighbourly because of traffic generation, noise, or disturbance to amenity; or the change of use would assist a move to more suitable premises in the vicinity. The supporting text states that there may be situations in which a change of use from a business to a hotel, restaurant or

Page 33 similar job creating use may be appropriate. The definition of employment uses does not however include retail. Policies TR5 and S10 seek to ensure that parking provision is appropriate . Policies TR6a and TR7 seek to ensure that opportunities for disabled access, pedestrians and cyclists are provided. Policy S2 states that the design of new buildings should take account of existing distinctive local character. This should not exclude good local contemporary architecture. Attention should be paid to public views onto, over or out of the site. Views should not be significantly harmed and opportunities should be taken to enhance them. The design and materials of new buildings should relate to those around them and be well proportioned with appropriate architectural detail and decoration. Policy S3 requires a high standard of landscaping.

Land Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) The site is classed as a brown field site located within the development boundary for Ulverston and although the land allocations document does not make any specific allocations in respect of the application site, it does include the allocation of the land to the east of the site strategic employment site and the adjacent canal head area to the south and west of the site as a mixed use regeneration designation.

Other Policy Documents The South Lakeland Retail Study 2007 - 2015 was produced in October 2007. This document assessed capacity for additional retail and leisure development within the sub-region and is intended to inform the emerging Local Development Framework. It highlighted high levels of leakage of comparison expenditure from Ulverston and identifies that the capacity would support 1,800 square metres of new floorspace. The South Lakeland Retail Study Update published in February 2012 identified a capacity of 2,140 square metres of comparison retail floorspace in Ulverston. The report includes an assessment of this site for mixed uses in association with Canal Head and concludes that subject to the required sequential and impact tests regarding any retail use, the site could be brought forward. This study also recommends that a local Retail Impact threshold of 1000 square metres should be adopted. South Lakeland District Council Corporate Plan 2011 - 2015 sets out the Council’s four key priorities for the next five years as Housing; Economic Development; Environment including Climate Change; and Culture. South Lakeland Sustainable Community Strategy 2008 - 2028 is a document aimed at involving local people and communities in the decision making process, with a commitment to, inter alia, job skills and regeneration; health and wellbeing; and quality environment.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition

Page 34 of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT : The main issues to be considered are whether the proposal would accord with national and local planning policies regarding the introduction of retail uses on this out of town site and the balance of the economic benefits of the proposed uses of the site with the impact of the development upon the vitality and viability of the town centre. The site has been vacant for some time and, in principle, the re-use and refurbishment of the building is to be welcomed. The site has adequate access, parking and servicing facilities and linked with the existing uses on the site could be considered as a sustainable location. Consideration should also be given to the potential wider economic benefits of the development which is adjacent to the canal head regeneration area. The applicants have indicated a further phase of development to include a hotel, and such an investment in this location could stimulate further regeneration proposals within the canal head area. The proposal does not raise any flood risk issues nor would it result in any unneighbourly impacts. The application was submitted prior to the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework on the 27 March and the submitted documents therefore relate to the former Planning Policy Statements which have now been superseded. However, the tests required in Planning Policy Statement 4 – Planning For Sustainable Economic Growth, have largely been carried forward in the NPPF in that applications such as this require a sequential test to be carried out.

The Sequential Test The applicants have undertaken a sequential test seeking to identify whether there are any suitable alternative sites closer to the town centre that could accommodate the proposed development, either as a whole or as individual units. The process identified a total of 10 vacant retail units within the town centre, ranging in size from 293 square metres (the former Stead & Simpsons) to 17 square metres (11 Brogden Street). The applicant states that all the units are considered to be too small to accommodate the operators requirements and have unsuitable configurations additionally other non retail sites have been considered, but none are suitable, available or viable for the proposed operators.

Impact assessment The NPPF requires that all applications, exceeding 2,500 square metres, for main town centre uses that are not in a centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan should be assessed against a number of impacts on centres. The total floor space of the amended development is 1195 square metres and is below the threshold set by the NPPF. The floor area is above the recommended 1000 square metres and thus whilst little weight in policy terms should be accorded, it is a material consideration that should be given weight. It is considered that the below

Page 35 impact analysis provides evidence of the predicted impact and why conditions should be attached. These include: 1. The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in Ulverston. It is considered that there are no public or private sector investment proposals which the proposed development could potentially affect. The proposal should not prejudice the development of the Canal Head regeneration area. 2. The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer. The applicants have undertaken an impact assessment of the proposed development upon the town centre businesses. In the case of WCF, the assessment concludes that there are no retailers within the centre which specialise in the products which are sold, except for the pet shop on Queen Street. They contest however that there is a difference in the two businesses in that WCF tend to deal with larger scale and bulk buy items, whereas the pet shop specialises in household pets and pet related products. In the case of Mountain Warehouse, the assessment concludes that there is only one retailer, Mountain Air on Market Street which specialises in branded outdoor clothing and accessories. They contend that Mountain Warehouse sell a greater range of products including boots, sleeping bags, tents, ski clothing and camping equipment, which are not currently available in Ulverston, and therefore there would be no adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre. However, the nature of this multiple chain retailer is such that it is typically found in town centre locations and it could be contended that the range of goods sold, particularly clothing and footwear could not be regarded as sufficiently specialist so as not to overlap with general town centre clothes and fashion retailers. The applicants state that they would accept a condition to control the range of goods to be sold from the units, and suggest that they would accept a restriction preventing the sale of the higher order comparison goods including fashion clothing and footwear, fashion accessories, convenience goods, pharmaceutical and personal care products, which are more commonly found in the town centre. 3. The impact of the proposal on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in accordance with the development plan. The proposed development will not have any impact upon the proposed land allocations adjacent to the site, and may well have a beneficial effect as acting as a catalyst for further investment. The proposed access to the allocated employment site to the east of the site would be to the north of the Cumbria crystal unit and the proposal would not affect this route. 4. The impact of retail proposals on in-centre trade / turnover and on trade in the wider area, taking into account current and future consumer expenditure capacity. The amount of comparison retail floorspace in Ulverston Town Centre is approximately 7,721 square metres in 84 units generating a turnover of approximately £23.16m. The new retail floorspace proposed is 818 square metres gross. Given the qualitatively different product ranges in respect of WCF and to a lesser extent Mountain Warehouse, it could be argued that there would not be a

Page 36 significant impact upon town centre trading in respect of this proposal, subject to safeguards being put in place to prevent unrestricted retail use.

Conclusion The retail impact assessment was submitted to support the original larger scheme to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in any adverse effects on the vitality and viability of Ulverston Town Centre. This is a material consideration. The proposed use of Unit 1 by WCF could be regarded as appropriate because of the nature of the business which sells specialist and bulky goods, and outlets are commonly located on out of town sites, such as industrial estates. Conditions can be imposed to restrict the range and nature of the goods sold in this respect. The proposed use of Unit 2 by Mountain Warehouse is less straightforward as this is a business which is more often located within town centres. Whilst the business does have an element of bulky goods such as tents, a significant proportion of their trading is clothing and footwear, albeit specialist outdoor clothing rather than mainstream fashion. However, the applicants have agreed to accept conditions which would limit the range of goods sold from this unit to those associated with outdoor leisure and sports equipment and clothing. The proposed Unit 3, which is the largest unit, would remain as a use falling within Class B1and as such does not raise any policy issues. It is considered that controls should be put in place to restrict the nature and extent of the retail element of the proposal to ensure future control over the use of the site can be retained, and that any impact on the retail function of the town centre is minimised. It is concluded that on balance there are significant economic benefits associated with this proposal and subject to appropriate conditions the amended application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to: Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Condition (2) This permission relates to the amended scheme deposited with the Local Planning Authority on 12 July 2012. For the avoidance of doubt, the lawful planning use of Unit 3 shall be restricted to uses as defined within Class B1 of the Town & Country Planning Use classes (Amendment) order 2005. Reason To retain control over the future uses of this unit and to prevent the establishment of inappropriate uses which are likely to have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Ulverston Town Centre

Page 37 Condition (3) Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority the range and type of goods sold from Unit 1 hereby permitted, shall be restricted to the following: pet food and accessories, small holder equipment and feed, equestrian riding equipment, feed, accessories and horse health products, agricultural feeds, crops, silage and animal health products, gardening peas, composts and gardening accessories, specialist outdoor and safety clothing and footwear. The retail floorspace hereby permitted shall be used for no other purpose, including any other purpose in Class A1of the Town & Country Planning Use Classes (Amendment) Order 2005, or in any provision equivalent to that class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification. Reason To retain control over the future uses of this unit and to prevent the establishment of inappropriate retail uses which are likely to have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Ulverston Town Centre.

Condition (4) Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, the range and type of goods sold from Unit 2 hereby permitted, shall be restricted to the following: camping and caravanning goods, cycling and other bulky goods associated with outdoor pursuits and clothing and footwear specially designed for outdoor pursuits such as hiking, horse riding, climbing, running, skiing and water sports. The sale of clothing and footwear specially designed for outdoor pursuits such as hiking, horse riding, climbing, running, skiing and water sports shall only take place when camping equipment, tents or other outdoor pursuit activity equipment are also displayed for sale in the unit. The retail floorspace hereby permitted shall be used for no other purpose, including any other purpose in Class A1 of the schedule to the Town and Country Planning Use Classes (Amendment) Order 2005, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification. Reason To retain control over the future uses of this unit and to prevent the establishment of inappropriate retail uses which are likely to have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Ulverston Town Centre.

Condition (5) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and those works shall be carried out as approved. The details shall include:

• details of the garden compound enclosure and other boundary treatments; • car parking layouts; • other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; • hard surfacing materials; • retained landscape features such as trees together with

Page 38 details of how they will be protected during construction; and • details of the relocated recycling area. Soft landscape works shall include planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers / densities; and an implementation programme. Any trees / shrubs which are removed, die, become severely damaged or diseased within five years of their planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees / shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason To safeguard and enhance the character of the area and secure high quality landscaping in accordance with saved Policy S3 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Page 39 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 40 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 4 SL/2012/0225

URSWICK: LONGRIGG SERVICE STATION LTD, HOOKS LANE, LITTLE URSWICK ULVERSTON LA12 0PR

PROPOSAL: DEMOLISH SERVICE STATION AND REMOVE FUEL TANKS AND CONTAMINATED DEBRIS; NEW GARAGE / SERVICE STATION; EXTENSIONS TO EXISTING BUNGALOW MR M and MRS J BLANCHARD E326478 N473903 31/07/2012 AND ERECTION OF FIVE DWELLINGS AND TWO OFFICES

SUMMARY: Outline application for redevelopment of commercial garage site to provide smaller relocated garage business, the construction of three live / work dwellings, two affordable dwellings and the extension of the existing dwelling. Number of policy issues. On balance considered to be acceptable in principle.

URSWICK PARISH COUNCIL: A previous application for a dwelling on this site was refused in 2000 based on policy grounds and these objections still appear to be relevant in this case. The Core Strategy does not indicate land allocated for residential development on this site, therefore the application is contrary to policy. The Council consider that the current application would represent serious over- density of development on the site, there would be little room available for customers parking and turning vehicles, resulting in highway problems on a rural road. Further information is required for an informed view to be made.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: To be reported.

Page 41 SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: The tanks will have to be removed and the site sampled around this area for leaks. A site investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling on site together with a remediation strategy will need to be submitted to EPG for approval prior to the commencement of any development on site.

ARBORICULTURIST: The general layout of the development is considered to be acceptable in terms of the relationship to the trees to be retained on site. A full tree survey will be required at the reserved matters application stage. The sycamore tree on the site frontage should be retained and appropriately protected during construction work.

COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGIST: The proposed development does lie in an area of archaeological sensitivity with prehistoric earthwork remains surviving to the west of the proposed site. However, the proposal lies wholly within a former limestone quarry and the likelihood of remains on site is negligible. I therefore confirm that I have no objections.

DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY GROUP: Under the National Planning Policy Framework, there is now a presumption in favour of sustainable development and there is a requirement to consider the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities. The main policy issues raised by this outline proposal are: • There will be some net loss of employment floor space and the area of the site devoted to employment use (existing garage and service station) will be reduced. Saved Policy E6 of the Local Plan seeks to retain premises that can provide a valuable contribution to the stock of employment premises, although there is some flexibility in this policy. • The site is outside the settlement development boundary. In housing terms it is an exception site. There is a need to consider the amount of affordable housing required. Should Members be minded to approve the outline application, the following issues are highlighted: 1. The relocated garage within the site should remain in employment use and the applicants dwelling should remain connected to the business. 2. Conditions should be attached to ensure that the live work units do not revert to straight residential use. 3. There should be an element of affordable housing to be provided for local persons in perpetuity .

Page 42 STRATEGIC HOUSING AND ENABLING TEAM LEADER: I have now received clarification that the applicant intends to include 2 affordable homes (units 3 and 4), both 3-bed houses. The tenure is not known at this stage. I can confirm that the proposed affordable homes will contribute to meeting local need.

OTHER: Three letters of objection / comment have been received from neighbouring residents regarding the proposal. The concerns are as follows: • The plans portray an intensive use of the site which would block the view of the quarry face, currently a feature of the landscape and a dramatic entrance to Little Urswick. The development would encroach on the space between the villages and is not compatible with the surrounding area. • The groundworks may cause structural problems to adjacent properties because of the geology. • The site is located outside the development boundary of Little Urswick and is not allocated for housing. • The nature of the site would provide a confined rear aspect for the dwellings. • There are a number of mature trees particularly along the quarry edge which provide amenity value.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Outline Planning Consent was refused for the construction of a dwelling on this site in 2000. The reason for refusal related to the fact that the site was located outside the development boundary and as such was contrary to established policy.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site currently operates as a commercial garage and vehicle repair workshop, and includes a detached dwelling which forms part of the business. It is located on the western side of Hooks Lane adjacent to its junction with the main road which passes through Great Urswick to the north and Little Urswick to the south. The site extends to approximately 0.5Ha in area and is enclosed along the western boundary by a former quarry face. A number of mature and semi mature trees are located within and adjacent to the site. The site is currently served by two vehicular access points on Hooks Lane. The site is located outside the development boundary for Little Urswick which is identified as a Local Service Centre, although the current boundary line adjoins part of the southern boundary of the site. There are no environmental designations associated with the site. The outline proposal comprises the demolition of the existing garage premises and the construction of a smaller garage building to the rear of the applicant’s house at the northern end of the site; the construction of two three-bedroomed affordable dwellings and the construction of three open market live / work dwellings which would include a detached single storey office unit assigned to each property. A single storey extension is also proposed to the eastern side of the existing dwelling.

Page 43 The site would be served by a single access point, the current access closest to the junction would be closed off. An internal access drive would be created along the frontage of the site to serve the dwellings and the relocated garage business. The indicative plans show 6 parking spaces and turning area for the garage business, and 10 spaces for the proposed dwellings plus garage parking. The supporting documents state that the applicants have owned the land and business for 11 years, which has become increasingly unviable because of reduced workloads and the Governments scrappage scheme. The site has been marketed for the last 3-4 years with little interest and no sale. A preliminary desk top study has been submitted in relation to dealing with potential contamination on the site. Further details have been supplied by the applicant in respect of the issues raised by the Parish Council and these have been forwarded for comment.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Section 3 states that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local plans should support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through the conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings. Section 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumptions in favour of sustainable development. Local Planning Authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances. It also states that Planning Authorities should normally approve applications for change to residential use from commercial buildings where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area. Two of the core planning principles include the encouragement of the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed, providing that it is not of high environmental value; and the promotion of mixed use developments.

South Lakeland Core Strategy The site is located outside the development boundary for Little Urswick. Policy CS1.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy explains that development will be concentrated in Kendal and Ulverston, then in the Key Service Centres, followed by a number of designated Local Service Centres and, finally, the smaller villages, hamlets and the open countryside. The Strategy states that approximately 11% of new housing and employment development will be in the network of smaller villages and hamlets. Development boundaries are not identified for these settlements; instead, new, small-scale development, in the form of infilling and rounding-off, will be permitted in order to satisfy local need in the smaller villages and hamlets scattered across the District. The terms “infilling” and “rounding-off” are defined in paragraph 2.25 of the Core Strategy. Infilling is defined as building taking place on a vacant plot in an otherwise

Page 44 built-up street frontage; rounding-off is defined as the completion of an incomplete group of buildings on land which is already partially developed, in such a way that will either complete the local road pattern or finally define and complete the boundaries of the group. Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy explains the spatial strategy for the west of the District and, in the context of this current application, makes provision for small-scale housing development in the Local Service Centres and, to a lesser extent, in the smaller rural settlements in order to ensure a readily available supply of affordable housing. Policy CS6.4 relates to the rural exceptions policy, whereby housing development proposals outside development boundaries and not constituting infilling and rounding off will only be considered where they provide 100% affordable housing. Policy CS7.4 states that support will be given to the economic needs of rural communities by encouraging … the provision of live / work units and development of rural business hubs in appropriate locations. Policy CS7.4 goes on to advise that “New build” live / work units, which do not involve the conversion of an important rural building will generally only be acceptable on infill sites and where it constitutes rounding off. Policy CS8.6 of the Core Strategy requires the siting, design, scale and materials of all developments to be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with the local vernacular tradition. The policy concludes by stating that designs that support and enhance local distinctiveness will be encouraged. Saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan requires all new development to take account of the South Lakeland Design Code.

South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Local Plan Policy E6 relates to the protection of existing employment sites and states that: “proposals to change the use of existing employment land and buildings to a non employment use will not be permitted except where; the existing use is un neighbourly, or the change of use could assist a move to alternative and more suitable premises in the vicinity.” The policy justification says that existing sites (it cites as an example of petrol filling stations) are often well suited for other employment uses.

Emerging Development Plan Policies In terms of the Local Development Framework and the emerging Allocations of Land Development Plan Document, the site was submitted for consideration for residential use - (Little / Great Urswick site - R 20). The site was not put forward as an emerging option site for either residential or employment allocation. The site is regarded as an existing employment use.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition

Page 45 of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: This application raises a number of policy issues which need to be weighed against the potential benefits of redeveloping the site for a mixed residential and employment use. The two main policy issues are: 1. The location of the site outside the development boundary The site is located outside the development boundary for Little Urswick and as such there would be a policy presumption against allowing any new residential development in this location unless there was an exceptional local need or the development was for affordable housing. The residential element of the proposal includes the provision of two affordable dwellings and three live work units. The proposed affordable dwellings are appropriate and are to be welcomed. The inclusion of the proposed three live / work units are less straightforward in policy terms, but it is acknowledged that some element of open market development would be required to make the redevelopment of the site financially viable. However, it is considered important that the form that the live / work units take, provides for genuine workplace facilities rather than just a small home office, otherwise it would be difficult to prevent these units being occupied as conventional dwellings. In terms of the position of the site and its relationship to Little Urswick, it could be argued that this is a sustainable location. Additionally it is a brownfield site for which there is a policy presumption in favour of permitting appropriate new uses. 2. The protection of the established employment use of the site In respect of saved Policy E6 and the protection of existing employment land, the applicants have stated that the site has been marketed for a number of years without success. The proposal does provide for the retention of the garage business albeit on a smaller scale, and also includes home office space for the live work units. With regard to the technical details of the scheme, the applicant has provided a detailed layout and elevations of the proposal. Whilst the overall form of the development is considered to be acceptable, there is concern about the scale of the development and the relationship of some elements of the layout. However, given the proposal is an outline application, the precise details of scale, design, and layout would be the subject of a reserved matters application. The plans have been amended to provide additional parking facilities and the applicant has been in discussion with the highways officer in respect of the access and parking. Any comments received from the Highways Officer or further comments from the Parish Council will be reported at the meeting.

Page 46 Conclusion The National Planning Policy Framework states that the planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions including seeking improvements in the quality of the built environment. It also states that decisions need to take local circumstances into account so that they respond to the different opportunities for achieving sustainable development in different areas. It is considered that the particular circumstances of this proposal combine to provide a number of potential benefits which would outweigh the policy issues outlined above, namely: • the site is a brown field site in a sustainable location on the edge of a local service centre with good access; • the proposal includes the retention of an established garage business, albeit on a smaller scale; • the proposal includes the provision of two affordable family sized dwellings; • the provision of three live / work units would provide the opportunity for new businesses to be established on the site; • the current appearance of the garage buildings on this prominent site is not particularly attractive and the development would provide the opportunity to secure visual improvements to the site. On balance, therefore, it is considered that the redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed employment and residential use is acceptable in principle, providing the residential element is restricted to affordable dwellings for discounted sale or rent and the occupation of the live / work units are appropriately controlled.

RECOMMENDATION: At present no written response has been received from the Highways Officer and subject to no adverse comment being received from them it is recommended that delegated authority be given to the Director (People and Places) to grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Agreement to provide two affordable dwellings and the following conditions:

(1) Standard outline time limit. (2) Restriction on use of live / work units . (3) Restriction on the occupation of Rocky Villa in connection with the garage business. (4) Tree survey. (5) Land Contamination survey.

Page 47 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 48 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 5 SL/2012/0255

PENNINGTON: LAND NEAR SEA VIEW, PENNINGTON, ULVERSTON LA12 0JP

PROPOSAL: INSTALLATION OF SINGLE WIND TURBINE (27 M TO BLADE TIP)

MR A MYERSCOUGH E325152 N477280 31/07/2012

SUMMARY: The proposed siting of a 27 metre high wind turbine on agricultural land in this location would result in a detrimental impact on the surrounding landscape. This outweighs any environmental, economic and energy benefits that the proposal would have.

PENNINGTON PARISH COUNCIL: Pennington Parish Council would like to object to the erection of a 27 metre wind turbine in the parish. This has caused a great deal of concern and anxiety amongst residents as it would be clearly visible from nearby properties. This is an area of natural beauty and quiet solitude where the rolling Lakeland hills and Morecambe Bay vista can be seen in the distance. The Cumbria Wind ESP Document 2007 (part two page 64-65) also graded this area as a fine definition of ridges stating it to be rare and of great importance constituting a mere 1.1% of Cumbria’s total landscape. To impose yet another turbine on this landscape would be damaging to its stated value. Several wind turbines are visible from properties in this area including, two at Channel House, the Lindal Cote wind turbine, seven at Ireleth, one at Flookburgh and all the wind turbines built offshore. A sense of being encircled already exists and this has to stop. In addition, applications are ongoing for five wind turbines the height of Blackpool Tower at the proposed Furness Wind Farm which would obviously be clearly visible, and another wind turbine a mere 665 metres from this proposed turbine. This is an area with a vibrant bird of prey population including three recently introduced red kites demonstrating the presence of a thriving assortment of wildlife without even mentioning the bat colonies. This area attracts tourists with locals establishing businesses to accommodate them but these visitors do not come to look at wind turbines. There is also a thriving horse riding community with its associated jobs but horses, in particular, are fearful of these whirring structures. English Heritage has declared the presence of a Field System with monument status number

Page 49 37947 only 70 metres from the proposed turbine site. This is an area worth preserving not an area designated to accommodate the government’s dubious thirst for expensive wind power. A safe route to school in the form of a public footpath close to the proposed wind turbine is a cause for concern as animals are usually present in this field. Properties are present between 280 and 340 metres from the proposed turbine. The turbine will cause noise issues, the movement of the blades will be distracting and shadow flicker will occur at certain times of the year. This could cause difficulties on the narrow country lanes which already have to be used with care.

LINDAL AND MARTON PARISH COUNCIL: Object. A widespread discussion took place involving the floor where reference was made to a variety of problems associated with this application. It was a commonly held view that applicants generally were more influenced by the financial gains which would accrue from the erection of a wind turbine rather than any desire to reduce the nation’s carbon footprint and that, whilst this was not unreasonable in itself, it should not be at the expense of the local landscape and the well-being of immediate neighbours. This particular application would result in a turbine with a height-to-blade-tip of some 27 metres, a size which, whilst being considerably smaller than turbines in the large commercial wind-farms, was markedly bigger than the smaller turbines to be found on some other local sites. It would, therefore, be quite prominent in a very largely unspoilt, rural landscape. Added to that should be the consideration that the countryside generally would suffer from what is being seen as a proliferation of wind-turbines as landowners across the country seek to lessen their financial burdens by developing their own mini power stations, with the prospect of any large, windswept field having such alien machines erected. It was also suggested that this application would have a specific visual impact on the residents at Carkettle, some few hundred metres to the west of the site. In addition, there were concerns about the usual problems associated with such turbines, of shadow-flicker, noise and potential harm to wild-life. A particular suggestion was made that there should be a minimum of 1,000 metres between any wind-turbine and the nearest habitable building.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: To be reported.

CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER: In response to the comments raised by the neighbouring residents in relation to the impact on Heritage Assets. The assessment of how the proposed building of a wind turbine at Sea View Pennington will affect the historic environment can only be done within the strict limitations of the planning system. Unfortunately the points raised about the turbine being viewed from undesignated heritage assets like the field system at Walthwaite is not a material consideration in the planning process.

Page 50 The point that the turbine will be seen from designated heritage assets such as Castle Hill Scheduled Monument is a material consideration in the planning process. However, guidance from English Heritage states that an objection to a proposed development cannot be raised merely because the development can be seen from the designated heritage asset - the development has to affect our understanding of the monument to be an issue. I do not believe that English Heritage would see a 27 metre high wind turbine located 600 metres away as affecting the understanding of Castle Hill. In terms of the proposed turbine affecting below ground archaeological remains, I consider there to be a low potential for this. Our records show that the field systems at Walthwaite lie about 150 metres away at their nearest point to the proposed location of the wind turbine and the area that will be disturbed by the building of the turbine is very small - only 5.5 metres squared (the connection of the turbine's power lines are permitted development and are not part of the planning application). Do not believe there are grounds for objection to the application on this point either.

CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL COUNTRYSIDE ACCESS OFFICER: No objection to the proposed development but advise that there must be no interference with the nearest public right of way to the site which is public footpath No.563010. This applies at all times.

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: I've assessed the application for a 27 metre to tip wind turbine and visited the site and am satisfied with the noise data provided in relation to the proposed location and nearby residential properties and have no concerns regarding potential noise nuisance.

NATURAL ENGLAND: The proposal does not appear to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes, or have significant impacts on the conservation of soils, nor is it EIA development. However, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is expected to assess and consider the possible impacts resulting from the turbine on protected species, local wildlife sites and opportunities to incorporate biodiversity enhancements. A bat survey prepared on behalf of the applicant does not indicate any suitable features for roosting within the application site. Natural England has advised that the findings of the survey be accepted. Neighbouring residents have arranged for a survey of bat activity to be undertaken and Natural England has been asked to comment on its findings.

RSPB: The RSPB support a broad mix of renewable energy schemes, where developments will not significantly impact birds or the habitats on which they depend. This is so the UK Government's energy targets of 15% generation from renewable sources by 2020 can be met, in order to mitigate the effects of climate change which poses the biggest long term threat to wildlife and people.

Page 51 The RSPB strongly advise the following: • This application does not fall within a broad “alert” area for important populations of bird species sensitive to windfarm developments, namely pink footed geese and whooper swan. Further information on these “alert” areas can be accessed via the documents on following web-link www.rspb.org.uk/northwestrenewables. • However, the turbine location at Pennington is within close proximity to both Morecambe Bay and the Duddon Estuary SPA, thus it is possible that these sensitive bird species do occur at the development site. • For this reason the Design and Access statement should include a desk based bird survey of the site for this document to be robust. While our knowledge leads us to believe that this site is not used in high density by sensitive bird species, currently there is insufficient information in the Design and Access statement to inform the environmental assessment. If the desk based bird survey demonstrates use of the site by sensitive bird species, a site based bird survey will be required and mitigation measures put in place. Response on desk based bird survey to be reported.

WESTMORLAND AND FURNESS BAT GROUP Westmorland and Furness Bat Group does not express an opinion about specific proposed developments but does wish to ensure that sufficient information is available prior to any decision being taken. Conditioning surveys as part of a consent for a wind farm, or individual wind turbine, is not considered appropriate as those surveys could show that the consented location or type of turbine could be unacceptably damaging to bats. Natural England provides standing advice about levels of survey necessary for different types of development. They have also produced interim guidance regarding bats and onshore wind turbines. Guidance on survey effort is provided in the Bat Conservation Trust document “Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines” 2nd Edition 2012. Westmorland and Furness Bat Group expect that any survey satisfies the standards provided in that document. Bats are under recorded in Cumbria, particularly in areas with sparse populations. This is noted in the Protected Species report. It does not appear that the county records centre or the local bat group has been consulted for records. Reliance is placed on the consultants own datasets and the NBN which although huge does not include all bat records in Cumbria. We request that you ensure you have all necessary information available to you prior to making a decision regarding this proposed development.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: No objection.

Page 52 NATS: No objection.

WALNEY AIRFIELD: No objections.

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY: There is currently a high demand for CAA comment on wind turbine applications which exceeds the capacity of the available resource to respond to requests within the timescales required by Local Planning Authorities. The CAA has no responsibilities for safeguarding sites other than its own property, and a consultation by a Council is taken as a request for clarification of procedural matters. Councils are reminded of their obligations to consult in accordance with ODPM/DfT Circular 1/2003 or Scottish Government Circular 2/2003, and in particular to consult with NATS and the Ministry of Defence as well as any aerodromes listed in Annex 3 of the above documents, taking note of appropriate guidance and policy documentation.

CABLE AND WIRELESS No objection.

JOINT RADIO COMPANY LTD (JRC): This proposal cleared with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by Electricity North West (formerly United Utilities), United Utilities (Water) and National Grid Gas Networks. In the case of this proposed wind energy development, JRC does not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios and the data you have provided. This proposal cleared with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by Electricity North West (formerly United Utilities), United utilities Water and National Grid Gas Networks.

ARQIVA (TELEVISION TRANSMISSION): No objections.

ORANGE: There are no Orange links affected by this application.

TELENT ON BEHALF OF VODAFONE: The nearest Vodafone link is approx 1.5 Km away from the proposal which does not pose a threat to the VF ATP microwave network. Vodafone specify a 100 m minimum separation from turbine to link.

Page 53 OTHER: Letters of objection have been received from 16 households in the area which raise the following concerns. • Loss of visual amenity to nearby residential properties given its proximity. It is 283 metres (minus the blade radius of 6.5 metres) from the nearest property. • There is a Bill going through Parliament which would require a turbine of this height to be 1000 metres from a residential property. • Impact on residential properties as a result of noise which will be very intrusive to anyone living nearby. There is a potential risk of sleep disturbance and related health issues. • A precedent has been set by two recent applications which have been refused due to loss of visual amenity and a detrimental impact on the landscape • It will have a visual impact on an area of untouched natural beauty. Will be a detrimental intrusion into the open countryside and will appear as a discordant, artificial structure in the landscape • The turbine is to be sited on a ridge and is on the skyline so will be particularly visible. • Will have a cumulative effect with the turbine proposed at Carkettle Farm and will lead to more proposals in the area. Concerned about “visual clutter” with existing turbines and a number proposed. • The proposed turbine is too high and light in colour and will not be easily absorbed into the landscape. • A statement in the submission implies that it is a cluttered landscape, which is not the case. • The indicator pole on site is 20 metres further from some of the neighbouring properties than the proposed turbine which is misleading as the montage is created from the location of the pole. • In the ruling on 29 May 2012 by Mrs Justice Lang, she states “as a matter of law it is not correct to assert that the national policy promoting the use of renewable recourses … negates the local landscape policies or must be given ‘primacy’ over them” • Birds and bats can be killed by the moving blades as the tip of the blade can move at speeds up to and over 100mph. Bats lungs will implode as the pressure near the blades drops. There are bats and a variety of birds present in the area. • A desk top survey in relation to birds has been carried out but by its nature is only as good as the data available and there are no wildlife records at Tullie House for the parish of Pennington. There are a significantly wide range of birds that use this area and the impact on them is not addressed by the survey. • An automated bat survey was carried out. The weather conditions were ignored and a detailed weather record has not been provided with the report. A weather record taken from The Weather Chanel shows that almost half the sunrises and sunsets were either too wet, too windy or too cold for bat activity.

Page 54 Knowledge of the site appears to be lacking and the interpretation of the new guideline April 2012 appears to be lax. • The bat survey portrays a bleak picture of the area whereas there are hedgerows and a row of trees which follow the boundary along a steam close to the site. Behind the indicator pole there is an old established hedgerow and wall which runs eastwards down the slope to Holebiggerah and follows the line of a watercourse. There are clear linear features in the landscape. • Bat activity has been exceptionally high this year despite spells of cold weather. They have been seen close to residents’ properties and flying up the wall boundary from the turbine site to Carkettle. • Following an independent bat survey there is now evidence of bat activity around the turbine site. • Concerned about other wildlife on and around the site. • Impact of shadow flicker on the properties at Carkettle. • A wind turbine can be a potential hazard to someone with photosensitivity because of the combination of the moving blades and the sun behind. • Impact that the turbine will have on individual sites of historic importance. It is 70 metres from a field system at Walthwaite Farm which is a monument documented by English Heritage. It is 600 metres from Castle Hill which has been documented by Natural England. The Hoad Monument in Ulverston is to the north east of the site and the turbine will challenge it on the skyline. It will be seen from Birkrigg Common which is a limestone feature with a small pavement and has a stone circle and a Quaker burial ground. It is a popular open walking area. The turbine will be viewed from Swarthmoor Hall which attracts visitors from all over the world, and Pennington Church which is 100s of years old, is the religious heart of the Parish and has interesting architectural features. • There are low flying military aircraft in the area, in particular Hercules transport planes and Jet Fighter planes. Concerned that the turbine will impact on safety. • It is not an efficient means of generating electricity. • Impact on horses in adjacent field and surrounding area as a result of movement from the blades, shadows, noise and blade flicker. • Impact on walkers and horse riders using local paths and bridleways, potentially compromising safety. • The turbine is 160 metres from the road which is very narrow and winding with a right angled bend at the field gate. • The turbine is too close to a water course which is the only source of water to Holebiggerah Farm House and Holebiggerah Cottage. The quality of the water must be monitored during the construction of the turbine. A petition containing 56 signatures has been received which objects on the following grounds: • the Parish Council’s have objected;

Page 55 • the turbine is clearly visible from the footpaths and bridleways that are frequently used; • it will intrude on the landscape and the stunning views; • it is too close to houses; • it will have a cumulative effect; and • wildlife will be adversely affected. A bat survey has been conducted on behalf of the nearby residents, close to but not within the application site. It confirms that common and soprano pipistrelle bats are present in the Holebiggerah complex which is 300 metres from the site, in numbers and at a time to suggest that a maternity roost is present. A probable long-eared bat was also recorded and a single noctule bat was seen to fly east to west directly over the site. One common pipistrelle was recorded flying along the hedge line near the site, less than 50 metres from the position of the turbine. Daubenton’s bats are also present in the wider area, foraging over the pond to the south of Carkettle. One letter of support has been received which raises the following: • it will improve the rural economy and make the local community self-sufficient in electricity; and • there will be no undue detriment to the visual amenity of the area and it will make the most of the natural assets of this windswept hillside.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is within a field to the south west of the applicant’s property, Sea View Farm, Pennington. It is approximately 800 metres to the west of the small village of Loppergarth, approximately 850 metres to the north east of Marton and approximately 3 kilometres to the west of Ulverston. The field boundaries consist of stone walls and areas of hedgerows. The land is sloping and rises to the north and east. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a wind turbine which would be mounted on a 20 metres tower. The rotor diameter would be13.1 metres, giving a total maximum height of 27 metres. The standard mast comes in galvanized steel, however the applicant has confirmed that it could be painted if necessary. The blades are white, and it is not possible to paint them or the hub as that would invalidate the warranty. The nearest residential properties are at Carkettle to the east, the closest approximately 270 metres from the site of the turbine. There is also a group of dwellings at approximately 290 metres. There is a public footpath, approximately 60 metres to the north, adjacent to which is a stream and a row a trees. It would be approximately 30 metres from the field boundary to the east and approximately 15 metres north of a spring. The turbine would be accessed via the existing field gate.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Section 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change - states that planning plays a key role in supporting the delivery of renewable and low

Page 56 carbon energy and associated infrastructure. When determining applications, LPAs should approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. It should also be recognised that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Section 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment - states that the planning system should seek to protect and enhance valued landscapes and to minimise impacts upon biodiversity.

Regional Policy Policy EM17 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for North West England (RSS) specifically promotes renewable energy sources and states that significant weight should be given to the wider environmental, community and economic benefits of renewable energy schemes. It lists wide-ranging criteria which should be taken into account when assessing renewable energy proposals, including the effects on local amenity, visual impact and nature conservation. The visual impact of such schemes is a matter to be taken into account but should not be used to rule out or place constraints on the development of all, or specific types of, renewable energy technologies. RSS Policy EMI(A) states that priority should be given to conserving and enhancing areas, sites, features and species of international, national, regional and local landscape, natural environment and historic environment importance. RSS Policy DP7 promotes the protection and enhancement of environmental quality, including green infrastructure, but at the same time respecting the character and distinctiveness of landscapes and the maintenance and enhancement of the tranquillity of the open countryside.

Structure Plan Policy Saved Structure Plan Policy R44 states that outside the Lake District National Park and the AONB proposals for renewable energy will be favourably considered if: (1) there is no significant adverse effect on the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage of the area either individually or cumulatively through their relationship with other utility infrastructure; (2) there is no significant adverse effect on local amenity, the local economy, highways or telecommunications; and (3) the proposal takes all practicable measures to reduce any adverse impact on the landscape, environment, nature conservation, historical and local community interests. In considering applications for planning permission in relation to the above criteria, and other policies in the Structure Plan, the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight. Saved Structure Plan Policy E37 requires development to be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types Policy E37 requires proposals to be assessed in relation to: (1) locally distinctive natural or built features; (2) visual intrusion or impact;

Page 57 (3) scale in relation to the landscape features; (4) the character of the built environment; (5) public access and community value of the landscape; (6) historic patterns and attributes; (7) biodiversity features, ecological networks and semi-natural habitats; and (8) openness, remoteness and tranquillity.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS7.7 supports in principle appropriately located renewable energy schemes. It is acknowledged that there are some energy sources which need to be remote from residential areas and other sensitive land uses, and projects should avoid any harmful impact upon the historic environment. Policy CS8.2 states that development proposals should be informed by and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscapes identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect and conserve the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area. Policy CS8.4 relates to biodiversity and geodiversity and states that all development proposals should protect, enhance and restore the biodiversity and geodiversity value of land and buildings. It also states that development proposals that would have a direct or indirect adverse effect on nationally, sub-regional, regional and local designated sites will not be permitted unless they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm; the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of the site and the wider network of rural habitats; and prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are provided.

Local Plan Policy Saved Policy C26 of the Local Plan covers wind energy proposals and states that their acceptability will be judged according to whether a number of defined criteria can be satisfied. One of the criteria is that the proposal’s energy contribution and other benefits outweigh any significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape, the amenity of residential properties, nature conservation, archaeological or geographical interests.

Supplementary Planning Documents The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Guidance which was adopted in 2007 provides guidance for the consideration of wind energy developments. Part 2 of the guidelines provides specific guidance on landscape and visual issues and identifies the potential capacity of various landscape types throughout the county to accommodate different scales of wind farms. The landscape type for this location the “Furness Ridges” has moderate to high capacity to accommodate up to a large group of 6 - 9 turbines. However the cumulative impact of separate turbine developments within a locality is also a material planning consideration.

Page 58 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit document was prepared by Cumbria County Council in conjunction with the district authorities in March 2011. The application site lies within the landscape character type of “Ridges” which comprises of distinctive ridges, extensive areas of true heathland moorland, improved pasture with distinctive stone walls and woodlands and small belts of trees. The guidance recommends that development in these areas should be carefully controlled to ensure that ridges are not cluttered or dominated by new development. It specifically states that large scale wind energy developments should not be sited in open and prominent areas where it could degrade the open and expansive character. The NPPF replaced all the previous PPG and PPS documents. However, the Companion Guide to PPS22: Planning for Renewable Energy is not contained within the list of replaced documents and therefore still a material planning consideration. It states that there is no statutory separation between a wind turbine and a public right of way, however fall over distance is often considered an acceptable separation, and the minimum distance is often taken to be that the turbine blades should not be permitted to oversail a public right of way. Fall over distance is the height of the turbine to the blade tip and 10% is often added to this as a safe separation distance from occupied buildings.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: There have been no concerns raised from the various consultees in relation to aviation or telecommunications, therefore the main issues in this case are considered to be: • the visual impact of the proposed turbine on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural landscape; • the impact on the amenity of the nearest residential properties; • the potential impact of the structure on protected species of bats and birds; and • impact on heritage assets.

Visual Impact The landscape in this area is characterised by rising agricultural fields, separated by stone walls or hedgerows, and small groups of trees. There are other vertical structures which will be visible in the context of the turbine. There are some small scale electricity poles crossing fields near the site, and there is a large telecommunications mast at a higher point than the site. The turbine has not been proposed on the ridge of the hill, however it is still within a prominent position within the landscape as the land rises

Page 59 significantly to the north from the A590 and particularly north of Pennington and Loppergarth. The turbine is likely to be visible from many local and more distance viewpoints to the south. There will be views with the turbine against the land behind, however there are likely to be more views where it is seen against the sky. Given the elevated nature of the land and the scale of the turbine, the proposal would appear overly prominent and would therefore have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the landscape.

Residential Impact The closest residential properties are to the west and have their main aspect towards the site. The Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that there is unlikely to be an adverse impact as a result of noise to these properties. In addition, there should be no impacts on the neighbouring properties as a result of shadow flicker given the separation distance.

Ecological Impact With regard to the potential impact of the development upon the local bat population, Natural England guidance recommends the siting of a turbine at least 50 metres from the edge of the blade tip. As such, a bat survey was requested in addition to the habitat survey initially undertaken. An anabat detector was placed 8 metres from the turbine between the site and the nearest hedgerow for 10 days at the end of May/ beginning of June. It was set to switch on 35 minutes before sunset and 35 minutes after sunrise. There were a variety of weather conditions across the days and it did not detect any bat activity. As a result of this, a bat survey was commissioned by the neighbouring residents. This found a large number of bats close to but not within the site. It confirmed that common and soprano pipistrelle bats are present in the Holebiggerah complex which is 300 metres from the site, in numbers and at a time to suggest that a maternity roost is present. A probable long-eared bat was also recorded and a single noctule bat was seen to fly east to west directly over the site. One common pipistrelle was recorded flying along the hedge line near the site, less than 50 metres from the position of the turbine. The main area of habitat appears to be around the stream and trees to the north. This is more than 60 metres from the site of the turbine which is more than the Natural England recommended separation distance. The survey undertaken on behalf of the neighbouring residents shows that the site of the turbine was not a main route for the bats in the area with which would be supported by the habitat assessment which shows poor ecological linkages due to gaps in the hedgerows. As such it is not considered that the siting of the turbine in this location would have a significant impact on bat populations in this area. However, Natural England has been consulted on this additional information from the nearby residents and their response will be reported. The RSPB advised that a desk based survey in relation to birds was carried out. This has been done, however no additional response from the RSPB has been received.

Heritage Assets Some concerns have been raised with regard to the impact that the turbine would have on nearby heritage assets. However, the Historic Environment Officer has confirmed

Page 60 that, given the scale of the turbine, the proposal should not be detrimental to these assets.

Conclusion Although it is recognised that the wind turbine will have wider environmental, economic and energy benefits, it is considered that in this case the harmful visual impact of the proposed turbine outweighs the potential benefits and the application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below: - The proposed turbine would be an isolated and prominent vertical structure which would appear incongruous in its surroundings. As a consequence, the turbine will have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the landscape. It is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of Sections 10 and 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies EM17, EM1(A) and DP7 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for North West England, saved Policies R44 and E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan, Policy CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy, saved Policy C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and the Cumbria Joint Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Guidance.

Page 61 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 62 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 6 SL/2012/0268

ALDINGHAM: LAND AT SCALES, LA12 0PE

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF NINE DWELLINGS

MR TOM JACKSON E327180 N472300 31/07/2012

SUMMARY: Proposed residential development on former farmstead within the village of scales. Previously received outline consent for smaller scale development. Concerns regarding neighbourly impacts and layout.

ALDINGHAM PARISH COUNCIL: The Council have visited the site and the consensus was in favour of the development, which we hope will enhance this part of the village, but we would like to make the following comments: • The large detached house at the S W corner of the site is on a strange angle and should be aligned with the road to match the pattern of other properties in the village. • We would question the appropriateness of street lighting –this should be kept to a minimum such as the use of low level bollard lighting. • The boundaries should be marked with limestone walls. • The Parish Council share the concerns of residents to the east of the site with regard to the levels. It was suggested that the eastern two properties at the rear of the site could be made into semi detached houses to resolve some of the problems of overlapping between the eastern most house and Birkrigg Close. It was felt that the current proposal would benefit the resident of Birkrigg Close (compared with earlier plans) in the sense that balconied windows overlooking the site will now look onto the road instead of a property. • In previous outline application for this site the houses to the rear aligned with those to the east. In this plan they have been pushed back. This gives the site a better balance and provides more off street parking. There is concern however that this could encourage attempts at development on the gardens between the site and the recent farm conversion to the east.

Page 63 CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: To be reported.

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: Recommends a number of conditions to be attached to any planning consent relating to the contamination measures, construction management, and agreement of external lighting plan.

STRATEGIC HOUSING AND ENABLING TEAM LEADER: The Aldingham Parish Housing Needs Survey 2008 identified a need for 7 new affordable homes. This need will mostly be met by the recent development in Baycliff. However, the proposed 3 new affordable homes will contribute to meeting the wider housing needs of the area. The proposed three bedroomed houses for either discounted sale or rent would be acceptable.

HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER: Recommends a condition to be attached to any consent requiring an archaeological survey of the site to be undertaken.

COUNTRYSIDE ACCESS OFFICER: No objections.

OTHER: Two letters of objection to the proposal have been received from neighbouring residents. The concerns are as follows: • In the original application the houses to the rear of the site did not go behind the building line of the village. In the second application the houses were pushed back slightly to allow for more parking. In this current application three quarters of house number 5 and over half the other houses along the rear are now behind the original building line. This will mean that the houses will overlook our garden as well as our house. • The design of house number 5 now wraps around the boundary and is very close to the fence and wall. Works adjacent to the boundary will have the potential to undermine the boundary wall and the foundations of the oil tank. • The finished height of the buildings need to be established and agreed prior to consent being granted. We would not wish to see the site being built up. Windows on the side elevations will cause over looking to adjacent properties. • A large proportion of the car parking for the site has been put up against the boundary wall to the 4 existing dwellings, this will have an impact as car headlights will shine into the bedrooms at night as well in addition to the additional noise and disturbance. • Street lights will cause light pollution.

Page 64 HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Outline planning consent was granted in 2007 and renewed in 2010 for the construction of 9 dwellings on this site, including 3 affordable units. The approved indicative plans included a terrace of four dwellings to the site frontage and two pairs of semi detached dwellings and a single detached dwelling to the rear.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is a former farmstead located within the centre of the village of scales and fronting onto the main road through the village. Much of the site has now been cleared of agricultural buildings and the site is enclosed by a stone boundary wall to the rear. A row of four dwellings are positioned and have a rear aspect alongside the eastern boundary of the site. The eastern boundary of the site wraps partly around the curtilage of the northernmost of these dwellings, and the level of the site is approximately one metre lower than the adjacent garden level at this point. The full application relates to the construction of nine dwellings on the site arranged around a single access road, in a similar position to that previously approved. The proposed layout includes a terrace of three, three-bedroomed affordable dwellings along the frontage of the site as per the previously approved outline scheme; the construction of a four-bedroomed detached dwelling to the west on the part of the site that was previously identified as amenity space; and the construction of five four- bedroomed detached dwellings along the rear of the site. These properties are positioned some 6 to 8 metres further back within the site than previously approved, and part of unit 5 would be located within a metre of the boundary with the adjacent property at Birkrigg Close. The detached property to the site frontage would be positioned at an angle to the road, but set further back than the affordable units, and face inwards onto the site. All properties would be two storey as per previously approved and comprise of conventional modern designs with part rendered / part stone faced walls and artificial slated roofs. The detached properties incorporate integral garages apart from the unit 5 closest to the eastern boundary and each property would have two off-road parking spaces. Eight of these spaces would be arranged around the eastern end of the access road, with a turning space proposed half way along.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Section 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumptions in favour of sustainable development. Section 7 states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy explains that development will be concentrated in Kendal and Ulverston, then in the Key Service Centres, followed by a number of designated Local Service Centres and, finally, the smaller villages, hamlets and the open countryside. The Strategy states that approximately 11% of new housing and employment development will be in the network of smaller villages

Page 65 and hamlets, such as Scales. Development boundaries are not identified for these settlements; instead, new, small-scale development, in the form of infilling and rounding-off, will be permitted in order to satisfy local need in the smaller villages and hamlets scattered across the District. The terms “infilling” and “rounding-off” are defined in paragraph 2.25 of the Core Strategy. Infilling is defined as building taking place on a vacant plot in an otherwise built-up street frontage; rounding-off is defined as the completion of an incomplete group of buildings on land which is already partially developed, in such a way that will either complete the local road pattern or finally define and complete the boundaries of the group. Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy explains the spatial strategy for the west of the District and, in the context of this current application, makes provision for small-scale housing development in the Local Service Centres and, to a lesser extent, in the smaller rural settlements in order to ensure a readily available supply of affordable housing. Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy requires the siting, design, scale and materials of all developments to be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with the local vernacular tradition. The policy concludes by stating that designs that support and enhance local distinctiveness will be encouraged.

South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan requires all new development to take account of the South Lakeland Design Code.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The principle of residential development on this site has been established and remains valid. The incorporation of the three affordable dwellings accords with policy and the layout and form of these dwelling are considered to be acceptable. The main issue in this case is that the developer is now seeking to construct a larger footprint of development in the form of six relatively substantial detached dwellings, in addition to the affordable units. This has created a number of issues in relation to the layout of the site. In particular, unit five is somewhat “shoehorned” into the north eastern corner of the site, it is extremely close to the boundary and provides an awkward relationship to the neighbouring dwellings. Whilst it is acknowledged that there were previously substantial agricultural buildings on this site which restricted the outlook from the adjacent dwellings to the east, the activity associated with residential uses is very much different from agricultural uses which are often low key.

Page 66 The detached house to the frontage of the site has its rear elevation facing towards the main road and is at an angle and as such does not sit well in relation to the development or its setting within the village. This arrangement has also removed a previously proposed landscaped amenity area. Finally, the parking arrangement for the affordable units and unit 5 are collectively arranged around the head of the access drive which would combine to create a large expanse of hardstanding and a concentrated level of vehicular activity close to the rear aspect of the existing dwellings. Attempts have been made to negotiate improvements to the scheme with the applicants who have confirmed that they do not wish to make any changes and would like the application to be considered as submitted. Whilst it is acknowledged that the overall principle of this development has been established and the site in its current state detracts from the appearance of the village, the above detailed issues are considered to combine to make the current proposal unacceptable and the application as it stands cannot be supported.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below - Reason The form and layout of the proposal would result in a undesirable and cramped form of development which would harm the amenities of adjacent residential properties and detract for the setting of this part of the village, contrary to aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS8.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Page 67 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 68 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 7 SL/2012/0290

LUPTON: LUPTON HIGH FARM, COW BROW, LA6 1PJ

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF A WIND TURBINE (17.5 M TO BLADE TIP)

MR DEREK WIGHTMAN E356113 N482143 31/07/2012

SUMMARY: The wind turbine and mast will not exert a significantly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the landscape.

LUPTON PARISH COUNCIL: Recommend approval.

PRESTON PATRICK PARISH COUNCIL: No objection in principle, but would prefer to see the turbine located closer to the farmhouse where it would have less landscape impact.

BEETHAM PARISH COUNCIL: No comments received.

HUTTON ROOF PARISH COUNCIL: No comments received.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: The proposal is broadly acceptable to Cumbria Highways although extra care will need to be taken when delivering the loads to the site with the poor quality of the access from the A65.

Page 69 CABLE AND WIRELESS: No objections.

CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER: No objections.

VODAFONE: No objections. Does not pose a threat to the ATP Microwave network.

MOD DEFENCE INFRASTRUCTURE ORGANISATION: No concerns with the proposals.

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: Having reviewed the acoustic information available does not foresee any noise issues.

ARQIVA (TELEVISION TRANSMISSION): No objections.

NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE: No objections.

NATURAL ENGLAND: Although the application is in close proximity to the Farleton Knott Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), given the nature and scale of this proposal Natural England raises no objection to the proposal being carried out on account of the impact on designated sites. However, the Local Planning Authority is expected to assess and consider the possible impacts resulting from this proposal on protected species, local wildlife sites and opportunities to incorporate biodiversity enhancements. If the LPA is aware of any protected species, the authority should request survey information before determining the application.

FRIENDS OF EDEN, LAKELAND AND LUNESDALE SCENERY (FELLS) Object and recommend refusal on the basis that the turbine does not accord with the three dimensions of sustainable development outlined in the NPPF: economic, social or environmental. The scheme will make an insignificant contribution to renewable energy generation, and despite being smaller than some of the larger turbines proposed in the area, at 60 feet in height it is still large when compared with other structures and buildings nearby, and will be visible from a wide area, particularly Farleton Fell. The mast will

Page 70 merely add to the clutter of masts and transmissions lines in the locality, a situation already raised by Cumbria County Council. The scheme has no social benefit, and, if agreed, is likely to set an unjustifiable precedent for more turbines. It will become progressively more difficult to refuse other applications. The landscape and scenery is the county’s greatest asset and upon which tourism depends. There is a duty to protect it for future generations to enjoy.

RSPB: No comments received.

FRIENDS OF THE LAKE DISTRICT: No comments received.

OTHER: Three letters of concern have been received, raising the following issues: • The turbine will have a detrimental effect on the appearance of the locality. That there are existing man-made vertical objects near the proposed location of the development should not mean that this beautiful, rural area and the surrounding landscape should be further spoilt. • The scheme is harmful to highway safety. The turbine, particularly when the blades are rotating will be harmful to highway safety. Not convinced that the turbine will not be visible from the A65 as the planning statement suggests. • Concerned that the project will set a precedent for more turbines. According to the planning statement the turbine erected at Moss End Farm already has set a precedent. • Consider that the statement by the applicants that “ the turbine will only be visible from one property ” may be incorrect; judge that it will be visible from Green Close and other properties. • Concern that the high frequency noise emitted by the turbine will cause a domestic dog housed nearby to bark and disrupt neighbours.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: There is no planning history relating directly to the proposed turbine in this location, but Members may recall refusing an application for an identical mast on land at Moss End Farm, Crooklands last year. An appeal was upheld and the mast has now been erected.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The proposed 5 kW three-bladed wind turbine would be mounted on a 15 metre high tower constructed of galvanised steel. At their highest, the tips of the blades would be about 17.5 metres above ground level, with a rotor diameter of 5.5 metres. All non-galvanized elements of the turbine would be coloured dark grey.

Page 71 The turbine would be located on elevated pastureland approximately 200 metres to the north of Lupton High, a farmstead which lies on the southern flanks of Scout Hill. The turbine would be located approximately 30 metres beneath the summit, but on a rocky outcrop forming part of a plateau edge. The immediate locality is characterised by stonewalls, and public rights of way run across the hillside to the south, east and west of the application site, to within 170 metres of the proposed turbine. The site is in excess of 1 km from non-associated residential properties, and lies 1.4 km to the north of the A65. The 5 kW turbine will enable the applicant to reduce the carbon emissions and energy bills at his property and to increase their self-sufficiency in terms of electricity production. Information contained within the application indicates that the turbine could generate an estimated output of 16,800 kWh of electricity per annum, in excess of the property’s current energy requirements; opponents suggest that the output will be much less. Scout Hill is a prominent hilltop in the locality close to junction 36 of the M6, to the east of the motorway and to the north of the A65. It is particularly prominent when viewed from the south west and nearby Farleton Fell. There is a substantial telecommunications mast on the top, and a further telecommunications mast adjacent to Lupton High, to the north west of the farmstead. An electricity transmissions mast is also proposed. Telegraph poles and lines run to the west of the application site. There are no trees or hedges within 50 metres of the proposed turbine, which could potentially provide roosts for bats or be used as commuting or foraging routes.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Section 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change - states that planning plays a key role in supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. When determining applications, LPAs should approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Section 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment - states that the planning system should seek to protect and enhance valued landscapes and to minimise impacts upon biodiversity.

Regional Planning Policy Policy EM17 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West promotes the development of renewable energy capacity which will contribute towards the delivery of targets contained in the RSS. It states that Local Planning Authorities should give significant weight to the wider environmental, community and economic benefits of proposals for renewable energy schemes. The visual impact of such schemes is a matter to be taken into account but should not be used to rule out or place constraints on the development of all, or specific types of, renewable energy technologies. RSS Policy EMI(A) state that priority should be given to conserving and enhancing areas, sites, features and species of international, national, regional and local landscape, natural environment and historic environment importance.

Page 72 RSS Policy DP7 promotes the protection and enhancement of environmental quality, including green infrastructure, but at the same time respecting the character and distinctiveness of landscapes and the maintenance and enhancement of the tranquillity of the open countryside. This tier of policies had initially been revoked by the Secretary of State, however, it was subsequently established that this was unlawful. With the introduction of the Localism Bill, the revocation of the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) is imminent. Nevertheless, the RSS remains a material planning consideration although the planning authority may choose to give little weight to it.

Structure Plan Policy Saved Structure Plan Policy R44 states that outside the Lake District National Park and the AONB proposals for renewable energy will be favourably considered if: 1. there is no significant adverse effect on the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage of the area either individually or cumulatively through their relationship with other utility infrastructure;

2. there is no significant adverse effect on local amenity, the local economy, highways or telecommunications; and

3. the proposal takes all practicable measures to reduce any adverse impact on the landscape, environment, nature conservation, historical and local community interests. In considering applications for planning permission in relation to the above criteria, and other policies in the Structure Plan, the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight. Saved Structure Plan Policy E37 requires development to be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types. Policy E37 requires proposals to be assessed in relation to: 1. locally distinctive natural or built features; 2. visual intrusion or impact; 3. scale in relation to the landscape features; 4. the character of the built environment; 5. public access and community value of the landscape; 6. historic patterns and attributes; 7. biodiversity features, ecological networks and semi-natural habitats; and 8. openness, remoteness and tranquillity.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS 7.7 supports in principle appropriately located renewable energy schemes. It is acknowledged that there are some energy sources which need to be remote from residential areas and other sensitive land uses, and projects should avoid any harmful impact upon the historic environment.

Page 73 Policy CS 8.2 states that development proposals should be informed by and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscapes identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect and conserve the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area.

South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Policy C26 of the Local Plan covers wind energy proposals and states that their acceptability will be judged according to whether a number of defined criteria can be satisfied. One of the criteria is that the proposal’s energy contribution and other benefits outweigh any significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape, the amenity of residential properties, nature conservation, archaeological or geographical interests.

The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit was prepared by Cumbria County Council in conjunction with the Cumbrian Local Authorities in March 2011. The toolkit has been produced to provide a baseline of information that can be used by planning authorities when making decisions. The application site lies within the landscape character sub-type defined as “Rolling farmland and Heath”, found to the east of the M6 between Kirkby Lonsdale and Kendal. This sub-type is characterised by open rolling farmland with occasional rocky outcrops, rough pasture and shallow relief plateau with ridges and hollows. The land is intersected with streams, tarns and marshy hollows, and is punctuated with small coniferous plantations. Scattered hamlets and farms are connected by the rural road network, and masts and pylons have begun to change the character of the landscape in some areas. The guidance recommends avoiding development on prominent edges of the plateau and resisting the clutter of further communication masts or large scale wind turbines, particularly on valley rims. Large scale wind energy proposals and vertical structures such as telecommunications masts, pylons and transmission lines should not be located in open and prominent areas where the rural character of the area could be degraded and sensitive views affected.

Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) The SPD which was adopted in 2008 was developed jointly by the Cumbrian local planning authorities to support policy implementation and provide consistent guidance for wind energy development. It provides locational guidance for wind farm development, acknowledges that Cumbria has a high quality environment and advocates that future decisions are made against a robust assessment of landscape capacity based on landscape character, sensitivity and value. The site is identified in this document as being Type 9 ii moorland hill and low plateau and in sub type 9b as rolling farmland and heath. This landscape is described as having a moderate capacity to accommodate up to a small group of 3-5 turbines.

Page 74 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The turbine will not harm the living conditions of any nearby residents through noise, shadow flicker or by reason of being overbearing, and nor will it impact on protected species or habitats. The main issue raised by this proposal is the effect of the wind turbine on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural landscape and whether any harm to that landscape would be outweighed by benefits in terms of renewable energy generation. National planning guidance requires local authorities to recognise that even small scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Although the energy generated by the proposed turbine is disputed by objectors to the scheme, the NPPF states that applicants should not be required to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy, which is considered fundamental to sustainable development. Nevertheless, the applicant has responded to objectors comments with details of energy generated from similar turbines in comparable locations. Although the applicant points to the precedent established by the turbine allowed on appeal at Moss End Farm, that site is on level ground adjacent to the M6, which is significantly different to the elevated position proposed in this application. Similarly, approval of this application would not mean that other turbines would necessarily be approved, as argued by opponents of the scheme. Each application must be judged on its own individual merits against the background of relevant development plan policies, and cumulative impact is a consideration of all such proposals. Positioned in an isolated, elevated location, the turbine would be clearly visible from distant viewpoints to the south and west. Although it is not at the highest point of Scout Hill, it is situated in a position where it would be viewed against the sky rather than against a backdrop of rising land. Nevertheless, the structure is a relatively small feature especially when compared to large scale commercial wind turbines, and it would be seen in the context of the wider landscape along with the existing masts and telecommunications equipment. Despite being visible, the turbine and mast would not be prominent from the road network, given the size of the structure and its position distant from these highways; it would be more conspicuous when viewed from the public right of way which runs to the south and east of the development, although it would not be visible along the entirety of this route. Though the turning blades of the turbine might attract attention, their limited size would mean that they would not appear unduly prominent. The comments of Preston Patrick Parish Council regarding the siting of the structure are noted. The applicant has responded that moving the turbine closer to the

Page 75 farmstead had been discounted during pre-application research on the basis of potential interference with the telecommunications mast to the west of Lupton High. The mast would be visible, but it is considered that it can be accommodated within the locality without causing significant harm to the landscape. The potential for a clutter of masts and turbines to adversely affect the character and appearance of this locality is acknowledged in the Cumbria Character Landscape Guidance and Toolkit, and the Cumbria Wind Energy SPD, which advocate that prominent and open locations should be avoided. Whilst the location of this development is prominent and open, it is judged that the installation of a single turbine of the size proposed will not harm the character and appearance of the area to an extent which would warrant refusal of the scheme. Nor would the turbine impact on nearby Farleton Fell, a significant upland feature of the locality which is especially prominent when viewed from approaches from the south. The proposed wind turbine would be visible from Farleton Fell, but would not be of a scale which would harm views from the fell top. On balance, and in considering the environmental benefits of renewable energy generation, the application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to conditions relating to the following:

(1) Standard time limit. (2) Schedule of drawings. (3) Removal of mast and turbine and restoration of the site within 6 months if turbine ceases to operate for a continuous period of 12 months.

Page 76 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 8 SL/2012/0297

EGTON WITH NEWLAND: COAL YEAT FARM, BROUGHTON BECK, ULVERSTON LA12 7PL

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF SINGLE WIND TURBINE (34.2 M TO BLADE TIP)

MR JOHN SUTCLIFFE E329280 N483420 31/07/2012

SUMMARY: Proposed siting of 34.2 metre high wind turbine on elevated agricultural land. The application raises concerns relating to visual impact upon the surrounding landscape.

EGTON WITH NEWLAND, MANSRIGGS AND OSMOTHERLEY PARISH COUNCIL: The Council objects to the proposal for the following reasons: 1. The turbine is situated too close to the boundary of the neighbouring property. Should the turbine fall over, it would fall into the neighbouring property. The applicant must have a way-leave from the adjacent land owner. 2. There are often low flying operations in the area carried out by the Ministry of Defence. 3. The visual impact will be high in the area. 4. Concerns are expressed about the noise effect on neighbouring properties as this is a very quiet area. 5. There is concern that the narrow access road is unable to accommodate the large vehicle required to transport the structure to site.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: To be reported.

CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER: No objections.

Page 77 SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: I would wish to see a noise emission map from the manufacturer. There is no mention of the predicted noise level at the nearest property. Further noise survey information has been supplied by the applicant which has been forwarded onto the Environmental Protection Officer for comment.

RSPB: While the RSPB do not object to the proposal, we strongly advise that a desk based bird survey of the site should be included in the submission. There is currently insufficient information to inform the assessment.

NATURAL ENGLAND: Natural England raises no objection to the proposal being carried out. However, we would expect the LPA to assess and consider the possible impacts resulting from this proposal on protected species, local wildlife sites and opportunities to incorporate biodiversity enhancements. If the LPA is aware of any protected species, the authority should request survey information before determining the application.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: No objections.

CABLE & WIRELESS WORLDWIDE: No objection.

ARQIVA (TELEVISION TRANSMISSION): No objections.

NATS: No objections.

VODAFONE: No objections.

JRC (ELECTRICITY NORTH WEST): Object, the proposal is likely to interfere with radio systems operated by Energy Industry Companies in support of their operational requirements for safety management of critical national infrastructure. JRC are however willing to cooperate with the developer to investigate whether this objection can be mitigated.

Page 78 OTHER: A total of 4 letters of objection and 4 letters supporting the proposal have been received at the time of writing. The main concerns of the objectors are as follows: • The turbine would visually be very prominent in the local landscape, including Lowick Common and will significantly broaden the clutter around Coal Yeat. The turbine would be located in a beautiful and unspoilt area. • Such large domestic turbines are normally located much closer to the buildings they serve, thus minimising the overall impact. • The area is normally very quiet and the turbine will lead to a significant increase in permanent noise levels. • The site is close to the applicant’s boundary and it is objectionable that the public safety exclusion zone extends over land in other ownership restricting its use. • Potential interference with television and mobile phone signals. • Access to the site is by very narrow lanes and steep hills and inappropriate for large construction traffic which is likely to damage these routes. • From most viewpoints the turbine would be seen against rising land and the white nacelle and blades would stand out. • The submission does not make reference to the impact on ground nesting birds. • Approval of the proposal could lead to further applications. There is real fear that growth in wind turbine applications will leave communities powerless in the face of speculative applications from large well funded developers who pay for start up costs and pay landowners rental. The letters of support state that alternative options for energy need to be found and wind power is a relevant option in this locality. The site is isolated, windy and the turbine would not be conspicuous. The nearby wind farm on Kirkby Moor fits in with the landscape and this proposal would add to the green energy produced.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Coal Yeat is located in an isolated upland area, approximately 2 km to the north east of Broughton Beck. The former farmstead comprises a small group of buildings including the applicant’s dwelling and a cottage which is tenanted, set within approximately 8 hectares of land. It is proposed to position the turbine in the corner of a field on the south west boundary of the applicant’s land holding. The nearest residential property is the tenanted cottage, owned by the applicant, located some 175 metres from the proposed turbine. The nearest third party residential property is located at Stainton Gap some 500 metres to the north. The 50 kW turbine would be a three bladed structure measuring 23.6 metres to the base of the hub and 34.2 metres to the tip of the blades, which would be 9.6 metres

Page 79 radius. The base of the turbine would be 1.8 metres in diameter and comprise of a galvanised steel tower with white blades and hub. A temporary access would be constructed between the site and the current access drive to the north of the site to serve the construction site. The submitted design and access statement states that the applicant wishes to generate electricity for domestic and agricultural use to financially assist in sustaining his property, with any excess exported to the National Grid. The submitted noise report states that the noise generated form the turbine will not be a nuisance to the nearest noise sensitive development at the tenanted cottage. This was based on generic noise date. A further site specific noise report has been submitted following the comments received from the Environmental Protection Officer. The report provides information regarding the noise output from the turbine. The calculations show the indicative noise levels at 150 metres and 200 metres from the turbine at wind speeds between 6 and 12 metres per second. This concludes that the noise level would not exceed 42 dB at a distance of 150 metres and at the higher windspeed of 12m/s. As such the report states that under normal operational situations, the turbine will not give rise to noise which might cause a disturbance to the nearest residential property. The submitted ecology report states that the proposed turbine is located within an open agricultural field which does not have any statutory ecological designation. It states that the turbine will be positioned at a distance of 55 metres from any hedgerows or trees which is beyond the 50 metre buffer distance as set out in the technical guidance note by Natural England to protect bats.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Section 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change - states that planning plays a key role in supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. When determining applications, LPAs should approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Section 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment - states that the planning system should seek to protect and enhance valued landscapes and to minimise impacts upon biodiversity.

Structure Plan Policy Saved Structure Plan Policy R44 states that outside the Lake District National Park and the AONB proposals for renewable energy will be favourably considered if : (1) there is no significant adverse effect on the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage of the area either individually or cumulatively through their relationship with other utility infrastructure; (2) there is no significant adverse effect on local amenity, the local economy, highways or telecommunications; and (3) the proposal takes all practicable measures to reduce any adverse impact the on landscape, environment, nature conservation, historical and local community interests.

Page 80 In considering applications for planning permission in relation to the above criteria, and other policies in the Structure Plan, the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight. Saved Structure Plan Policy E37 requires development to be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types Policy E37 requires proposals to be assessed in relation to : (1) locally distinctive natural or built features; (2) visual intrusion or impact; (3) scale in relation to the landscape features; (4) the character of the built environment; (5) public access and community value of the landscape; (6) historic patterns and attributes; (7) biodiversity features, ecological networks and semi-natural habitats; and (8) openness, remoteness and tranquillity.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS 7.7 supports in principle appropriately located renewable energy schemes. It is acknowledged that there are some energy sources which need to be remote from residential areas and other sensitive land uses, and projects should avoid any harmful impact upon the historic environment. Policy CS 8.2 states that development proposals should be informed by and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscapes identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect and conserve the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area.

Local Plan Policy Saved Policy C26 of the Local Plan covers wind energy proposals and states that their acceptability will be judged according to whether a number of defined criteria can be satisfied. One of the criteria is that the proposal’s energy contribution and other benefits outweigh any significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape, the amenity of residential properties, nature conservation, archaeological or geographical interests.

OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit document was prepared by Cumbria County Council in conjunction with the district authorities in March 2011. The application site lies within the landscape character type of “Foothills” which comprises of, improved pasture with open moorland and rocky outcrops, strong patterns of stone walls and hedgerows and small belts of trees. The guidance recommends that development in these areas should be carefully controlled to protect uncluttered skylines and key views to and from the area from large scale wind turbines.

Page 81 The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Guidance which was adopted in 2007 provides guidance for the consideration of wind energy developments. Part 2 of the guidelines provides specific guidance on landscape and visual issues and identifies the potential capacity of various landscape types throughout the county to accommodate different scales of wind farms. The landscape type for this location the “Upland Fringes” has low / moderate capacity to accommodate wind turbines, because of its sensitive nature. The cumulative impact of separate turbine developments within a locality is also a material planning consideration.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The main issue in this case is whether the visual impact of the proposed turbine on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural landscape outweighs the positive policy benefits. The elevated and unspoilt open nature of the landscape in this area is such that a turbine of this scale would appear as an isolated and extremely prominent vertical structure when viewed from the surrounding public vantage points, from the minor roads to the south west and north and from the network of public footpaths which cross Lowick Common to the north of the site. The field within which the turbine would be sited is on rising land and although there would be some views with the higher land behind the turbine, it would also appear on the skyline, particularly when viewed from the north. This substantial structure would loom above these vantage points and there are no trees, landforms, buildings or other structures in the immediate vicinity of the site that would serve to act as a foil for the turbine which might reduce its prominence. The nearest residential property is the tenanted cottage owned by the applicant some 175 metres from the proposed turbine. Although the turbine could affect the amenity of this property because of its scale and close proximity, the fact that it is within the applicant’s ownership however, does have a bearing on how this impact is considered. Members will also note the concerns raised by the RSPB regarding the lack of information on bird data for the site. This response has been forwarded to the applicant and any further information submitted in this respect will be reported at the meeting. The objection received from the communications company acting on behalf of Electricity North West has also been forwarded to the applicant, also it appears that this issue could be addressed. In conclusion, although it is recognised that the wind turbines will have wider environmental, economic and energy benefits, it is considered that in this case the

Page 82 harmful visual impact of the proposed turbine in particular, outweighs the potential benefits in this particular case and the application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below - The proposed turbine would appear as an isolated and prominent vertical structure which would appear incongruous in its surroundings. As a consequence, the turbine will have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the landscape and would thus be in conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policies R44 and E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and saved Policy C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Page 83 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 84 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 9 SL/2012/0327

HELSINGTON: HIGH HOUSE FARM, HELSINGTON, KENDAL LA8 8AG

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF ONE WIND TURBINE (32.4M TO BLADE TIP)

MR J M WILSON E349310 N489721 31/07/2012

SUMMARY: The proposed siting of a 34.2 metre high wind turbine on agricultural land in this location would result in a detrimental impact on the surrounding landscape. This outweighs any environmental, economic and energy benefits that the proposal would have.

HELSINGTON PARISH COUNCIL: Helsington Parish Council has concerns for the loss of visual amenity arising from wind turbines. However this wind turbine is moderate in size and not in a particularly prominent position in the landscape. Therefore, balancing the moderate loss of visual amenity against the national need to reduce carbon omissions, there is no objection to the wind turbine in this particular planning application. However, there remains a general concern for the installation of wind turbines on the high ground between Kendal and the Lyth Valley. That general area, particularly the western escarpment which is exposed to the prevailing winds, is likely to prove attractive to wind turbine operators. That same area is also an extremely valuable landscape asset. More significant installation of wind turbines, whether larger turbines, or wind turbine “farms”, or a general proliferation would cause significant damage to the quality of the landscape. That damage to the landscape would then be harmful to the tourist industry, which is locally and regionally important. These concerns are applicable to the whole of the high ground to the west of Kendal, which lies within several Parishes.

UNDERBARROW AND BRADLEYFIELD PARISH COUNCIL: No objections. It is of course in Helsington parish and the Council feels that the development would not be seen by most of our parish.

Page 85 NATLAND PARISH COUNCIL: The Parish Council support this application, although it is realised that the development will be clearly visible from the parish. The Council recognises that farmers need to diversify and this proposal will provide the farmer with an additional regular income through a government subsidy. The Council does have concerns, however, regarding the intrusion in a high quality landscape and feels that the proposed development should not be allowed to set a precedent which could lead to a proliferation of such turbines beside farms and isolated properties in open countryside. It is also hoped that the planners will require that a suitable dark colour is used to minimize the light effect from a fast revolving blade.

LEVENS PARISH COUNCIL: No comments to make on this planning application.

KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL: Refuse – visual impact on landscape close to Lake District National Park, and also would set a precedent.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: The proposal is broadly acceptable to Cumbria Highways. The site access needs to be identified on a plan. The route choice for deliveries will need careful consideration as Whetstone Lane and the access route through the town may present difficulties even with standard sized lorries. Further comments on the additional information to be reported.

CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER: Although I have no objections or comments to make regarding the impact of the proposed development on buried archaeological remains, I do suggest that, because the turbine will lie in reasonable proximity to a Scheduled Monument, it would be in line with best practice to consult English Heritage regarding any impact on the setting of the monument.

ENGLISH HERITAGE Do not wish to offer any comments on this occasion. The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: Satisfied that potential noise impact has been investigated and sufficient data provided by the applicant by way of rating assessment. Although no site specific background noise survey has been undertaken in this location, I would consider the

Page 86 distance from the turbine to the nearest residential property (outside of the applicants ownership) sufficient to reduce any propagated noise below that of which would be likely to give rise to adverse impact on neighbouring properties in line with current guidance.

NATURAL ENGLAND: The proposal lies within 50 m of Scout and Cunswick Scar Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and within 5 km of the Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA), Ramsar site and SSSI. We do not envisage any direct impact upon these sites resulting from the proposal. There is a growing body of evidence linking turbines (both large and small-scale turbines) with negative effects on bat populations. Impacts include collision with rotors, disorientation by ultrasound emissions and interference with flight paths to and from feeding areas. To minimise risks, the siting of wind turbines must be carefully considered. Sites to avoid are turbines set in woodland or on woodland edges, along watercourses, by open water, or by linear features such as hedgerows that bats use for foraging and commuting routes. We note in the submitted Design and Access Statement that the proposed location lies more than 50 m from habitats within Scout and Cunswick SSSI, but it is important also to consider habitats, including any trees or hedgerows, which may lie in near proximity within the farm boundary. Further details are required on the potential for bats provided by habitats with 50 m of the proposed turbine location before we can make any comments on the possible risks to bat species. We note in the submitted Design and Access Statement that some mention is made about potential bird impacts and the likelihood that most birds will be less sensitive species. However, no consideration appears to have been given to establish whether there might also be sensitive bird species present in the near area which could be particularly vulnerable. We therefore recommend that a desk study is carried out to determine local presence of sensitive bird species. Some additional field survey work may then be necessary to determine whether the proposal lies on the flight lines of any local sensitive breeding or wintering bird populations. The proposed development site is not located within any sites designated for their landscape value. However, landscape issues should be considered with any proposal, as the development should always compliment the local character and distinctiveness of the surrounding area. Natural England considers that the landscape and visual impact assessment has been carried out to an appropriate methodology. We consider the conclusions in this respect, set out in the submitted Design and Access Statement for the proposed turbine, to be acceptable.

Response to further information The protected species survey has identified that bats, a European protected species may be affected by this application. Our Standing Advice Species Sheet: Bats provides advice to planners on deciding if there is a “reasonable likelihood” of bats being present. It also provides advice on survey and mitigation requirements. We are now satisfied that due consideration has been given to the potential use of the area by sensitive bird species. We accept the findings of the report which suggest that there are no known records of sensitive bird species in the vicinity and

Page 87 the proposed development is unlikely to have a significant impact on local bird populations.

RSPB: The RSPB consider that there is insufficient information with which to determine the impact from this proposed development. A desk based bird survey is required. An assessment of any significant populations of birds sensitive to wind farm developments on or overflying the site can then be made, with site based bird surveys undertaken as appropriate. Awaiting a response to the additional information.

LAKE DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY: Due to the topography of the area and the location of the National Park boundary starting at the edge of the escarpment of Scout Scar, the National Park Authority does not consider that the proposed development would have any significant effect upon the landscape character of the National Park. The effect of the development on the setting of the National Park has also been considered. The development would have some effect upon the approach to the National Park and some views towards it from the south east, but not such that would have a significant effect upon the setting. If however the National Park boundary was to be extended in the manner that has been proposed, then we would consider that the development would cause harm to the landscape character of that part of the National Park. A National Park has the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty (National Planning Policy Statement Para 115). If you require further advice about the progress of the intended National Park extension and the weight to be given to this intended designation, you should contact Natural England.

FRIENDS OF THE LAKE DISTRICT (CPRE): The National Planning Policy Framework reiterates the importance of recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside as a Core Planning Principle (17). LDF Core Strategy Policy CS8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, distinctive landscape character types. The site lies within Landscape Sub-Type 3a “Open Farmland and Pavements”, as defined by Cumbria Landscape Character Assessment (LCA). The LCA notes that this is a rare and unusual landscape which is varied and interesting due to the range of limestone features and the strong sense of history derived from pre-historic features and medieval enclosure patterns. The Vision states that the high scenic quality of these limestone hills will be conserved and enhanced. Development proposals will respect the open unspoilt tops and commons and will avoid causing disruption in the lower-scale patterns of farmland, woods and villages. Guidelines are given to protect uncluttered skylines and key views to and from the area from large-scale energy infrastructure developments such as large scale wind turbines, pylons or telecommunications masts.

Page 88 The LCA highlights the linkage with the Lake District National Park, noting that the sub type continues into the national park around Grange and Kendal and is classified as Type C – Coastal Limestone in the Lake District National Park Landscape Character Assessment. The proposed site lies within an area which is currently under consideration for inclusion in the Lake District National Park. That the area in question is judged to be of National Park quality should therefore be a key material consideration in FLD’s view, as should the potential impact upon the setting of the National Park. The National Planning Policy Framework states that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks (115). The Lake District National Park Landscape Character Assessment and Guidelines notes in regard to Type C that, energy related development (wind turbines, pylons) would interrupt key skylines and views out towards the coast or of the rocky outcrops and hills, eroding valuable landscape quality. A strong sense of openness, with generally uninterrupted skylines, coupled with strong intervisibility with adjacent Landscape Character Types to the south, contribute to overall high visual sensitivity. Overall capacity to accommodate change without compromising key characteristics is considered to be limited. Guidelines are given to protect key views and skylines from inappropriate development and clutter in order to retain a strong sense of openness within views. The Cumbria Wind Energy SPD incorporates 3a into the wider type 3 “Coastal Limestone”, which is judged to have a low capacity to accommodate turbine development. The guidance clearly describes a high quality landscape, the key characteristics of which severely limit opportunities for turbine development. FLD have concerns therefore, over the potential impact of this proposal, both upon the local landscape, and the Lake District National Park. The turbine would be sited on a very prominent ridge, which clearly demarcates the boundary of the National Park. This ridge is clearly visible across a wide area to the east, from Kendal to Natland. The turbine would, through its form and movement, appear highly conspicuous, and detract significantly from the largely undeveloped skyline. Given these factors, the visual impact of the development would be significant in our view.

NATIONAL TRUST: Sizergh Castle is some 4km south west of Kendal and situated within a setting that is predominantly rural and agricultural, and includes the original estate lands of the Castle. Some of this land is wooded, although the majority forms part of working farms. Overall the Trust owns some 630 hectares of land at Sizergh, including three farm holdings. The vast majority of the Estate was given to the National Trust in 1950. The Castle is a Grade I Listed Building and there are other Grade II * and Grade II buildings and structures associated with it. The formal garden to the north and east / south east of the Castle is a Grade II Registered Historic Park and Garden. It is noted that in particular following the provision of new visitor facilities at Sizergh Castle that its popularity has increased significantly. The high quality of the open space provision made at Sizergh is recognised in the adopted Core Strategy (para

Page 89 3.25). As a result, walks on the Estate, especially up to Helsington Barrows via Holeslack, have become increasingly well used; indeed the property has encouraged visitors to explore the wider Estate and many more now do so. A network of public rights of way and permitted paths crosses the estate and this access is valued by local people for the rewarding variety of scenery afforded on a short and easy walk. There are vast panoramic views over the Kent estuary and the Lyth Valley from Helsington Barrows, Flashbank and Church Fell, the latter accessible by less energetic visitors in a motor vehicle. The recently issued National Planning Policy Framework, Core Planning Principle 17, has confirmed the importance of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. It is noted that the application site and its wider surroundings, including much of the Sizergh Estate has been recognised as being of particular quality and, following consultations, is being promoted by Natural England as an extension to the Lake District National Park. Local policy is set out in the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy which requires development to be informed by, and be sympathetic to, distinctive landscape character types (Policy CS8.2). Detailed advice relating to landscape character is provided in the Cumbria Landscape Character Assessment (LCA). The application site and its surroundings fall within the Open Farmlands and Pavements (landscape sub-type 3a) – referred to as a rare and unusual landscape where there is a varied and interesting range of limestone features and a strong sense of history derived from pre-historic features and medieval enclosure patterns. This sub-type continues into the designated National Park. The expectation is that the “high scenic quality of the limestone hills will be conserved and enhanced” with development respecting the open and unspoilt tops and commons and also avoiding disruption in the lower scale patterns of farmland, wood and villages (Vision section). Guidelines for landscape sub-type 3a include: “Protect uncluttered skylines and key views to and from the area from large- scale energy infrastructure developments such as large scale wind turbines, pylons or telecommunications masts…” Advice in the adopted Cumbria Wind Energy SPD is that the location has a low capacity to accommodate wind turbines. It is referred to as being a landscape valued for its generally harmonious and unspoilt character. It states that turbines of any size are likely to upset the sensitive balance of features of the area and to appear incongruous. Furthermore, turbines would detract from the landmark skylines of limestone escarpments, with a potential to conflict with the inherent landscape characteristics and wider scenic compositions. Clearly the application site is part of a sensitive landscape and one in which any wind turbine proposal, including turbines smaller than that proposed, require very careful consideration. The turbine is proposed to be located close to a prominent ridge that forms the present boundary of the National Park and would clearly be visible over a large area, including in the context of the National Park and also the range of heritage assets on the Sizergh Estate. It is considered that the erection of a structure up to 32.4 metres tall in this location would be visually intrusive and detrimental to the identified landscape characteristics of the wider area; furthermore the movement of the turbine blades would accentuate its presence and compound its intrusiveness. Issues for the Kendal area, as set out in the Core Strategy (page 30) include the need to safeguard and enhance its historic assets. This is confirmed in Policy CS2

Page 90 alongside the need to improve local green infrastructure provision. Policy CS8.1 (fourth bullet point) seeks to protect the countryside from inappropriate development whilst supporting its positive use for, among other things, tourism. It is considered that the proposed turbine would not protect the countryside and would negatively impact upon one of the District’s principal tourism attractions – the Sizergh Estate. It is also considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy CS8.6 which seeks to safeguard and enhance historic environment assets, including their settings. The proposed turbine development will impact, especially visually, upon the setting of a range of heritage assets at Sizergh and in the Trust’s judgement would result in harm to those assets.

FELLS: Wish to object to this application. It is FELLS’ view that:- • the proposed turbine has no economic value in terms of energy generated; • It has no social benefit as defined by the NPPF, apart from the applicant benefiting from the wind energy subsidies. Indeed, it will impact adversely on an area of great sustenance to many people in Kendal and its surroundings who walk the area each day; and • the proposed turbine offers no positive environmental role as set out in the NPPF. It will merely introduce an alien structure into an upland landscape which has been selected, in the ongoing Boundary Review, as suitable for inclusion in the Lake District National Park. In addition to its location within the proposed NP extension, we note that the turbine site is literally alongside the National Trust property that stretches from Brigsteer Woods to parts of Helsington Barrows. At 32.4m (about 100ft) the turbine is still large compared with other structures and buildings nearby and a similar height to the communications mast near the Scout Scar car park. It will be seen from a wide area, significantly from the many very popular footpaths to the south of the Scout Scar range, much used by walkers seeking the wider views. It would also be seen by walkers on The Helm and other viewpoints across the Kent valley. A mast of this size would merely add to the clutter about which concern has already been raised by the County Council. The limestone uplands of Scout Scar (LDNP) and Helsington Barrows (National Trust) and the area around Helsington Church (NT), are hugely popular with walkers and others seeking the wider views. That is why it is proposed to extend the Lake District National Park to include the latter, including the proposed turbine site, as stated above. This area is one of the main “lungs of Kendal”, easily accessible within minutes from the Town and therefore important in sustaining those wanting to get out into lovely countryside for a short walk. The road from Kendal to the area, passing the proposed site, is narrow and winding. The distraction of a 100ft turbine just to the left of a particularly narrow and winding section of road would be a distraction for drivers. Precedent is one of the most serious issues regarding this application. Once something like this is agreed, a precedent is set for more. It would then become progressively more difficult to refuse other applications. Relaxing control of

Page 91 intrusions of this kind into an area proposed as National Park status would be a dangerous step too far. Notably, the LDNP Authority has just rejected an application for a similar sized turbine at Ulcat Row near Matterdale, whilst Lancaster City Council has rejected similar sized turbines at Wray and Tatham, just inside the Forest of Bowland AONB. We believe similar constraints apply to this site also and to allow this application would surely set an unjustifiable precedent.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: No objection.

NATS: No objection.

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY: There is currently a high demand for CAA comment on wind turbine applications which exceeds the capacity of the available resource to respond to requests within the timescales required by Local Planning Authorities. The CAA has no responsibilities for safeguarding sites other than its own property, and a consultation by a Council is taken as a request for clarification of procedural matters. Councils are reminded of their obligations to consult in accordance with ODPM/DfT Circular 1/2003 or Scottish Government Circular 2/2003, and in particular to consult with NATS and the Ministry of Defence as well as any aerodromes listed in Annex 3 of the above documents, taking note of appropriate guidance and policy documentation.

CABLE AND WIRELESS No objection.

JOINT RADIO COMPANY LTD (JRC): This proposal is cleared with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by Electricity North West (formerly United Utilities), United Utilities (Water) and National Grid Gas Networks. In the case of this proposed wind energy development, JRC does not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios and the data you have provided.

ARQIVA (TELEVISION TRANSMISSION): No objections.

TELENT ON BEHALF OF VODAFONE: The nearest Vodafone link is approx. 700m away from your proposal which does not pose a threat to the VF ATP microwave network. Vodafone specify a 100 m minimum separation from turbine to link.

Page 92 OTHER: Two letters of objection has been received which raise the following concerns: • Wind turbines are an inefficient method of creating energy and the manufacturing costs are more than the electricity they produce. • Photo-voltaic panels would be less intrusive when installed on their property. • The small contribution that the machine will make does not justify the impact on the landscape. This is an area of importance as identified by its likely inclusion to the National Park. One letter has been received which is not an objection but raises the following concerns: • The effect on the appearance of the locality and would prefer it to be sited further east. • Concerned about any additional turbines in the future at the farm, especially as the area has been put forward as an extension to the National Park. Six letters of support have been received which raise the following points: • It is only small compared to wind farms with turbines of heights between 60 and 100 metres. • Only one turbine is proposed. • From Kendal it will be hardly visible. • A few turbines dotted around the skyline is a small price to pay for clean renewable energy. • It is a good location, away from built up areas. • Wind has to be part of the UKs renewable energy needs and projects like this will help meet the UK’s renewable energy targets. • More sustainable forms of energy such as wind turbines should be supported at all levels. • It will help reduce carbon emissions from the farm which helps make local produce greener. Will allow the farm to be more sustainable in the future. • In order for the farm to get this amount of electricity, it needs a turbine of this size. It is better to have one larger turbine than five smaller ones to produce the same amount of electricity. • The noise from the turbine will not be great and will be offset by normal background noise.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is within an agricultural field to the west of High House Farm. It is located approximately 2.5 kilometres to the south west of Kendal and 1 kilometre to the east of the village of Brigsteer. The site is approximately 700 metres to the south east of the Lake District National Park boundary and approximately 70 metres from Scout and Cunswick Scars SSSI.

Page 93 The field is bordered by Brigsteer Road to the north west and Whetstone Lane to the south west, along which are stone walls and areas of hedgerow. A public footpath crosses the field to the east. The field rises slightly from the farm buildings to the east. The land to the northeast of Brigsteer Road rises gently away from the highway. The field to the south west of Whetstone Lane rises slightly from the highway. Whetstone Lane is a narrow winding road which connects the A591 to Brigsteer Road. Most of it is single track and has several passing places. The land adjacent to this road comprises gently undulating fields which gradually rise up from the A591 towards the site. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a 50 kW turbine. It would be a three bladed structure measuring 23.6 metres to the base of the hub and 34.2 metres to the tip of the blades, which would have a radius of 9.6 metres. The turbine would be sited 160 metres to the west of the nearest building at High House Farm, 55 metres to the south east of Brigsteer Road, 52 metres to the north east of Whetstone Lane and approximately 100 metres to the west of the public footpath. It would be approximately 52 metres from the nearest hedgerow. There is a group of residential properties to the south east, the closest of which is approximately 410 metres from the site. Access to the site would be off the access to High House Farm and across the field to the south east. There is a scheduled ancient monument to the west of Briggs House Farm, approximately 280 metres from the site. Sizergh Castle is a Grade I Listed Building, approximately 1.8 kilometres to the south and is open to the public. The applicant has stated that the turbine is required to provide electricity for the farm. The size of turbine chosen has been dictated by the amount of electricity used on the farm. If the size of the turbine was reduced, they would require more of them to produce the same amount of electricity.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Section 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change - states that planning plays a key role in supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. When determining applications, LPAs should approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. It should also be recognised that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Section 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment - states that the planning system should seek to protect and enhance valued landscapes and to minimise impacts upon biodiversity.

Regional Policy Policy EM17 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for North West England (RSS) specifically promotes renewable energy sources and states that significant weight should be given to the wider environmental, community and economic benefits of renewable energy schemes. It lists wide-ranging criteria which should be taken into account when assessing renewable energy proposals, including the effects on local amenity, visual impact and nature conservation. The visual impact of such schemes is a matter to be taken into account but should not be used to rule out or place

Page 94 constraints on the development of all, or specific types of, renewable energy technologies. RSS Policy EMI(A) states that priority should be given to conserving and enhancing areas, sites, features and species of international, national, regional and local landscape, natural environment and historic environment importance. RSS Policy DP7 promotes the protection and enhancement of environmental quality, including green infrastructure, but at the same time respecting the character and distinctiveness of landscapes and the maintenance and enhancement of the tranquillity of the open countryside.

Structure Plan Policy Saved Structure Plan Policy R44 states that outside the Lake District National Park and the AONB proposals for renewable energy will be favourably considered if: (1) there is no significant adverse effect on the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage of the area either individually or cumulatively through their relationship with other utility infrastructure; (2) there is no significant adverse effect on local amenity, the local economy, highways or telecommunications; and (3) the proposal takes all practicable measures to reduce any adverse impact on the landscape, environment, nature conservation, historical and local community interests. In considering applications for planning permission in relation to the above criteria, and other policies in the Structure Plan, the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight. Saved Structure Plan Policy E37 requires development to be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types Policy E37 requires proposals to be assessed in relation to: (1) locally distinctive natural or built features; (2) visual intrusion or impact; (3) scale in relation to the landscape features; (4) the character of the built environment; (5) public access and community value of the landscape; (6) historic patterns and attributes; (7) biodiversity features, ecological networks and semi-natural habitats; and (8) openness, remoteness and tranquillity.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS7.7 supports in principle appropriately located renewable energy schemes. It is acknowledged that there are some energy sources which need to be remote from residential areas and other sensitive land uses, and projects should avoid any harmful impact upon the historic environment. Policy CS8.2 states that development proposals should be informed by and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscapes identified in the Cumbria

Page 95 Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect and conserve the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area. Policy CS8.4 relates to biodiversity and geodiversity and states that all development proposals should protect, enhance and restore the biodiversity and geodiversity value of land and buildings. It also states that development proposals that would have a direct or indirect adverse effect on nationally, sub-regional, regional and local designated sites will not be permitted unless they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm; the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of the site and the wider network of rural habitats; and prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are provided.

Local Plan Policy Saved Policy C26 of the Local Plan covers wind energy proposals and states that their acceptability will be judged according to whether a number of defined criteria can be satisfied. One of the criteria is that the proposal’s energy contribution and other benefits outweigh any significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape, the amenity of residential properties, nature conservation, archaeological or geographical interests.

Supplementary Planning Documents The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Guidance, which was adopted in 2007, provides guidance for the consideration of wind energy developments. Part 2 of the guidelines provides specific guidance on landscape and visual issues and identifies the potential capacity of various landscape types throughout the county to accommodate different scales of wind farms. The landscape type for this location is judged to have a low capacity to accommodate turbine development. It states that any type of turbine development would have potential to compromise the picturesque coastal limestone scenery around Morecambe Bay. It would also be liable to upset the sensitive balance of hills, pastureland, woodland, winding lanes, visible archaeological remains, historic buildings and field patterns, with little or no scope for visual linkage or association with comparable structures or regular land cover patterns.

OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit document was prepared by Cumbria County Council in conjunction with the district authorities in March 2011. The application site lies within the landscape character type of “Open Farmland and Pavements”. The key characteristics of this landscape type are steep scarp limestone slopes, limestone pavement or rocky outcrops; grazed land with stone wall field boundaries; rough pasture as open common or fell in higher areas; sporadic scrub and woodland on steep scarp slopes; stately homes and parklands in lower areas; and extensive open uninterrupted views from high ground. The guidance recommends that, in these areas, uncluttered skylines and key views to and from the area should be protected from large-scale energy infrastructure developments such as large scale wind turbine, pylons or telecommunication masts.

Page 96 The NPPF replaced all the previous PPG and PPS documents. However, the Companion Guide to PPS22: Planning for Renewable Energy is not contained within the list of replaced documents and therefore still a material planning consideration. It states that there is no statutory separation between a wind turbine and a public right of way, however fall over distance is often considered an acceptable separation, and the minimum distance is often taken to be that the turbine blades should not be permitted to oversail a public right of way. Fall over distance is the height of the turbine to the blade tip and 10% is often added to this as a safe separation distance from occupied buildings.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: There have been no concerns raised from the various consultees in relation to aviation or telecommunications, therefore the main issues in this case are considered to be: • the visual impact of the proposed turbine on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural landscape; • the impact on the amenity of the nearest residential properties; • the potential impact of the structure on protected species of bats and birds; and • the impact on the nearby heritage asset.

Visual Impact The landscape in this area is characterised by gently rolling hills, open fields separated by hedgerows and dry stone walls, areas of limestone pavements and groups of trees. The only vertical structures close to the site, other than the groups of farm buildings and trees, are small scale electricity poles that follow Brigsteer Road to the north and north east of the site and a couple serving the farm. These are generally masked by individual and groups of trees. The land rises beyond the site to the north east where there are areas of trees. The turbine would not be sited on the highest point of the field in which it is to be located. The guidance contained within the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit and the Wind Energy SPD advises that this landscape character type has low capacity for large scale wind energy developments and uncluttered skies should be protected. The turbine would be sited approximately 700 metres from the Lake District National Park boundary, and is within the proposed extension to the Park. Although this is not a large scale project, the turbine would have an overall height of 34.2 metres. Given the nature of the surrounding landscape and the winding nature of the adjacent road network, close views of the turbine would only be likely immediately adjacent to the

Page 97 site. It would be unlikely to be overly visible from the A591 as the land rises and falls between this highway and the site. The most likely views are from raised areas longer distances from the site, such as The Helm. From Scout Scar the turbine would be unlikely to be overly prominent as there is a large area of trees. The top of the turbine may be visible given its height but the whole structure would be unlikely to be visible and as such the proposal should not adversely affect views out of the National Park. When considering views into the National Park it is important to consider whether the view in which the turbine would be seen is important for appreciating and understanding the context of the National Park. Cunswick and Scout Scars provide important views into the National Park towards the fells to the north. These scars are within the Park and are best understood when viewed from the west. As such, any views over the site towards the National Park should not be detrimental to its designation. The site is located within the proposed extension to the Lake District National Park Boundary. The Order to extend the National Park has been submitted to the Secretary of State and is awaiting a date for a public inquiry which is expected in the autumn. It therefore has a certain amount of weight. However, irrespective of this, the impact should still be assessed on the basis of the impact on the character and appearance of the landscape. As stated above, this landscape character type is particularly sensitive. There are very few other vertical structures close to the site, and given the relatively low lying and gently undulating nature of the landscape, a turbine of this scale would appear overly prominent and would therefore have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the landscape. Although a strong justification has been put forward from the applicant, this is not sufficient to outweigh the harm that the turbine would have on this particularly sensitive landscape.

Residential Impact The nearest residential property, outside the ownership of the applicant, is approximately 410 metres from the site. As such the proposal should not adversely impact on residential properties by way of noise or shadow flicker.

Ecological Impact With regard to the potential impact of the development upon the local bat population, the turbine will be sited more than 50 metres from the nearest hedgerow. This is beyond the buffer distance set out in the technical guidance note by Natural England to protect bats and as such the application does not require a full ecology survey. Following the submission of additional information, Natural England are now satisfied that due consideration has been given to the potential use of the area by sensitive bird species.

Heritage Assets Neither the County Council’s Historic Environment Officer or English Heritage have objected to the proposal. However the National Trust have raised various concerns with regards to the impact of the turbine on Sizergh Castle and its setting. The estate extends close to the site, however the Grade I Listed building is located approximately 1.8 kilometres to the south. Given the distance and the undulating nature of the landscape, the turbine will not be seriously detrimental to the character and appearance of this heritage asset or its setting.

Page 98 Conclusion Although it is recognised that the wind turbine will have wider environmental, economic and energy benefits, it is considered that in this case the harmful visual impact of the proposed turbine outweighs the potential benefits and the application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below: - The proposed turbine would appear as an isolated and prominent vertical structure which would appear incongruous in its surroundings. As a consequence, the turbine will have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the landscape and would therefore be in conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy, saved Policies R44 and E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and saved Policy C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Page 99 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 100 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 10 SL/2012/0348

BEETHAM: LANCASTER BROS, ELMSFIELD PARK, HOLME, LA6 1RJ

PROPOSAL: CHANGE OF USE OF PART OF BUILDINGS FROM JOINT CLASSES B8 AND B2 (STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION AND GENERAL INDUSTRIAL) TO CLASS B2 (GENERAL INDUSTRIAL) ONLY WITH ERECTION OF LANBRO DEVELOPMENTS LTD LOADING CANOPY ON E351675.6 N480015.5 31/07/2012 SOUTH ELEVATION

SUMMARY: The use of the building for general industrial purposes is acceptable, but not on an unrestricted basis which would allow night working.

BEETHAM PARISH COUNCIL: No comments received. The consultation period for comments expired on 8 June 2012.

MILNTHORPE PARISH COUNCIL: No comments received. The consultation period for comments expired on 28 June 2012.

HOLME PARISH COUNCIL: No major objections but would have welcomed some information as to the use to which these buildings are put, and whether this will mean an increase in heavy traffic along Milnthorpe Road and North Road in Holme.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: No objections.

Page 101 SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: No objections.

OTHER: One letter of objection has been received from the occupiers of one of the adjoining dwellings raising the following issues: • general industrial use will permit any number of uses on the site; • there has been an increase in noise on the site in recent months; • an increase in noise pollution and traffic will have an adverse impact on the residents of the properties and nursing home; • increased traffic; and • smells. One letter of support has been received from the occupiers of one of the adjoining dwellings with the following comments: • having lived adjacent to the site for 13 years there have been no issues with noise or pollution. The grounds are well maintained and litter free; • with all the new housing proposed for the area, welcome new jobs within walking distance; • family intend to apply for jobs within the new factory. A letter has also been received from the adjoining nursing home which is closest to the unit, objecting strongly to any changes in the hours of operation, night shift work and deliveries at all times. They did not object to the recent expansion of the site as they understood the existing hours would be abided by. The home has 28 residents, some of whom have dementia. Disturbance of their sleep patterns and routines would be very harmful to their health. HGVs and workforces cars and disturbance would make it unbearable for residents and disturb their sleep. The nursing home was there prior to the industrial estate, and it has taken some time to achieve the restrictions in place, and removal would be a retrograde step.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Planning permission was granted to use the former Elmsfield equestrian centre for agricultural engineering purposes in 1989. No conditions were attached in relation to working hours. The buildings were altered and extended over the years, and as the site diversified, planning permission was granted for the use of some parts of the building for purposes falling within Class B8 (storage and distribution) of the Use Classes Order during the mid- noughties. Conditions attached to these permissions restricted the times of deliveries to, and collections from, the buildings to ensure that the neighbouring residents did not suffer from noise and disturbance as a result of delivery vehicles entering and leaving the premises during unsocial hours. Deliveries and collections were restricted to the period 08.00 to 18.00 hours Monday to Friday, and 08.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturdays. No deliveries were permitted on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Page 102 Under planning application reference SL/2009/0847 planning permission was granted for an extension to the east of the building, largely for manufacturing purposes for the intended occupier, Kudos. In addition, a new depot is proposed for Rickerbys, which had outgrown its existing unit, consisting of a 200 square metres building to accommodate workshop, offices, stores and staff facilities, together with an open- fronted covered display area for agricultural machinery, approximately 100 square metres in size. No restrictions were placed on the hours of operation. Works on this project are imminent.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Elmsfield Industrial Park lies in open countryside approximately 1 km to the north of Holme on the Milnthorpe Road. The premises lie adjacent to the junction with Elmsfield Lane, close to Elmsfield House Care Home and a terrace of seven houses. Planning permission is sought to change the use of the western part of the main building from a combination of B8 and B2 uses to solely a B2 use. The unit is to be occupied by a company manufacturing confectionary, which would at times need to operate outside the hours stipulated on the later B8 permission. It is important to this manufacturer that there are no restrictions on hours of operation, as the work is often seasonal in nature. Information supplied with the application states that generally, for the first six months of the year only one shift is worked per day, but in the latter part of the year two shifts are common and occasional night working is necessary. As such, the number of employees is also variable, ranging from 47 to 100, depending on the time of year. A loading canopy is proposed at the southern end of the building measuring 12 metres in width and 12 metres in depth, with a shallow dual pitch roof measuring 6 metres to the ridge. The structure will be constructed of profiled metal sheeting to match the existing building. The part of the building that is the subject of this application is adjacent to the nursing home and the seven houses, Elmsfield Park Cottages.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Section 1 Building a strong competitive economy - sets out the government’s commitment to economic growth to create jobs and prosperity, placing significant weight on the need to support economic growth through the planning system, which should operate to encourage rather than to act as an impediment. Section 3 Supporting a prosperous rural economy - states that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity, promoting the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS7.4 Rural Economy - supports employment related development in rural areas where it does not detract from the amenity of residential areas.

Page 103 Policy CS8.10 Design - requires that the siting, design, scale and materials of all development proposals should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape. Policy CS10.2 Traffic Impact of new development - outlines the criteria against which development proposals will be assessed in terms of highway safety, the need to travel and to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport appropriate to its particular location.

South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Policy E4 New Development and Extensions to premises - support suitable employment-related development in existing employment areas providing: • the development would not cause harm to the character of the area or the amenity of nearby residents because of its scale appearance, or traffic generation; • adequate parking and servicing arrangements and appropriate provision for cyclists are provided; and • landscaping details where necessary from an integral part of the development. Saved Policy S2 Design - sets out the design principles that the District Council will take into account in considering development proposals. All new development is expected to take account of the South Lakeland Design Code.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The main issue raised by this application is that of hours of operation outside the normal working day. In principle, changing the use of part of the building from a mixed B8 / B2 use to a solely B2 use is acceptable. Elmsfield Park is a well established employment site, and the use of part of the building for the manufacturing of confectionary products is appropriate. Local Plan Policies are supportive of proposals that generate employment, further economic growth and encourage the re- use of vacant premises. Nevertheless, given that the part of the building to which this application relates is closest to the adjoining dwellings and nursing home, it would be reasonable to apply some restriction to the hours of operation to protect neighbouring residents from noise and disturbance during unsocial hours. The existing conditions restricting the hours of delivery to, and collection from, these premises have benefited the occupiers of these dwellings. Whilst it is acknowledged that formerly the whole site had an unfettered B2 use without restriction, this is not how that part of the building closest to the dwellings has been operated latterly. Furthermore, it is the prospective occupier’s stated intention that the hours of

Page 104 operation will need to be in excess of the conditions formerly applied to the storage and distribution use at times, in a way that the previous general industrial enterprises may not have operated. The issue of hours of operation was considered during deliberations on the extension and new buildings approved under planning application reference SL/2009/0847. It was judged that this scheme would have no direct effect on the residential properties because of the location of the development to the east of the site and because the restrictions on deliveries to and from those parts of the building closest to the dwellings were unaffected by the application. The canopy element of the scheme, to the south of the building is of an acceptable scale and design which does not adversely affect the character and appearance of the locality. The use of the western part of the complex of buildings that comprise Elmsfield Park for general industrial purposes can be supported but the proposed, albeit occasional, night-time working is questionable in the context of the near proximity of the Elmsfield House Care Home and the Elmsfield Park Cottages. The manufacturing activities undertaken by the confectionary company are not particularly noisy but the gathering of employees outside the building at break-times and the comings and goings of vehicles will be the cause of noise and disturbance. Members should also be aware that the general industrial Use Class will permit a wide variety of industrial activities, to be undertaken within the building, many of which will involve processes much noisier than confectionary production. As a consequence, in order to prevent neighbouring householders and residents suffering noise and disturbance during unsocial hours, the hours of operation should be restricted to the normal working day (08.00 till 18.00 hours with no working on Sundays or public holidays). Conversely, it is understood that it is important to the confectionary manufacturer that the planning permission should permit flexible working hours in order that production can be maintained, and orders delivered on time, during busy times. The question of working hours has been raised with the applicant’s planning consultant.

RECOMMENDATION: The Corporate Director (People and Places) to report on the applicant’s response to the suggestion that the planning permission be subject to a condition restricting the use of the premises to the normal working day.

Page 105 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 106 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 11 SL/2012/0412

LOWER ALLITHWAITE: THE PASTURES, TEMPLANDS LANE, ALLITHWAITE, GRANGE over SANDS LA11 7QY

PROPOSAL: VARIATION OF CONDITION NO 4 (OPENING SEASON) ON PLANNING PERMISSION SL/2009/0469 MR ANDREW COTTER E337907 N477243 31/07/2012

SUMMARY: Whole year round occupancy has been agreed at various caravan sites throughout the district subject to alternative holiday occupation condition.

LOWER ALLITHWAITE PARISH COUNCIL: Recommend approval.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: No objection as the proposal will not affect the public highway.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Planning permission was granted for the original main section of the caravan site in October 2003 (SL/2003/1624). The permission allowed for 20 static caravans accessed via a driveway from Templands Lane to the north of the junction with Allithwaite Road. Various permissions have been granted for amendments to layout, drainage and opening season. A condition requiring a six week closure period to prevent occupation as primary dwellings has however been retained. Permission has since been granted for various small scale extensions to the caravan site including the permission relating to this appeal (SL/2011/0862). In September 2009 planning permission was granted for a larger scale extension of ten caravans, including one for a member of staff on land to the east of the main site (SL/2009/0469). The application relates to this section of the site. The permissions have historically included a condition requiring a closure period of six weeks during the winter. An application to allow all year round opening

Page 107 throughout the whole site was submitted in 2010 (SL/2010/0169). The land on which each caravan is sited is leased to the caravan owner on a long term lease. These leases do not include any restriction with regard to the occupancy of the caravans or require use as a holiday home only. The caravan site operator was not in a position to ensure that alternative holiday occupancy conditions could be adhered to and the application was refused. An Inspector agreed with the decision and dismissed an appeal (Ref: APP/M0933/A/10/2140458). Planning permission was granted for two additional caravans to the north of the main site and east of the house in December 2011 (SL/2011/0862). The permission was granted subject to the revised holiday occupancy condition which requires provision of a copy of a caravan owner’s / occupier’s Council Tax document for their main residence. The site owner applied to remove the part of the condition requiring submission of a Council Tax document stating that it prevented sales and raised ownership and legal issues. This application was refused and an appeal against the refusal is currently being considered by the Planning Inspectorate.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The Pastures is a static caravan site located approximately 900 metres to the south of the nearest residential development in Cartmel. The site subject to this application is located to the north of the original site and to the west of the house. The application seeks to vary condition No.4 of the planning permission for the site (SL/2009/0469). The condition requires that the caravans on plots 2 to 10 shall not be occupied between 15 January and 1 March each year. The reason for the condition is to ensure that the caravans cannot be permanently occupied as primary residences. The application originally included a Certificate stating that only the applicant owned the site. However, following a land registry search it was found that there were nine separate leaseholders with over seven years to run (each leasehold is valid for a period of 50 years). Certificate B has now been served and the other site owners notified. The caravan and plot owners are either Directors of the Woodset, a company which runs parts of the site, relatives of the directors or the part owners of Wells House Farm Caravan site. All the owners have primary homes elsewhere and intend to let the caravans as holiday accommodation.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Section 3 of the NPPF supports sustainable tourism including the expansion of facilities in appropriate locations.

The North West Regional Spatial Strategy Within rural areas, Policy RDF2 seeks to focus development upon Key Service Centres. In the remoter rural areas, flexible solutions should be used to meet particular development needs to achieve a more diverse economic base. The accompanying text states that proposals which seek to diversify and expand rural business in areas that are lagging economically should be regarded positively as long as they demonstrate the potential to help build sustainable communities and are sensitive to the local environment.

Page 108 Policy W6 states that plans, strategies, proposals and schemes should seek to deliver improved economic growth and quality of life through sustainable tourism activity. Policy W7 states that plans and strategies should ensure high quality, environmentally sensitive attractions which improve the tourism offer.

Adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS1.1 sets out a range of sustainable development principles. It states that most new development should be directed to service centres. It notes that the economy needs to grow in a sustainable way and states that support for tourism, needs to be balanced with protecting and enhancing the attractiveness of the area. Policy CS7.6 supports the enhancement and expansion of tourist attractions and tourism infrastructure. Development that improves high value-added tourism, such as high quality development in sport and recreation, will be particularly encouraged. Particular emphasis is placed on improving the quality of existing visitor accommodation and in particular the need to broaden the range of accommodation provided. Policy CS8.4 requires that development proposals should protect, enhance and restore the biodiversity and geological value of land and buildings .

Local Plan Policy Saved Policy T7 relates to the extension of caravan opening seasons. It states that extension will be allowed subject to the following: • the site is closed for a minimum period of six weeks over the winter period; • there will be no detrimental impact to landscape or nature conservation interest; • there will be no adverse impact on Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves or the Arnside / Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The ownership and operation of this part of the site differs from the original site where a large number of plot owners have secure tenure leases. The only restriction on the occupation of the original part of the site is a six week closure period. Given the number of owners it would be inappropriate to alter the conditions on the original site and an Inspector agreed with this stance at appeal. The section of the site to which this application relates includes two conditions relating to the occupation of the caravans as holiday accommodation. Condition 4 requires a six week closed period and condition 5 that the caravans only be occupied

Page 109 as holiday accommodation. The plot / caravan owners all have alternative addresses and it is intended to lease the units for holiday accommodation. As the un-leased areas of the site are under the control of the applicant, the revised holiday accommodation conditions can be taken into account in any further future leases and thereby enforced by the caravan site owner and the Council. It has been acknowledged that the operation of holiday caravan parks all year round benefits the local economy and it has been agreed to allow all year round occupancy on other parks in the area. The holiday occupation conditions recently used at the caravan parks in Arnside, Beetham and Endmoor would prevent permanent residential use. Subject to the inclusion of the conditions previously agreed by the Committee for all year round use there is adequate justification for a decision contrary to the requirements of saved Policy T7 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to: Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Condition (2) This permission relates to the amended drawing number 023/05/09 deposited with the Local Planning Authority on 10 August 2009. Reason For the avoidance of doubt.

Condition (3) The site shall be used for static caravans only. Reason For the avoidance of doubt.

Condition (4) The owner / operator of the caravan site known as “The Pastures”, (outlined in red on the submitted plan) shall maintain an up-to-date register of the names of all of the individual caravan owners and occupiers and their main home addresses, and shall make the following information available to the Local Planning Authority upon request: • copies of the register; • copies of a caravan owner’s / occupier’s Council Tax bill for their main residence for the relevant financial year; and • a copy of the licence between the site owner / operator and the caravan owner / occupier for each pitch. For the avoidance of doubt, the expression “for the relevant financial year” shall mean that each financial year (1st April – 31st March) the caravan owner will provide an up-to-date Council Tax bill, so for example if the request was made in September 2012 then a bill for the tax year 2012 – 2013 would be provided or if the request was made in May 2014 then the 2014 – 2015 bill would be provided.

Page 110 Reason To safeguard the local tourist economy in accordance with Policy CS7.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.

Condition (5) The caravans shall not be occupied other than as holiday accommodation. They shall not be used at any time as sole and principal residences by any occupants. Reason To safeguard the local tourist economy in accordance with Policy CS7.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.

Condition (6) The caravan on Plot 1 shall only be occupied by a person mainly or solely employed by Woodset Limited as the warden for the caravan site hereby approved. Reason Permanent occupation by a person unrelated to the caravan site would be contrary to saved Policy H6 of the South Lakeland Local

Plan.

Condition (7) The trees / hedgerow plants shall be maintained in accordance with the approved scheme and any trees / hedgerow plants which are removed, die, become severely damaged or diseased within five years of the date of this permission shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees / hedgerow plants of a similar size and species to those originally planted unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason To protect the character of the landscape in accordance with Policy E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and saved Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (8) The access drive shall be maintained in accordance with the approved scheme at all times thereafter. Reason To protect the character of the landscape in accordance with Policy E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and saved Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (9) The access to the caravan site hereby approved shall be via the existing main access road from Templands Lane and the access road hereby approved. Reason To protect the character of the landscape in accordance with Policy E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and saved Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (10) No railway vehicle, tramcar, omnibus body, aeroplane fuselage or similar structure, whether on wheels or not and howsoever, adapted, shall be stationed or erected on the site. Reason To protect the character of the landscape in accordance with Policy E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and saved Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Page 111 Condition (11) Notwithstanding any permission given by the Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995, the written approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be obtained for the placing of any overhead electricity service lines on the site. Reason To protect the character of the landscape in accordance with Policy E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and saved

Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (12) Notwithstanding any permission given by the Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995, the written approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be obtained for the construction and siting of any buildings, structures or erections (whether temporary or otherwise) to be placed on the site. Reason To protect the character of the landscape in accordance with Policy E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and saved

Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (13) The use of the land for the purpose for which consent is hereby granted shall not supersede the normal use of the land for agriculture. Reason To protect the character of the landscape in accordance with Policy E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and saved

Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (14) No more than 10 caravans shall be stationed at the site and they shall be located in the positions indicated on the approved plan. Reason To protect the character of the landscape in accordance with Policy E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and saved Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (15) The caravans shall be painted in one or more dark colours to a specification approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within six months of their being sited / erected in accordance with the approved plan deposited with the Local Planning Authority on 2 June 2009. Reason To protect the character of the landscape in accordance with Policy E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and saved Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION: The use of the caravan site all year round will have a positive impact on the local economy. The alternative conditions will ensure that the caravans remain as holiday accommodation and cannot be used as permanent residences. The proposal therefore accords with national and local policies as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, The Good Practice Guide for Tourism and Policies CS1.1, CS7.6 and CS8.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.

Page 112 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 12 SL/2012/0420

KIRKBY LONSDALE: LANE HOUSE BARNS, OFF THE A65

PROPOSAL: RE-DEVELOPMENT OF SITE FOR MIXED OFFICE AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WORKSHOPS

MR JOHN COLLIS E359900 N478874 31/07/2012

SUMMARY: This undeveloped site fronts onto the A65 in the open countryside to the west of Kirkby Lonsdale. It lies opposite Kirkby Motors and the Kirkby Lonsdale Business Park and has a long planning history. This latest proposal is for two buildings to be used for offices and light industry and represents an appropriate form of development for the site.

KIRKBY LONSDALE TOWN COUNCIL: Refusal recommended. The Town Council observes that virtually the whole application is identical to the previous application for development at this location and, therefore, would re-iterate the comments made on SL/2011/1041; namely : • The need for the development . The application does not provide any evidence to support the need for such a development nor are there any prospective tenants. • Intensity of the development. The addition of the unit adjacent to the western boundary potentially overdevelops the site. From the east side, the new building resembles a generic commercial development, similar to a car dealership, and would impair views from across the Lune Valley and the town. • Impact of the development. When viewed in connection with the business park, the sub-station and the garage on the opposite side of the A65, the development will create a chain or ribbon of commercial sites along the road. This will change the very nature of Kirkby Lonsdale and its surroundings with the danger of creating the same undesirable development as demonstrated in Ingleton. Secondly, there is the significant danger that the development boundary of the town will be extended and a precedent established for infill development along the A65.

Page 113 • Impact on local infrastructure. Traffic generation and vehicle movements appear to be significantly under-estimated. Those employed in the businesses to be established on the site will travel to and from work, and into Kirkby Lonsdale, by car. • Road safety. The application indicates that the development will only generate 25 vehicle movements each weekday. This figure appears to be wholly unrealistic as all journeys between home and work and into Kirkby Lonsdale will be made by car. Cumbria Highways should introduce a 40 mph speed limit along this stretch of the A65 and right-turning lanes should be introduced in the interests of road safety. There are positive reasons for the Town Council to support this application given the benefits of keeping the buildings in use and the potential economic benefits to the Parish. However, the benefits need to be weighed against the areas of concern identified above. If the District Council feels that the development is necessary and desirable it should ensure that Cumbria Highways has given due regard to road safety improvements, such as the extension of the 40 mph speed limit and the introduction of right-turn lanes.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: To be reported.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: The drainage scheme proposed should provide a sustainable drainage strategy. Secondary containment is needed for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals.

KIRKBY LONSDALE CIVIC SOCIETY: Whilst the overall scheme is an imaginative re-development of a derelict group of buildings and shows some improvement over the previous application, we wish to object on a number of grounds : 1) We are not convinced of the need for such a development in this location, and the regular availability of units in the Business Centre on the opposite side of the A65 supports this. 2) The increased number of vehicle movements resulting from such a development would, in our opinion, increase the danger of using this stretch of the A65. 3) The likely extension of such a development over time, would lead to a ribbon development of the A65 outside Kirkby Lonsdale, to the detriment of the town. 4) Land for employment use is designated elsewhere in Kirkby Lonsdale in the Land Allocations document. These are more suitable areas for development.

OTHER: One letter of support has been received.

Page 114 HISTORICAL CONTEXT: The site has a lengthy planning history which can be summarized as follows : - • 1989: 0.2ha of land allocated for business use in the South Westmorland Local Plan. • 1994: planning permission granted for the conversion of the building on the site into business units. • 2001: permission granted for five new-build business units on the site. • 2004: planning permission refused for a business park extending to 1.6ha; permission was refused on the grounds of landscape and visual intrusion. • 2005: permission granted for a substantial building to house an auctioneer’s sales rooms. • 2008: permission granted for a revised sales room scheme. • 2010: extension of the time period for the 2005 consent ; the permission expires in August 2013. • 2012 (April) : planning permission refused for the re-development of the site for offices and workshops (Use Classes B1 and B2) ; the reason for refusal reads as follows : The proposed building adjacent to the western boundary of the application site would appear as a prominent, obtrusive and incongruous form of development detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would, thereby, be incompatible with the aims and objectives of Policies CS7.4 and CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy. None of the various planning permissions have been acted upon. The Kirkby Lonsdale Business Park, on the opposite side of the A65, was built following a planning permission granted in March 2006.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The application site extends to 0.5ha and is part of a larger field on the north side of the A65 about one mile to the west of Kirkby Lonsdale. The southern part of the site, adjacent to the highway verge, is occupied by a dilapidated former stone building without a roof ; this structure is to be demolished and the stone used for facing the new buildings. A veterinary practice lies to the east and there is open countryside to the north and west. To the south, on the opposite side of the A65, is a filling station and repair garage, an electricity sub-station and the recently completed Kirkby Lonsdale Business Park. This latest proposal is for a mixed office, light industrial and general industrial development (Use Classes B1 and B2). As with the previous application, two buildings are proposed : one in the central part of the site adjacent to the highway boundary and one to be built adjacent to the western site boundary. The former is grouped around a small courtyard and comprises single- and two-storey structures ; its design and materials of construction are the same as the previous application and

Page 115 it will contain six units. It covers a ground area of approximately 30metres by 23metres and has a maximum height of 8m. The second building follows an L- shaped plan and, unlike its predecessor, is largely single-storey. Its dimensions are 25m by 16m and the highest part of the roof is 6.5m above ground level. It will contain two offices or workspaces. Both buildings follow a fairly conventional, but attractive, design featuring a variety of roof configurations including pitched, pyramidal and hipped. The walls are to be faced with stone and the roofs covered with slate.

PLANNING POLICIES: National Policies Two of the core principles contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) are that planning should always seek to secure high quality design and should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. In the context of the rural economy, the NPPF states that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. Support is encouraged for the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversions and well-designed new buildings.

Core Strategy and Local Plan Policies Policy CS7.4 (the Rural Economy) of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy states that favourable consideration will be given to suitable employment-related development in rural areas where the proposal : • is of a scale in keeping with its surroundings; • does not detract from the amenity of residential areas; • is not detrimental to the character or appearance of the landscape or settlement and; • does not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic. Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy (protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character) requires development proposals to demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance, amongst other matters, the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area. Core Strategy Policy 8.2 (Design) requires that the siting, design, scale and materials of all development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with the local vernacular tradition. Designs that support and enhance local distinctiveness will be encouraged. New developments should protect and enhance key local views and features or characteristics of local importance and incorporate layouts that reinforce specific local distinctiveness. Saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan sets out the South Lakeland Design Code and requires applications to take proper account of its principles.

Page 116 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The application site is in the open countryside to the west of Kirkby Lonsdale. In such areas the development of employment sites does not have strong policy support. The site has had, however, the benefit of various planning permissions since it was allocated for business use in 1989. There is currently a planning permission for a substantial building and car park to be used as an auctioneer’s sales rooms. In addition, there are both long-established and relatively recent developments on the opposite side of the A65; namely, the electricity sub-station, the filling station and vehicle repair garage and the Kirkby Lonsdale Business Park. Unlike the Business Park, which occupies a relatively low-lying site, the application site is more prominent in view. At the Planning Committee meeting in April, Members accepted the principle of a development comprising offices and workshops but found the building proposed for the western side of the site to be prominent, obtrusive and incongruous. In visual terms, the centrally located building is of a scale in keeping with its surroundings, as required by Core Strategy Policy CS7.4. The differing roof heights successfully break up the apparent bulk of the building and the overall massing and design, allied to the traditional materials of construction, ensures that the building responds appropriately to its local context. It is a visually distinct building that is compatible with the aims and objectives of Core Strategy Policies CS7.4, CS8.2 and CS8.10 and saved Policy S2 of the Local Plan. By contrast, the building previously proposed to be erected adjacent to the western boundary was not as successful. The revised design, however, is a distinct improvement. It is a straightforward building which is to be faced with stone and roofed with slate. Its appearance, scale, massing and materials of construction will ensure that it is not as prominent as the building previously proposed. It will be more visually sympathetic and less dominating and it is recommended that the Committee find in favour of the building as now proposed. The mix of uses (offices, light industry and general industry) is also appropriate. There are no trees on the site but a planting scheme has been submitted that will form screening from the A65 and the surrounding fields. The species choice and layout of the planting can be approved. Finally, it should be noted that, at the time of writing, advice from Cumbria Highways has not been received.

RECOMMENDATION: At present no written response has been received from Cumbria Highways and subject to no adverse comment being received it is recommended that delegated

Page 117 authority be given to the Director (People and Places) to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions : (1) Standard time limit (2) Planning permission to relate to one building only. (3) Revised layout. (4) Use Classes B1 and B2. (5) Conditions recommended by Cumbria Highways. (6) Samples of the stone-facing and roofing slate to be approved. (7) Surfacing materials. (8) Planting. (9) Surface water drainage. (10) Secondary containment for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals. (11) The installation of lights.

Page 118 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 13 SL/2012/0425

KIRKBY LONSDALE: TRAM LANE / DODGSON CROFT, LA6 2HG

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF BUILDING TO HOUSE 36 SELF-CONTAINED RETIREMENT APARTMENTS WITH CAR PARKING

MCCARTHY AND STONE RETIREMENT LIFESTYLES LTD E360980 N478497 31/07/2012

SUMMARY: Although the site is suitable for a development comprising retirement apartments, the submitted scheme is not supported. Certain aspects of the design do not take proper account of the context of the development and the provision of affordable housing is not compatible with the requirements of Core Strategy policy.

KIRKBY LONSDALE TOWN COUNCIL: The Town Council has resolved to oppose this application. Whilst the Council accepts that the site should be developed, the current application raises five principal concerns : 1. Absence of affordable housing. The application does not comply with local planning requirements in this respect and should be rejected on these grounds alone. One-third of the units should be affordable. The Council opposes large-scale development without the inclusion of affordable housing given the undesirable consequences of segregating different sections of the community through the creation of “high value” or “affordable only” developments.

2. Unproven need for the development. There is already significant provision for the needs of older residents in the town. The nearby Eaves Lea development is similar to the proposed apartments and the Town Council understands that the lack of demand for this type of accommodation means that owners are unable to find buyers when looking to sell. The need is for lower cost provision for young families in order to maintain employment and allow local families to live in their native town.

3. Inappropriate scale and design. The proposed building is of a scale, concentration and design which is not compatible with the specific location or

Page 119 the town in general. The massing and style of the building serve only to echo the supermarket premises opposite rather than enhancing the style of the town beyond. This is likely to present a disincentive to visitors to explore the town and lessen the utility of residents.

4. Inadequate parking. Taking into account the needs of visitors and service vehicles, the proposed parking allocation appears to be inadequate for the number of apartments proposed.

5. Road safety concerns. The junction of Tram Lane and Dodgson Croft is somewhat complicated by the exit from the public car park. The additional vehicle movements generated by this development will increase both complexity and volume creating additional challenges for motorist and pedestrian alike. These issues could be mitigated through careful design and the inclusion of a signal-controlled crossing of Dodgson Croft.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: To be reported.

SLDC STRATEGIC HOUSING AND ENABLING TEAM LEADER: It has been made clear to the applicant that the Council’s policy is to require 35% affordable housing on-site and that provision of commuted sums in lieu of this requirement does not form part of this policy. I accept that it would be extremely difficult to provide 35% affordable housing on-site in this case due to the nature of the proposed sheltered housing scheme for the reasons explained in the applicant’s Affordable Housing Statement. However, this would be possible on the basis of an alternative general needs housing scheme. I advised the applicant that an alternative solution would be to work in partnership with a housing association to bring forward a site in the Kirkby Lonsdale locality which would deliver the 35% requirement. No proposal on this basis has been received. Instead, the applicant has proposed a commuted sum payment of £265,792 towards planning contributions, including affordable housing. It is not clear how much of this would be set aside for non-affordable housing purposes. On the basis that the full payment would be put towards affordable housing this equates to the provision of only two affordable units based on two, 1-bedroom flats using the open market valuation of £193,760 provided ; or only one affordable unit based on a 2-bedroom flat using the open market valuation of £266,420 provided. These calculations are based on the Council’s affordable housing prices of £70,000 for a 1- bed flat and £80,000 for a 2-bed flat. The open market values are very high compared to the open market values of the new affordable flats at the nearby Biggins Road development and may reflect the specialist nature of the accommodation. Based on the Biggins Road valuations (£125,000 for a 1-bed flat and £150,000 for a 2-bed flat) the proposed contribution would equate to the provision of four affordable flats. Given that the 35% requirement equates to 12 units in this particular case, the proposed contribution is very low.

Page 120 The applicant has also been advised that the 35% requirement could only be reduced if a financial viability assessment was submitted to the Council and was considered appropriate by the Council’s agent, NPS.

NPS NORTH WEST: To be reported.

SLDC CONSERVATION OFFICER: The application proposes a quite large residential block at a critically important gateway into the town that is some way from the boundary of the Conservation Area. The design consists of a cluster of connected perimeter forms with independent pitched roofs set around a more solid core. This approach reduces the physical massing of the building and results in a correspondingly complex roofscape. This aspect of the design is satisfactory and, when combined with the decision to keep the height of the building to four storeys (of which only three will be seen from some angles because of the nature of the site) means that the potential for the development to impact on the Conservation Area is reduced by reason of an appropriate scale and acceptable physical massing. There are, however, some aspects of the design that do not take proper account of the context of the development resulting in a building that is not particularly in keeping with its surroundings and, as a result, fails to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to “make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness” and to “respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation.” Such elements include the deeply oversailing verges to all of the gable fronted elevations ; the use of extensive glazing panels within the gabled elevations ; the use of timber cladding to some of the tall vertical components ; and the extensive use of a rendered wall finish with very little use of masonry cladding. None of these material and detailing choices has any proper contextual basis and, as a result, the proposal will not assist in making a positive contribution to local distinctiveness nor respond to local character and history or reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials. It is recommended that the applicant again be asked to consider design mitigation that addresses these concerns so that the building has a better choice of integrating into its specific context and securing sustainable development in line with the policies of the NPPF. If the applicant is unwilling to consider such mitigation then my advice must be that this application be refused on the grounds that it fails to comply with national and local planning policies.

SLDC PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENT AND HOUSING OFFICER: To be reported.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: Conditions should be attached should planning permission be granted relating to ground contamination and surface water drainage.

Page 121 SLDC ABORICULTURAL OFFICER: The site contains a number of groups of trees surrounding the boundaries of the site and a small number of individual trees. The majority of trees on the site will be removed but new tree planting is proposed together with the planting of shrubs and climbers. Although a large number of trees are to be removed, the majority are in a poor condition and should not constrain the development of the site.

OTHER: Three objections have been received ; the main grounds of concern being : • The generation of additional traffic movements to the detriment of road safety. • The inadequacy of on-site parking. Four letters of support have been received. The main advantages of the development can be summarised as follows : • It will be a great asset to the town. • It will make one of the entrance roads into the town really impressive. • It will transform a piece of waste ground.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: The site is allocated for residential development under the South Lakeland Local Plan and is also included as a housing site in the Land Allocations Development Plan Document which is due for Examination in October. Planning permission for one dwelling was granted in 1996 and outline consent for the residential development was granted in 1999. Planning permission for a building to house 47 retirement apartments was refused in 2006 on two grounds : firstly, that the proposed building would have an adverse impact on the character of the adjacent Conservation Area and, secondly, the development did not include the 50% affordable housing provision as required by the adopted Structure Plan Policy in operation at that time. A subsequent appeal was dismissed. Although the Inspector did not agree that the building would have an unduly harmful impact on the setting of the Conservation Area she concluded that it would appear out of place on this prominent site and would not meet the design requirements of Local Plan Policy S2. The second reason for refusal was supported; the proposed scheme would not meet the policy requirements in relation to affordable housing.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The application site is prominently located on the A65 adjacent to the roundabout opposite Booth’s supermarket and the medical centre. It lies between the A65 and Tram Lane and to the north is a public car park. Detached residential properties, fronting onto Tram Lane and the A65, stand to the east. The site itself is overgrown and bowl-shaped, sloping downwards from the surrounding roads. The application seeks to provide accommodation for the elderly in a building that rises to four storeys. 19 one-bedroom flats and 17 two-bed flats are proposed together with a manager’s office and communal facilities, including a residents’

Page 122 lounge, laundry and guest suite. The bulk of the building is positioned towards the western part of the site. The eastern part, adjacent to the neighbouring houses, will contain 22 parking spaces, the access road from Tram Lane and garden ground. The proposal would not provide affordable housing ; instead, the applicant company is proposing a contribution of £265,792 to the Council “towards planning contributions, including affordable housing.”

PLANNING POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework The Ministerial forward to the NPPF acknowledges the challenges the country faces in accommodating the growing elderly population, emphasising “we must house a rising population, which is living longer and wants to make new choices.” The planning system should be “supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities” by “providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations.” In terms of design, the NPPF urges local planning authorities to take into account “the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.” Decisions should aim to ensure that developments “respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation.” In the context of affordable housing, the NPPF states that “local planning authorities should, where they have identified that affordable housing is needed, set policies for meeting this need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified (for example to improve or make more effective use of the existing housing stock) and the agreed approach contributes to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities. Such policies should be sufficiently flexible to take account of changing market conditions over time.”

South Lakeland Core Strategy The following Core Strategy Policies are of relevance to the application : Policy CS1.1 provides an overview of the criteria for assessing new development. Policy CS1.2 explains the sequential approach to the location of development. Following the Principal Service Centres of Kendal and Ulverston, new development is to be located in the three Key Service Centres, Grange, Milnthorpe and Kirkby Lonsdale. Policy CS5 outlines the strategy for the east of the District and states that provision will be made in Kirkby Lonsdale and Milnthorpe for moderate housing provision. Priority is to be given to previously-developed land and sites within the urban areas. Policy CS6.1 states that 8000 new dwellings are required in South Lakeland between 2003 and 2025. Policy CS6.2 seeks to ensure that new developments offer a range of housing sizes and types. The Policy goes on to state that “The provision of purpose-built and / or specialist accommodation for the elderly, in appropriate locations within selected settlements in accordance with CS1, and well served by public transport and local

Page 123 services, will be supported provided that it does not detract from the character of the surrounding areas or involve the loss of land safeguarded for employment purposes - - -.” Policy CS6.4 is concerned with the provision of affordable housing. In all schemes of nine or more dwellings in the Principal and Key Service Centres, no less than 35% of the total number of dwellings proposed should be affordable. In exceptional cases, a lower requirement for affordable housing will be acceptable where there is clear evidence that it would make the development unviable. Policy CS6.6 seeks to ensure that 28% of housing development takes place on previously-developed land and buildings. Policy CS8.2 states that development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area and distinctive settlement character. Policy CS8.10 is concerned with design and states that “The siting, design, scale and materials of all development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with local vernacular tradition.” The Policy continues : “Designs that support and enhance local distinctiveness will be encouraged. New developments should protect and enhance key local views and features / characteristics of local importance and incorporate layouts that reinforce specific local distinctiveness.”

South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Policy S2 describes the South Lakeland Design Code. All new development is expected to take account of the Design Code.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: Although the site is suitable for retirement apartments, this particular scheme raises two issues. Firstly, whether the scale, massing and design of the building is appropriate for this prominent site and, secondly, whether affordable housing is being provided in accordance with adopted Core Strategy policy. The application site is prominently sited adjacent to the A65 and is visually important. Any building on the site needs to have a presence appropriate to its gateway location and in order to act as a counterpoint to the nearby supermarket and medical centre buildings. Because of the comparatively low level of the site in relation to its surroundings, a four-storey building could be accommodated without appearing to be overly dominant in relation to neighbouring buildings. The application proposes quite a large residential block consisting of a cluster of connected perimeter forms with independently pitched roofs set around a more solid

Page 124 core. This design approach reduces the physical massing of the building by breaking it up into more discrete volumes. Both the scale and massing of the building are appropriate. There are, however, some aspects of the design that do not take proper account of the context of the development, resulting in a building that is not particularly in keeping with its surroundings. Such elements include the use of deeply oversailing verges to all of the gable fronted elevations ; the use of extensive glazing panels within the gabled elevations ; the use of timber cladding to some of the tall vertical components ; and the extensive use of a rendered wall finish with very little use of masonry cladding. None of these material and detailing choices has any proper contextual basis and, as a result, the proposal will not assist in making a positive contribution to local distinctiveness nor respond to local character and history or reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials. It has been recommended to the applicant company that design mitigation be considered. As submitted, however, the proposal should be refused planning permission for the reason that it fails to comply with national and local planning policies concerned with design. In the context of the second issue, the proposal would not provide affordable housing on-site. Instead, the applicant is proposing a contribution of £265,792 to be used by the Council “towards planning contributions, including affordable housing.” Policy CS6.4 of the Core Strategy states that, on all schemes of nine or more dwellings in the Key Service Centres, which include Kirkby Lonsdale, not less than 35% of the total number of dwellings should be affordable. The advice received from the Strategic Housing Team Leader is that as the 35% requirement equates to 12 units in this case, the proposed contribution is very low. Members are, therefore, recommended to reject the commuted sum offer. The 35% requirement could only be reduced if a financial viability assessment was submitted to the Council and was considered appropriate by the Council’s property adviser, NPS North West Ltd. Some information has been submitted with the application and advice over financial viability is being sought from NPS. The proposed development is for open market housing aimed at those who have retired. The Core Strategy contains a policy (CS6.4) which seeks to ensure the provision of affordable housing to meet local needs. There is no exception made for private sector, open market retirement apartments and, as the proposed scheme would not meet this important policy requirement it is contrary to the aims of the development plan for the area. Unless NPS is able to advise that the 35% affordable requirement should be reduced in this instance it is recommended that planning permission be refused for the proposal as submitted.

RECOMMENDATION: As submitted, it is recommended that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons : Reason (1) There are a number of aspects of the design of the development that do not take proper account of its context resulting in a building that would not be particularly in keeping with its surroundings. These include the deeply oversailing verges to all of the gable fronted elevations ; the use of extensive glazing panels within the gabled elevations ; the use of timber cladding to some of the tall vertical

Page 125 components ; and the extensive use of a rendered wall finish. As a consequence, the building will not assist in making a positive contribution to local distinctiveness nor respond to local character and history or reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials as required by the National Planning Policy Framework and nor would the proposed development meet the design requirements of Policy CS8.10 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Reason (2) The development would be in conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy CS6.4 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy which requires, in all schemes of nine or more dwellings in Kirkby Lonsdale, no less than 35% of the total number of dwellings proposed to be affordable. The proposed development would not deliver affordable housing to the level required by Policy CS6.4 and, consequently, is contrary to the aims of the development plan for the area.

Page 126 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 14 SL/2012/0460

GRAYRIGG: GREEN ACRES, LA8 9BU

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF DWELLING AND FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS AND PARKING AREA

MR M and MRS L BOWNESS E357937 N497076

SUMMARY: The proposal is acceptable in terms of design and the principle of a new dwelling on this infill plot in Grayrigg.

GRAYRIGG PARISH MEETING: No comments received.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: Opposed to the application as submitted as it will lead to an increase in traffic on a highway which is very narrow. The visibility at the junction with the private road is poor and needs improving.

UNITED UTILITIES: No objection provided no surface water is discharged to the foul / combined sewer network. Only foul drainage should connect to the foul sewer. Surface water should discharge to the watercourse as proposed.

OTHER: Two expressions of concern have been made by the occupants of a neighbouring dwelling about the access on a bend on a road used frequently by agricultural traffic. They also have concerns about parking issues and one points out that there will be increased use of the junction with the A685.

Page 127 Another adjoining owner has concerns about the low pressure in the shared public water supply serving his and the adjoining property and points out that it will be necessary to sort out the legal situation with respect to rights of access over his land. The owners of the private access lane and the agricultural land to which it gives access are concerned about access and surface water drainage. They think the UU suggestion of discharging surface water into the beck could exacerbate problems of the beck overflowing within the field downstream. They say that there are some properties in the vicinity which have 4 cars and fear that the 2 spaces for the new dwelling and 3 spaces for Greenacres would be inadequate and lead to parking on the lane obstructing 24 hour access for them, their agricultural tenant and the UU sewage works. The owners of two other neighbouring properties have written in support of the application saying that rural communities need additional dwellings on infill sites and commend the imaginative / clever design on a featureless site.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The small village of Grayrigg with its church, school and hall is sited along a ridge on the A685 Kendal to Appleby road. Towards the eastern end of the settlement there is a junction with a minor road on the southern side. The first section of the road is of reasonable width and serves the adjoining dwellings. Greenacres and The Cockpit are the southernmost of the dwellings on this road and are sited between that highway and a private access lane at the foot of the ridge with properties above them on the slope to the north-west. The application forms the roughly triangular northern section of the curtilage of Greenacres at the junction of the lane and the road. Facing the highway the new dwelling would have a low, two-storey elevation with the first floor having two small, traditional, peaked dormers. To the rear of this frontage block and at a lower level a single storey rear wing would project at an angle reflecting the angle of the access lane. Walls would be of off-white roughcast and the roofs of slate. Interest would be added to the building by the design of two main windows. On the north elevation, therefore visible from the lane and the road, would be a projecting, triangular bay window with floor to ceiling glazing in six vertical panels two of which would open as french doors. On the lower, south-western elevation a central, broad window would rise to the peak of the gable. The main windows are positioned to avoid overlooking the windows of neighbouring properties. The new dwelling would be served by two parking spaces off the private land. Replacement parking and turning space would be provided for Greenacres within its northern, retained garden with a new access formed off the existing parking bay at the side of the highway on its east frontage. Foul drainage would connect to the public sewer and surface water to a soakaway. The applicant has confirmed that he has applied to United Utilities for the replacement of the water supply pipe which at present is common to Greenacres and The Cockpit. He has also discussed the private legal issues with the neighbour.

POLICY ISSUES: Policy CS1.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy allocates a small proportion of residential development to infill plots and rounding-off in smaller villages

Page 128 and hamlets. Grayrigg is listed on the associated map as one of the rural settlements to which this policy would apply. Paragraph 2.25 of that Core Strategy states that each proposal must be considered on its individual merits and in the light of other Core Strategy policies. Outside Principal / Key settlements Policy CS6.3 of the Core Strategy requires, on schemes of three or more dwellings, 35% to be affordable units but imposes no requirement for local occupancy conditions. Policy CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy requires the location, scale, design and materials of development to conserve the distinctive settlement character of the area. Policy CS8.10 of that Core Strategy also require these design elements to maintain and enhance the quality of the area and, where appropriate, reflect vernacular traditions. Saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan sets out a Design Code. Highway safety is a material planning consideration. While unneighbourliness in bulk or overlooking can be a material planning consideration private legal issues are not.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The principle of the development of this infill plot in Grayrigg would be in accordance with Policies CS1.2 and CS6.3, would not require an occupancy condition. The acceptability of the proposal therefore depends on the acceptability of the detailed design and impact. The design has been well thought out and the dwelling would fit with the scale and position of adjoining developments and the character of the settlement. There would not be unneighbourly bulk or overlooking and the design and materials are appropriate to the location. The proposed dwelling would lead to an increase in traffic on the northern section of the public road and the private access lane but the scale of traffic generated by one new three-bedroomed house would be limited and the additional usage would be largely confined to the broadest sections of road. The application site and other land being in the applicants’ control allows the formation and retention of visibility for the access points. The adopted parking guidelines give general standards for residential development and for three and four-bedroomed dwellings suggest two spaces in the owners’ control and a 0.5 space each in communal parking. The agent points out that the space allocated for the two parking spaces serving the new dwelling is ample enough to accommodate a third car if the parking is co-ordinated. For the one proposed dwelling and the one existing dwelling the scale of proposed provision appears adequate.

Page 129 The detailed design and impact of the proposal appear acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to: Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Condition (2) The roof shall be covered with slates being blue / grey / green in colour and of similar or the same texture to those mined within the County of Cumbria, a sample of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development begins. Reason To ensure the development is of a high quality design in accordance with Policy CS8.10 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (3) The external walls shall be completed in the following manner: - (a) with stone; (b) with a finish of roughcast, being a finish in which the final coat contains a preparation of fairly coarse aggregate thrown on as a wet mix and left rough; or (c) with a render of white or natural coloured cement, the render being smooth. The precise details of the finish of the external walls if different from that specified in the details submitted with the planning application shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development begins. Reason To ensure the development is of a high quality design in accordance with Policy CS8.10 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan number 1211/01/B. Reason For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Condition (5) Prior to first occupation of the new dwelling hereby permitted, the approved parking spaces for that dwelling and the parking and turning space to serve the existing dwelling "Greenacres" shall be constructed, marked out and made available for use and shall be retained as such thereafter for the use of each of those dwellings as allocated on plan number 1211/01/A.

Page 130 Reason In the interests of highway safety in accordance with saved Policy S10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (6) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development of the type described in Classes A, B, C and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of that Order shall be undertaken without the express permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason To avoid unneighbourliness or over-intense development to arise from additions and alterations on this site lying in close juxtaposition to existing dwellings.

Condition (7) Before the dwelling hereby permitted is first occupied there shall be formed both the visibility splays for the Greenacres access shown on plan number 1211/01/B and the visibility splay on the southern side of the junction of the private access lane with the public highway also as shown on plan number 1211/01/B . Moreover these visibility splays shall be retained at all times thereafter with no structure or plants exceeding 1m in height within the splays. Reason In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy CS10.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.

Condition (8) The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the surface water soakaway and connection to the sewer have been completed in accordance with the approved scheme. No surface water drainage shall be connected to the public sewerage system. Reason To ensure adequate provision is made for the management of surface water and sewerage disposal in accordance with saved Policy S26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION: The erection of a dwelling on this infill site within the settlement of Grayrigg would accord with Policies CS1.2 and CS6.3 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and the detailed design is acceptable according with the advice of CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. The dwelling would not be unneighbourly and subject to the attached conditions would be unlikely to be detrimental to highway safety. There are no other material considerations that indicate that planning permission should not be granted.

Page 131 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 132 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 15 SL/2012/0461

MILNTHORPE: BELA HOUSE, BEETHAM ROAD, LA7 7QR

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF TWO DWELLINGS

MR PETER FISHER E349621 N481109 31/07/2012

SUMMARY: This outline application relates to the erection of two detached dwellings within the garden of a detached dwelling in Milnthorpe. The site is within the development boundary and, although it is within an area set out as Important Open Space, this designation is proposed to be removed by the Allocations of Land Document.

MILNTHORPE PARISH COUNCIL: To be reported.

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: The only comments I would like to make are that Conditions relating to sociable working hours whilst the site is being developed are included. I have no reservations with regards to the proposals for foul and surface water drainage. However more detailed plans should be supplied for the design of surface water drainage in accordance with SUDs.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: To be reported.

SLDC ARBORICULTURIST: The applicant has submitted a tree survey which has been carried out to BS5837:2005, and although this survey accurately identifies the trees on the site and categorises the trees in accordance with the British Standard, the survey does not

Page 133 provide any root protection areas for recorded trees. There have also been a number of tree removals on the site since the survey was carried out. Whilst the proposed location of the dwellings will not have a significant impact upon the trees proposed to be retained, there will be a requirement for a number of trees to be removed to facilitate the erection of the dwellings. None of the trees proposed to be removed would merit protection by a tree preservation order and should therefore not constrain the development. Prior to the grant of full planning permission, the applicant will need to submit for approval an updated accurate tree survey to British Standard BS5837:2012, including a Tree Location plan displaying accurately plotted root protection areas for all trees to be retained, and indicating all trees to be removed. The applicant will also need to submit an accurate Tree Protection Plan showing the location of protective fencing for retained trees and an Arboricultural Method Statement detailing how the development will be managed in relation to retained trees. Details of the locations and species of replacement trees to be planted in mitigation for the removal of trees for the development should also be submitted at the full planning application stage.

UNITED UTILITIES: No objection to the proposal provided that the following conditions are met: • The site must be drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer. Surface water should discharge to a SUDS system or nearby watercourse to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. • No surface water is discharged either directly or indirectly to the combined sewer network.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: To be reported.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: This application relates to a section of large garden on the southern edge of the Market Town of Milnthorpe. The garden belongs to Bela House which is a large detached dwelling, set back from and at a lower level than the highway. The garden slopes away from the highway and contains many trees. To the east of the dwelling, adjacent to the highway, is a detached bungalow, Turnpike Cottage. There is an access from the highway to the south of this dwelling which serves both properties. There is a detached dwelling to the south of Bela House which is to the west of the proposed development site. Beyond this to the west is the River Bela which runs north to south. This is an outline application, with all matters reserved, for the erection of two dwellings on this site. They are proposed to be four-bedroomed, two storey properties and will be sited to the south east of Bela House. The closest will be approximately 16 metres to the existing dwelling and will be set back from the highway by approximately 42 metres. The two new dwellings will face towards each

Page 134 other, the southern most of which will be approximately 18 metres to the east of Bela Cottage. An access lane will be created from the existing access off Beetham Road to serve both dwellings. It is expected that each proposed dwelling will be detached with its own garage. The one to the south will have a total floor area of approximately 230 square metres and an approximate height of 8.15 metres. The dwelling to the south will have a total floor area of between 160-180 square metres and a maximum height of approximately 7.9 metres. The dwellings will have slate roofs and be finished in materials to match the surrounding properties.

POLICY ISSUES: South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 sets out the Development Strategy for the District outside the National Parks. It states that development will be concentrated in the towns of Kendal and Ulverston, which are identified as Principal Service Centres; then in the Key Service Centres of Grange over Sands, Kirkby Lonsdale and Milnthorpe; followed by a number of designated Local Service Centres throughout the rural hinterland. Policy CS6.6 states that the Council will seek to make efficient and effective use of land and buildings by meeting an average density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare for all housing developments. In some circumstances a lower density will be supported where there is proven need or environmental constraints mean that it is not suitable for high density development. Policy CS8.2 states that development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area and the distinctive settlement character. Policy CS8.4 relates to biodiversity and geodiversity and states that all development proposals should protect, enhance and restore the biodiversity and geodiversity value of land and buildings. It also states that development proposals that would have a direct or indirect adverse effect on nationally, sub-regional, regional and local designated sites will not be permitted unless they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm; the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of the site and the wider network of rural habitats; and prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are provided. Policy CS8.10 states that the siting, design, scale and materials of all development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with local vernacular tradition. Policy CS10.2 relates to the transport impact of new development. It states that development proposals should be capable of being served by safe access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the locality, and should incorporate parking standards that are in accordance with any adopted and emerging policy or guidance.

Page 135 South Lakeland Local Plan Policy H5 states that new dwellings will be permitted on suitable small sites within the development boundary, provided that they do not result in the loss of important open space. Planning permission will be subject to the submission of satisfactory density, design, layout, landscaping and access details. Policy S2 states that design should take account of existing distinctive local character. This should not exclude good local contemporary architecture. Attention should be paid to public views onto, over or out of the site. Views should not be significantly harmed and opportunities should be taken to enhance them. The design and materials of new buildings should relate to those around them and be well proportioned with appropriate architectural detail and decoration. Policy S4 sets out that development will not be permitted on important open space except where the proposal is for the extension, redevelopment or refurbishment of educational, community or recreational facilities. Policy S26 states that development which fails to provide adequate means of sewerage disposal and treatment, or where the capacity of the foul sewerage system or treatment works would be exceeded, will not be permitted.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The application site is located within the development boundary of Milnthorpe and is currently allocated as Important Open Space. Policy S4 of the South Lakeland Local Plan states that proposals for development on land with this designation will not be permitted except where they relate to the extension, redevelopment or refurbishment of educational, community or recreational facilities. However, the Land Allocation Document which has recently been submitted to the Secretary of State, removes the designation from this land. Annex 1 to the National Planning Policy Framework (published March 2012) states that decision takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: • the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater weight that can be give); • the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the objections, the greater weight may be given); and • the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework. The Fact File on Milnthorpe, which supports the Allocations Document, states that the site is not allocated for residential development and is no longer proposed as amenity open space, but is proposed to be retained within the Milnthorpe

Page 136 development boundary in recognition of the likelihood of some development potential. Given the stage of the Land Allocation Document, a certain weight can be applied. As the designation is proposed to be removed from the land, it should not prevent the granting of suitable development. As Milnthorpe is designated as a Key Service Centre, there is only a requirement for the provision of affordable housing on schemes of nine or more dwellings. Policy CS6.6 states that an average density of 30 dwellings per hectare should be achieved for all housing developments. In some circumstances, a lower density will be supported if there is proven need and environmental constraints mean that it is not suitable for high density development. During pre-application discussions, 6 dwellings were proposed on the site. However, United Utilities stated that the pumping station was at capacity and would only permit an additional two dwellings until works had been carried out to improve the situation, not likely to be completed until 2020. As such, only two dwellings are proposed. This development would still allow for a further three to be accommodated in the future. Given the site constraints, such as the change in levels of the land and the presence of trees, a smaller density is not unacceptable on this site. A habitat assessment has been carried out and submitted with the application as there are known to be bats in the area and the site is in close proximity to the river. It concluded that no bat roost, feature or habitat used by bats will be disturbed or destroyed by the removal of the trees identified from the garden. No further surveys are considered necessary and the development will have a negligible impact on bat habitats. The site is close to the River Bela. A full flood risk assessment has been produced by R.G.Parkins. This shows that neither dwelling will be at risk of flooding although land to the west of Plot 2 will be in Zone 2. A response is awaited from the Environment Agency and will be reported at the meeting. The proposal is in outline and as such the specific details in relation to the development would be submitted at the reserved matters stage. The siting and scale of the proposal are acceptable. The two dwellings can be accommodated on the site without impacting on the amenities of the neighbouring properties. There are no significant trees affected by the proposal, although the arboriculturist has requested an additional tree survey to be submitted as part of the reserved matters application. A response is awaited from Cumbria Highways although it is not anticipated that significant concerns would be raised as there is good visibility from the existing site access.

RECOMMENDATION: At present no written response has been received from Cumbria Highways and the Environment Agency. Subject to no adverse comment being received from them it is recommended that delegated authority be given to the Director (People and Places) to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Page 137 (1) Standard time limit – outline applications. (2) Details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (herinafter called “the reserved matters”) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. (3) Tree protection plan and Arboricultural Method Statement to be submitted. (4) Details of surface water drainage. (5) Materials.

Page 138 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 16 SL/2012/0547

LEVENS: WHINFIELD, FORCE LANE, LA8 8ED

PROPOSAL: DETACHED DWELLING WITH ANNEXE

MR D and MRS D PARRY E350252 N486497 31/07/2012

SUMMARY: The application relates to the erection of a dwelling, with ancillary annexed accommodation in the garden of a detached dwelling which is located within the open countryside. The justification put forward is not considered to outweigh the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policies.

LEVENS PARISH COUNCIL: No objections.

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: To be reported.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: To be reported.

HIGHWAYS AGENCY: To be reported.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: A previous planning application (ref. SL/2011/1033) for the erection of a pair of semi- detached dwellings was reported to the Planning Committee in March 2012. The Committee resolved to grant planning permission for the proposal subject to the

Page 139 negotiation of a S106 Agreement. No decision has been issued in relation to the application.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is located on the southern side of Force Lane, approx. 1.5 kilometres to the north east of the village of Levens. Force Lane is a narrow road accessed from the A590 Trunk Road which serves nine dwellings. Four of these are in a group close to the junction with the A590, the application site is approximately 250 metres to the east of these and there is a group of four dwellings approximately 200 metres to the east of this. In addition, Brettagh Holt Convent is located approximately 250 metres to the north east. The site is surrounded by fields. The site consists of a large two storey detached dwelling and a garden area to the side and rear. There are two vehicle accesses to the site and a gravelled parking to the front. There is an attached garage on the west elevation. The dwelling is finished in roughcast render and has a hipped slate roof. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two storey three-bedroom detached dwelling in the garden of Whinfield. It would be sited 2.4 metres from the east elevation of the existing dwelling and would have three bedrooms in the main part of the dwelling. A single storey attached annex is proposed on the east elevation, containing a bedroom and wetroom. The building would have a total width of 12 metres, which includes the single storey annex (3.5 metres wide), and a depth of 11.7 metres, which includes a single storey projection of 2 metres at the rear. It would have an eaves height of 6.9 metres and a ridge height of 8.15 metres. The front wall would be in line with the front of the existing dwelling and the building would be of a similar design with a hipped roof and a two storey projection at the front. The walls would be finished in render and the roof would be slate. The access to the east of the road frontage would be used for the proposed dwelling and the one to the west would be used solely for the existing dwelling. Parking for six cars is proposed in front of the dwelling and a garden area at the rear. A hedge is proposed along the eastern boundary and the boundary between the parking areas of the two properties. There are existing hedgerows along the other boundaries. A new sewage treatment plant is proposed for both properties. The following justification has been put forward to support the application: • The applicants were born in Kendal, have lived in the area for all their adult lives and are active members of the local community. • The proposal includes a fully integrated granny annex with level access and shared amenities to facilitate the housing of a disabled parent. This will also allow a family home in Windermere to become available. • The house has been designed to sit comfortably within the grounds of Whinfield which is within the settlement of Frosthwaite. The boundaries of the site have been established for over 70 years and there are mature mixed hedgerows on three sides. • The proposal has the support of the local community. • The applicant has suffered from leukaemia and as a result of the treatment has developed a serious medical condition. Selling Whinfield in order to be able to build a new detached dwelling in its grounds will provide the

Page 140 permanent security of a future home and some financial certainty for the family. • Believe it would fall within the exceptional circumstances criteria of the NPPF.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Section 6 states that in order to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Local Planning Authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as: the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; where development would represent the optimal use of a heritage asset; where it would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 sets out the Development Strategy for the District outside the National Parks. It states that development will be concentrated in the towns of Kendal and Ulverston, which are identified as Principal Service Centres; then in the Key Service Centres of Grange over Sands, Kirkby Lonsdale and Milnthorpe; followed by a number of designated Local Service Centres throughout the rural hinterland. No development boundaries will be identified for the smaller villages and hamlets, however new small scale infilling and rounding off development will be permitted in order to satisfy local need. New development will only be permitted in the open countryside where it has an essential requirement for a rural location, is needed to sustain existing businesses or provides for exceptional needs for affordable housing. Policy CS6.4 sets out the rural exception policy. It states that proposals for housing development which are located outside the settlement boundaries in the Service Centres, or where they do not constitute infilling or rounding off in the smaller villages and hamlets, will only be considered where they provide 100% affordable housing. Policy CS8.2 states that development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area and the distinctive settlement character. Policy CS8.10 states that the siting, design, scale and materials of all development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with local vernacular tradition. Policy CS10.2 relates to the transport impact of new development. It states that development proposals should be capable of being served by safe access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the locality, and should incorporate parking standards that are in accordance with any adopted and emerging policy or guidance.

Page 141 South Lakeland Local Plan Policy S2 states that design should take account of existing distinctive local character. This should not exclude good local contemporary architecture. Attention should be paid to public views onto, over or out of the site. Views should not be significantly harmed and opportunities should be taken to enhance them. The design and materials of new buildings should relate to those around them and be well proportioned with appropriate architectural detail and decoration.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The overarching planning principle, expressed in the Draft National Planning Policy Framework, is the new development must be sustainably located. The main issue relating to the proposal is the principle of housing development in this location. Policy CS6.4 of the Core Strategy states that proposals for housing development which are located outside the settlement boundaries in the Service Centres, or where they do not constitute infilling or rounding off in the smaller villages and hamlets, will only be considered where they provide 100% affordable housing. The site is located within the open countryside outside any of the key service centres. The existing dwelling is surrounded by open fields and is approximately 200 metres from the nearest group of dwellings. As such, the proposal cannot be considered to constitute infilling or rounding off of a smaller village or hamlet. Even if it was located closer to the nearest groups of dwellings these only comprise 4 dwellings each and as such, these would only be considered as an isolated group of dwellings rather than a small village or hamlet. The supporting text to Policy CS1.2 defines infilling as building taking place on a vacant plot in an otherwise built-up street frontage. It defines rounding off as the completion of an incomplete group of buildings on land which is already partially developed, in such a way that will either complete the local road pattern or finally define and complete the boundaries of the group. Such rounding off should not change or distort the character or tradition of the group or the settlement in any undesirable way or extend the grouping in such a manner that, when the development has taken place, undeveloped areas remain or further land is opened up where pressure for development is likely to occur. A previous application for the erection of two dwellings was reported to the Planning Committee in March 2012. It was resolved that planning permission be granted subject to the negotiation of a Section 106 Agreement for affordable housing. This option was not viable for the applicant and as such a new proposal has been submitted. This is for the erection of a single detached dwelling adjacent to Whinfield with attached annexed accommodation for a disabled parent. The applicant has put forward several reasons why planning permission should be granted in this instance.

Page 142 These are outlined in the proposal description above. One of these is that the NPPF allows personal circumstances such as health to be taken as a material consideration. This is not the case, however a dwelling was granted permission near Kirkby in Furness on the basis of the specific circumstances of the applicants. The application at Yew Tree Cottage, Kirkby in Furness was given consent at the Planning Committee meeting in April 2012. The dwelling was for a local family with strong connections with the community, there was strong local support for the development, it would also provide accommodation for a disabled parent, the site was technically brown field and it had previously contained buildings in connection with a depot use, it adjoined other residential properties, it was a well defined site with strong boundaries and the granting of consent was unlikely to lead to pressure for further development on adjacent land. In order for this case to be used as a material consideration in the determination of this planning application the situation must be similar. The site in question is the garden of Whinfield and as such cannot be considered as brownfield land and the nearest other dwellings are approximately 400 metres from the site. It is surrounded by open fields and is not within a group of other dwellings. As there are open fields either side of the dwelling, it may also lead to pressure for development on this land. These are all aspects which are different from the case at Yew Tree Cottage. Irrespective of this, precedent does not negate the need for proposals to comply with planning policy. The applicants at Whinfield are proposing a new dwelling with annexed accommodation for a relative. The existing dwelling is proposed to be sold. They have stated that this dwelling cannot be adapted to accommodate their needs; the submitted reasons are confidential and officers have no reason to refute them. The Council is sympathetic to the needs of the applicants, however the justification and the material considerations do not outweigh the strong policy context with regards to dwellings within the open countryside. Although this may not be the intention of the applicants, the Council would have no control over both houses being sold off in the future. The proposal does not provide affordable housing and is considered to be in an unsustainable location, not in accordance with the definitions of infilling and rounding off set out in the Core Strategy. As such, development in this location is contrary to national and local planning policies.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below - The proposed development would result in the erection of a detached dwelling in the open countryside outside any Local Service Centre or smaller village or hamlet. There is not considered to be sufficient justification to warrant granting permission for a dwelling in this location. As such the proposal is contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and Local Policies as set out in CS1.2 and CS6.4 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy which state that residential development in the open countryside will not normally be permitted unless it provides affordable housing, can be shown either that it is essential to the needs of agriculture or forestry, or that there are other exceptional circumstances which would warrant the granting of planning permission.

Page 143 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 144 SCHEDULE C

Applications relating to Listed Buildings

SCHEDULE No: 17 SL/2012/0441

KENDAL: THE CASTLE DAIRY RESTAURANT, WILDMAN STREET, LA9 6EN

PROPOSAL: DEMOLITION OF OUTBUILDINGS AND ERECTION OF KITCHEN EXTENSION TO RESTAURANT

KENDAL COLLEGE E351933.2 N493064.5 31/07/2012

SUMMARY: The removal of late outhouses and extension of the modern, rear addition under a pitched roof is acceptable in principle but negotiations are taking place with regard to design details.

KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL: Approve and welcome improvements.

ENGLISH HERITAGE: English Heritage has been pleased to advise on and grant aid recent repair, renovation and re-opening of Castle Dairy. Whilst not opposed to the extension in principle we find the case for demolition has not, as yet been sufficiently justified and we find the current detailing unsympathetic in that the extension, while sympathetic in terms of design concept and materials, nonetheless proposes an extension larger than that demolished and therefore upsets the hierarchy of forms implicit in the current building. Currently the rear of the building appears as such and therefore relates to the character of the alleyway it is serviced by and of the Conservation Area it sits in. As proposed the impact will be to turn the side elevation into an additional active public frontage rivalling that of the front elevation. Here the enlargement, and transparency, of the side opening is of concern and the roofscape. Recommend deferral pending work to address these concerns and achieve a design that may make a positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness. If not deferred we would recommend refusal. We would welcome the opportunity of advising further and wish to be consulted on any additional information and amendments.

Page 145 KENDAL CIVIC SOCIETY: We are very happy with this application. Knowing the care and sensitivity shown with the restoration of Castle Dairy, we feel sure the creation of the kitchen will be undertaken with the same spirit.

SLDC CONSERVATION OFFICER: The scheme is supported by a well conceived analysis of heritage significance and impact. The design concept is appropriate and the extended building footprint not problematical. The materials are satisfactory. The new pitched roof will be an enhancement but I have reservations about maintaining the height of the kitchen walls and hence the roof height and scale in comparison with the massing of the main building. I would encourage discussion to minimise the height and massing.

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANCIENT BUILDINGS: None received.

COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY: None received.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS SOCIETY: None received.

GEORGIAN GROUP: None received.

VICTORIAN SOCIETY: None received.

SOUTH LAKELAND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GROUP: No concerns other than demolition / construction dust outside site boundaries. Hours of demolition and construction work should be restricted to weekday working hours of 8am-6pm with no working on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

CCC HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER: Recommend a condition requiring an archaeological watching and recording brief for the ground works.

OTHER: No public comments received.

Page 146 HISTORICAL CONTEXT: The Castle Dairy is of medieval origins and one of the most important historic buildings in the town. It is a Grade I listed building. It was passed into local authority ownership in 1922/3 and has been used for decades as a café / restaurant with some associated residential accommodation. It lies in the Kendal Conservation Area fronting onto Wildman Street, the route from the north and east into Kendal across the ancient Stramongate Bridge. The former Builders Supply showrooms and warehouses lie on its north-eastern and rear boundaries. These adjoining properties are now used as part of the College’s arts campus and a new technical studio / theatre “The Box”, of innovative modern design, has been recently finished to the rear of the Dairy. The College also manages the adjoining Kendal Museum. Following grants of Listed Building Consent and Planning Permission in February 2010 the Dairy itself has been sensitively refurbished and is operated by the College catering students. This allows broad public access to the building.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Castle Dairy operates as a restaurant for the college campus, for the public and as a venue for organisations. In these roles it also acts as a training space for catering students. The kitchen on which this use depends is housed in a flat-roofed extension in the enclosed yard at the rear of the building. This was granted permission in 1970. Not only is the extension unprepossessing but also merely the size of a small domestic kitchen being just 4.6m X 2.6 metres internally. This is inhibiting the use of the building. The current applications seek to provide improved kitchen facilities informed by the previously prepared Archaeological Building Record’s assessment and analysis of the building. It is proposed to extend the modern kitchen to the rear of the yard and to provide a short range of log and bin stores along the rear wall of the yard. This would involve the removal of the modern rear wall of the kitchen and the removal of a small out house of late origin as well as the modification of an existing coal store. The new external walls would be stone faced. At the top of the walls a narrow band of glazing would be introduced in the form of clerestorey windows. The extension would be covered by a pitched slate roof which would extend over most of the existing kitchen to screen extraction and filtration equipment. The upper part of the gable wall facing the studio / warehouse on the adjoining College site would be glazed and there would be rooflights on the north-facing slope of the roof towards the retained internal courtyard. There would be a glazed section in the side wall facing the retained southern courtyard which would be matched by the introduction of glazed gates and a glazed wall panel into the modern stone boundary wall. This would allow the kitchen and its activities to be viewed by users of the adjoining lane which gives access from Wildman Street to The Box and studios. The southern courtyard would be surfaced in reclaimed paving stone. There would be no change to the internal access between the existing kitchen and the earlier parts of the building to which no alterations would be made.

Page 147 POLICY ISSUES: In considering whether to grant listed building consent there is a statutory duty to “have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.” Saved Policy C15 of the South Lakeland Local Plan reflects this statutory duty. In considering whether to grant planning permission in a Conservation Area there is a statutory duty to consider the preservation and enhancement of its special architectural and historic character. Saved Policy C16 of the South Lakeland Local Plan reflects this statutory duty. Of continuing relevance is the Practice Guide to the former Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment gives Government advice on these heritage issues. Of particular relevance are Policies HE6 and HE7 respectively relating to information requirements for applications and principles in the determination of applications. Policy CS 8.6 of the adopted Core Strategy of the South Lakeland Local Development Framework supports the safeguarding and enhancement of historic assets. In particular it seeks the adaptive re-use of redundant or functionally obsolete buildings without harming their essential character and the proper conservation of heritage assets and the maintenance, repair, accessibility and, where opportunities exist, their use as an educational resource. The National Planning Policy Framework sees its desire for sustainable development as contributing to protecting and enhancing the built and historic environment, amongst its Core Planning Principles is conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The proposals for which listed building consent, planning permission and conservation area consent are sought have been developed from the detailed study and assessment of its historic and architectural character and significance as recommended by the Practice Guide to the former PPS 5. The works are designed to have the minimum physical impact on the special character of the core historic building and its fabric but to ensure its use in a manner respecting and enhancing its special character and allowing public access and appreciation of its qualities. The removal of the existing outhouse and part of the coal shed will not involve loss of significant historic or architectural features and the existing structures do not have a positive impact on the special character of this part of the Conservation Area.

Page 148 The design of the new development is not a bland pastiche but uses traditional materials and forms in a quietly innovative manner, however, as submitted, the new kitchen would have a significant height to its eaves and ridgeline which would unduly dominate the character of the collection of low roofs and gables of the main historic range. The architect has indicated that there is potential to lower the eaves and ridgeline which would not only have an impact on the relationship between the extension and main building allowing the latter to remain dominant but it would also affect the prominence of individual features of the design so that, for instance the clerestorey windows proposed would be less likely to dominate views because they would be at a lower level. Concerns have also been raised with the architect about the detailing of the new glazed entrance from the side lane and the impact that this would have in the context of both the listed building and the conservation area. A joint meeting including English Heritage has been suggested to discuss modifications and amendments to resolve these concerns within the overall principle of the proposed development.

RECOMMENDATION: The Corporate Director (People and Places) to report on negotiations and amended plans.

Page 149 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 150 SCHEDULE E

Development by South Lakeland District Council & Cumbria County Council

SCHEDULE No: 18 SL/2012/0492

KENDAL: NOBLES REST BUNGALOW, MAUDE STREET, LA9 4QD

PROPOSAL: DEMOLITION OF BUNGALOW

MR TONY WHITTAKER E351368 N493004 31/07/2012

SUMMARY: The demolition of this unprepossessing building would enhance the special character of this part of the Kendal Conservation Area. The demolition methodology is acceptable in its environmental impact.

KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL: Approve.

KENDAL CIVIC SOCIETY : We cannot sufficiently express our delight that at long last this derelict building is to be demolished. Having pressed for years for removal or rebuilding, we fully support the application.

OTHER: None.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: In 2006 planning permission and conservation area consent were sought by Impact Housing Association to demolish this cottage and former greenhouses on the adjoining site and to erect 7 dwellings for elderly people on the combined site. The new housing was to be granted permission on the signing of a Section 106 Agreement but, because the condition of the cottage was detracting from the special character of the Conservation Area, Conservation Area Consent was granted. Because of difficulties in resolving drainage problems the housing was not

Page 151 progressed and the Conservation Area Consent expired without the demolition having been done.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The property is in the Kendal Conservation Area adjoining Nobles Rest public park. The small, detached bungalow was erected as accommodation for the park keeper. It is an unprepossessing twentieth century building with roughcast walls and a roof of decayed asbestos tiles below red ridge tiles. The design is bland and plain. Little but parts of the roof are publically visible because of perimeter planting and boundary walls to the site. The last housing tenants damaged the building by fire and other means. It has been vacant for many years and has been subject to further vandalism. Structural cracks have developed possibly because of inadequate foundations. The agents describe refurbishment as unfeasible. It is proposed to demolish the building and grade over the land. After demolition the boundary wall to Maude Street made good and the entrance way filled with close boarded panel of the same height. A separate application SL/2012/0560 has been submitted detailing the methodology for the demolition.

POLICY ISSUES: There is a statutory duty to preserve and enhance the special architectural and historic character of conservation areas. Saved Policy C16 of the South Lakeland Local Plan reflects this and states that demolition will not be permitted of buildings which make a contribution to the special character of a conservation area. Policy CS8.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy seeks to safeguard and where possible enhance heritage assets. The advice of the Practice Guide to PPS 5 is relevant. The National Planning Policy Framework has among its Core Planning Principles conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The building does not partake of the special architectural and historic character of this part of the Kendal Conservation Area. Its detrimental impact on that character is at present lessened by the perimeter planting and boundary walls. The character of

Page 152 the Conservation Area would be enhanced by the removal of the building provided that perimeter planting is maintained and the boundary wall to Maude Street restored with the gate opening infilled. The proposed demolition methodology submitted under reference SL/2012/0560 is acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION: Conservation Area Consent be GRANTED subject to: Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Condition (2) The existing perimeter planting and shrub growth shall be maintained and after demolition the southern boundary wall shall be made good to match the existing wall and the entrance screened with close boarding of the same height as the boundary wall. Reason To preserve and enhance the special architectural and historic character of this part of the Kendal Conservation Area thereby according with the advice of Saved Policy C 16, Policy CS 8.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy, the Practice Guide to PPS 5 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

REASON FOR GRANTING CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT: The removal of this building of poor and discordant character would preserve and enhance the special architectural and historic character of this part of the Kendal Conservation Area thereby according with saved Policy C16 of the South Lakeland Local Plan, Policy CS8.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy, the advice of the Practice Guide to Planning Policy Statement 5 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 153 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 154 Item No.7

PART I

South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE MONTHLY ENFORCEMENT REPORT

Meeting Date: 31 July 2012 Report Author: Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer Portfolio: Cllr Jonathan Brook (Housing & Development) Report from: David Sykes - Director (People and Places) Wards affected: All Key Decision: Not applicable Forward Plan: Not applicable

A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 5 MAY TO 31 MAY 2012

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 To inform Members about enforcement activity between 5 May and 31 May 2012. This report aims to provide a brief and informative insight into current enforcement cases, action taken and on-going investigations per calendar month. If there are any specific enforcement cases that Members would like to be updated on at the next Planning Committee meeting, please contact Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. It is recommended that Members note the report and appendix. 2. No further action be taken at this time in respect of retail outlet Castle Mills, Aynam Road, Kendal ref 11/037 and 11/079.

3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 Enforcement Activity : May 2012 Cases on hand at 5 May 2012 430 New cases 21 Total cases closed 15 Cases on hand at 31 May 2012. 436

1 Page 155 3.2 Enforcement cases for which Committee consideration is sought: None at this time. 3.3 An update on enforcement cases involving enforcement action: An update on those cases involving formal enforcement action is attached as Appendix 1 for Members information. 11/037. 11/079 Retail outlet Castle Mills, Aynam Road, Kendal The site was subject to Committee consideration on the 28 February 2012 to take enforcement action, in respect of a breach of condition restricting retail use to the carpet manufacturing activity by Goodacre Carpets of Kendal Company. Committee instructed officers to invite an application for a two year temporary permission. The planning department did not receive any reply to correspondence or response to the invite of a planning application. A recent site visit on the 2 July 2012 confirms that the retail of sofas from the unit has ceased and the illegal adverts removed from the building. In view of this, the case will be closed and no further action taken.

08.090 Untidy site / Unauthorised use of agricultural land at Beckside Holding, Little Urswick Members may recall this site was granted planning permission in 1999 (5/99/2380) for a change of use of part of a field building to use as a Blacksmiths forge. The Council received a complaint that the site was becoming increasingly untidy. A site visit revealed that there was a horse wagon trailer unit undergoing renovation, a touring caravan, a boat, and an accumulation of other items not associated with the authorised use, at the site. The touring caravan appeared to be in residential use. Officers worked with the occupier to reach a compromise. The site was cleared and all items not associated with the authorised use of the site removed. An application for a larger building was invited and granted permission. The new building is nearing completion and the site is cleared of non- associated items. Officers are satisfied that the breach has been remedied and the case will be closed.

4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION Not applicable.

5.0 PROPOSAL Not applicable.

6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS Not applicable.

2 Page 156 7.0 NEXT STEPS Continue dealing with priority cases and those listed in Appendix 1, receiving and prioritising all new cases, and taking appropriate action where necessary in accordance with the relevant Acts and guidance.

8.0 IMPLICATIO NS 8.1 Financial and Resources Cost implications only arise if the matter ultimately requires court or direct action in default. 8.2 Human Resources The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 8.3 Legal See report. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects.

9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT Risk Consequence Controls required The failure of a Ombudsman maladministration To maintain sufficient statutory requirement investigation. Result in resources in planning to investigate breaches inappropriate forms of enforcement and of planning law with an development, which would prioritise and co-ordinate effective investigative have an adverse impact on the the investigation of compliance and character, and appearance of breaches of planning enforcement system. the District’s rural landscape. control.

10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY The Statement of Community Involvement takes account of the equalities issues in seeking to define South Lakeland’s community and interests relevant to the Local Development Framework, which will influence the determination of individual planning applications.

11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS This report links to the aim of enhancing the environment in which we live and supports national performance indicators. Having an effective robust planning enforcement regime involving people will help make South Lakeland the best place to live, work and visit. Dealing with unauthorised development in an efficient, firm and fair manner, fosters strong links with the community, increased public confidence in the Council and value for money.

3 Page 157 12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 See report in Appendix 1.

APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT: Appendix No. 1 A report on enforcement cases where authorisation to take enforcement action has been sought .

CONTACT OFFICERS: Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer, Tel: 01539 797566 email: [email protected]

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE: Various planning files.

TRACKING Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee N/A N/A 17 July 2012 N/A N/A Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Human Resource Services Manager N/A

4 Page 158 APPENDIX 1 The purpose of this appendix is to provide a brief summary of authorised enforcement cases.

REF NO. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH / CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS / NEXT STEP 06/068 ALDINGHAM Low Sunbrick Farm Installation of uPVC windows Enforcement action authorised in Listed Building. with a 10 year compliance period; final written report requested from Conservation officer. Following receipt of conservation officer’s report Instructions to Legal will be drafted. 07/025 LOWER Priory Close Internal alteration to Listed Legal opinion sought whether ALLITHWAITE Cartmel Building. there are grounds to prosecute.

Page 159 08/345 SKELSMERGH Holme House Farm Unauthorised development Counsel recommend the best Garth Row Lane involving the construction of course of action is to seek an caravan / chalet structures and injunction to restrain the breach business uses. of the Enforcement Notice. 10/022 ALDINGHAM Lime Kiln, Low Sunbrick Lane Erection of unauthorised Appeal allowed case closed. Baycliff agricultural buildings. 10/208 LOWER Blenkett wood caravan park Laying new 300m access Enforcement Notice served. ALLITHWAITE track. 10/209 KENDAL Boundary Bank Unauthorised use of site for Part of site has been cleared, the storage of machinery and further monitoring. hardcore. 10/289 BEETHAM Fern Bank, Hale Unauthorised siting and Owner has been granted a stay residential use of caravan. of legal action until the 1 August 2012 due to personal circumstances.

5 REF NO. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH / CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS / NEXT STEP

10/311 CASTERTON Chapel House Farm Unauthorised removal of Hedge Replacement Notice hedge. served 12 July 2011. Appeal dismissed, re-planting required by 31 January 2013 in decision letter. 11/037 KENDAL Aynam Mills, Goodacre site Unauthorised material Change Use ceased, case to be closed. of Use. Retailing furniture. 11/256 SKELSMERGH Holme House Farm Material Change of Use of Instruction with Legal to serve agricultural barn to a structure Enforcement Notice. used as a dwellinghouse.

Page 160 11/257 KENDAL 55 Helmside Road Untidy land to front of dwelling. Officers have served a Section 215 Notice to tidy the front of the dwelling. Following this, to commence action to enforce compliance with the 12/4/2002 Enforcement Notice for the rear. 11/078 SKELSMERGH Holme House Farm Engineering operation. Large Drafting instruction to Legal scale excavation to public Services for formal service of footpath. Enforcement Notice. 12/134 EGTON WITH Field adjacent Alpine Road Removal of 85m of Field Hedge Replacement Notice NEWLAND Hedge served.

6 Item No.8

PART I

South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE

Meeting Date: 31 July 2012 Report Author: Mark Shipman Development Management Group Manager Portfolio: Councillor Jonathon Brook (Housing & Development) Report from: David Sykes (Director People and Places) Wards affected: All Key Decision: Not applicable. Forward Plan: Not applicable.

APPEALS UPDATE AT 31 JULY 2012

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 To provide Members with information about the receipt and determination of planning appeals from the start of the financial year in April 2012.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Note the report.

3.0 BACKGROUND Appeals as set out in Appendix 1. This national indicator has been deleted. It is considered to be a valuable local indicator because it shows the efficacy of policy. 4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION Not applicable.

5.0 PROPOSAL Not applicable.

6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS Not applicable.

7.0 NEXT STEPS

Page 161 Not applicable.

8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources The recommendations in this report do not have any cost implications. 8.2 Human Resources The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 8.3 Legal Not applicable. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects.

9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT Not applicable.

10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY The Statement of Community Involvement takes account of the equalities issues in seeking to define South Lakeland’s community and interests relevant to the Local Development Framework which will influence the determination of individual planning applications.

11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS This report links to the objective of Improving Environmental Quality across South Lakeland, of the Corporate Plan. Indicator BVPI 204 sets a target of a maximum number of appeals allowed as 33%. All enforcement appeals are discounted from the indicator because it shows the efficiency of planning policy. The current performance, calculated from those decisions received since 1 April 2012, is 0% (ie 100% success to date in defending appeals against refusal). 12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 It is anticipated that targets and objectives will continue to be achieved at the year end.

APPENDIX ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix 1 Appeals table (commencing 1 April 2012), updated to include new appeals and appeal decisions received between 16 June and 18 July 2012.

CONTACT OFFICERS Mark Shipman, Development Management Group Manager – Tel: 01539 797564.

Page 162 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Various planning files.

TRACKING Director Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Holder Council Committee N/A N/A 17.7.2012 N/A N/A Executive Committee Council Sec tion 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Human Resource Services Manager N/A

Page 163 APPENDIX 1

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

LOWER Use of land for siting one static Refused 27/10/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2166797 DISMISSED ALLITHWAITE: holiday caravan (Committee) 16/12/11 11 May 2012 Blenkett Wood Lodge PO Recommend: SL/2011/0730 Park, Jack Hill, Refuse Allithwaite

Page 164 KENDAL: Redevelopment of site to form retail Refused 25/11/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2166628 DISMISSED Kendal Rugby Union development with associated car (Committee) 22/12/11 21 June 2012 Football Club parking and servicing facilities PO Recommend: SL/2010/0180 Shap Road Grant

KIRKBY IRELETH: Removal of conditions 9, 10 and 11 Refused 24/11/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2167375 DISMISSED The Boat House on PP SL/2005/0493 4/1/12 1 May 2012 Soutergate SL/2011/0793 Kirkby in Furness

EGTON with Agricultural building Refused 30/12/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2168927 DISMISSED NEWLAND: 19/1/12 30 April 2012 Field adj to Oak Bank SL/2011/0860 Broughton Beck

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

ALDINGHAM: Appeal against issuing of Enforcement APP/M0933/ C/12/2170352 ALLOWED Land at Baycliff Farm, Enforcement Notice 13/2/12 15 June 2012 Main Street, Baycliff SL/2011/0994

EGTON with Change of Use of Public House to Refused 25/8/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2169517 DISMISSED NEWLAND: dwelling (Committee) 15/2/12 - Hearing 19 June 2012 Britannia Inn PO Recommend: SL/2011/0233 Penny Bridge Refuse Page 165 KENDAL: First floor extension Refused 6/2/12 APP/M0933/ C/12/2171660 DISMISSED 46 Sandylands Road 5/3/12 (Householder) 2 May 2012 SL/2011/1020 PRESTON RICHARD: Erection of 15m high (to tip of blade) Refused 28/2/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2173166 Carter House wind turbine 29/3/12 Crooklands SL/2011/0991 ULVERSTON: Erection of four dwellings Refused 6/3/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2173314 Land at Old Hall Road 2/4/12 SL/2011/0974 GREAT URSWICK: Dwelling, detached garage and Refused 24/11/11 APP/M0933/ A/12/2176000 Land adjacent to Daisy access (Committee) 14/6/12 Hill Cottage PO Recommend: SL/2011/0741 Refuse LOWER Variation of Condition No 4 (Proof of Refused 20/4/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2176328 ALLITHWAITE: main residence elsewhere) on PP 19/6/12 SL/2011/0862 Old Orchard SL/2012/0155 The Pastures Templands Lane WHINFELL: Change of Use of agricultural land to Refused 22/12/11 APP/M0933/ A/12/2176737 Patton Hall Farm form extension to existing caravan 22/6/12 Patton site for the siting of 12 static caravans and associated landscaping SL/2011/0808 LUPTON: Change of Use of partially completed Refused 26/1/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2177360 Thompson Fold holiday accommodation units to four 22/6/12 permanent dwellings

Page 166 SL/2011/0950 KIRKBY LONSDALE: Completion of the partially developed Refused 26/4/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2177363 Biggins Hall Barn site, Biggins Hall Barn site to provide (Committee) 3/7/12 seven dwellings (two of which are to High Biggins PO Recommend: SL/2012/0103 be affordable) Refuse KENDAL: Erection of 25 dwellings Refused 14/3/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2176802 Gallowbarrow Mill, 6/7/12 Natland SL/2011/1069 HOLME: Green Acre, Alterations to provide first floor Refused 17/4/12 APP/M0933/ D/12/2177787 Milnthorpe Road accommodation and replacement 10/7/12 (Householder) single storey extension SL/2012/0124 HELSINGTON: Hill Conversion and alterations to Refused 23/3/12 APP/M0933/ D/12/2178010 House, Brigsteer attached outbuilding to form 16/7/12 (Householder) additional domestic accommodation SL/2012/0084

Item No.9

PART I

South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE Meeting Date: 31 July 2012 Report Author: Matthew Neal, Solicitor to the Council Report from: Debbie Storr, Director of Policy and Resources (Monitoring Officer) Wards affected: Grange Key Decision: Not applicable Fo rward Plan Not applicable

Fox Rock, Allithwaite Road, Grange –over-Sands LA11 7EN. SL/2004/09 (Outline) and SL/2007/1275 Residential development –4 detached dwellings and 6 apartments with attached dwelling.

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 This report considers concerns expressed by Members in relation to the time taken to bring the section 106 agreement in this matter to a conclusion. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that Planning Committee note this report. 3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 On 31 May 2012 Members considered the above application and confirmed that it be approved subject to a Section 106 agreement which had been completed on 30 May 2012. The planning consent has subsequently been issued.

4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 4.1 Legal Services were originally instructed to proceed with a section 106 agreement on 9 June 2010 when a file was opened for this purpose. A major review of Legal Services’ filing system was taking place at that time as part of an office move involving a large volume of files being closed or destroyed. The file was inadvertently archived in error.

4.2 The file was subsequently retrieved in March 2011 when a letter was sent to the Applicants requesting a costs undertaking and details of title prior to drafting the agreement. A copy of the applicant’s registered title was received from his Solicitors in July 2011.

Page 167 4.3 The costs undertaking was still outstanding in September 2011, along with a required valuation report to enable the discount of the affordable dwelling which was needed to complete the Agreement. These were eventually received on 16 February 2012, but the valuation report did not meet the Council’s requirements and a further version was resubmitted by the applicant on 5 April 2012.

4.4 Further valuations were subsequently obtained from NPS NW Ltd on 26 April 2012 and this was the basis upon which the agreement proceeded. The draft agreement was approved by the Planning Officer in early May 2012 and sent out on 11 May 2012 with a deadline for completion prior to 31 May 2012.

5.0 PROPOSAL 5.1 The agreement was completed on 30 May 2012, and planning permission has been issued in this matter. The report is to note. 6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 6.1 No alternative options are proposed. 7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 Procedures have been reviewed to ensure that files are logged appropriately and checks are in place to avoid this happening in the future. 7.2 The issue of the planning consent will enable the development to proceed. 8.0 IMPLICATIONs 8.1 Financial and Resources 8.1.1 The Council was re-imbursed its legal costs in relation to this matter. 8.2 Human Resources 8.2.1 No implications. 8.3 Legal 8.3.1 The legal implications are set out in this report. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 8.4.1 N/a 9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT Risk Consequence Controls required There is always a risk Self-evident delays in Challenge to the service. that a delay in development. Investigation of completing section 106 outsourcing of certain agreements will cause a s106 agreements and full delay in acceptable recovery of the developments being associated legal costs. implemented

10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 11.1 N/a

Page 168 11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 11.1 This is relevant to providing homes to meet need. 12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 The delays in this matter have been caused by an error in that the file was inadvertently subsumed into a large scale archiving exercise. Further delays were caused by the time taken for the applicant to respond to requests made. Once this was forthcoming the matter was completed fairly swiftly. APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT N/a CONTACT OFFICERS Matthew Neal, Solicitor to the Council, Ex 7443 [email protected] BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Legal File TRACKING Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee 12 July 2012 Report author Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer 27 June 2012 Human Resource Services Manager

Page 169 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 170