Planning Committee Agenda 18 December 2014

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Eden District Council Planning Committee Agenda Committee Date: 18 December 2014 INDEX

Item Officer Page Application Details No Recommendation Number 1 Planning Application No: 14/0652 Recommended to: Proposed Dwelling (Replacing Consent 01/0432) 3 Site adjacent Holly House, Ainstable APPROVE Mr and Mrs Robinson Subject to Conditions 2 Planning Application No: 14/0528 Recommended to: Outline Planning Permission for Residential Development with 30% Affordable APPROVE 31 Land at Staynegarth, Stainton Subject to Conditions Atric Ltd 3 Planning Application No: 14/0692 Recommended to: Retrospective application for the retention of a dry stone wall APPROVE 45 Lane Farm, Weasdale, Newbiggin-on-Lune, Kirkby Subject to Conditions Stephen CA17 4LY Mr J Davis 4 Planning Application No: 14/0872 Recommended to: Single storey side and rear extensions and raise roof to form first floor accommodation. APPROVE 50 9 Brackenber Lodge, Shap Subject to Conditions Miss L Evans 5 Planning Application No: 14/0884 Recommended to: Reserved Matters Approval Sought for Appearance, landscaping, Layout and Scale in Relation to the Outline APPROVE Application 13/0243 Subject to Conditions 56 Site Adjacent to Inglenook, Stainton JIW Properties Ltd 6 Planning Application No: 13/0514 Recommended to: Application to modify the Section 106 Agreement attached to Planning Approval 09/0098 and 11/0446 to APPROVE enable the provision of 65% market led housing and Subject to Conditions 35% affordable housing from 100% affordable housing 65 previously agreed. Land at Beacon Farm, Eamont Bridge, Penrith Mr J Heath

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

7 Planning Application No: 14/0654 Recommended to: Erection of single dwelling 74 Braithwaite's Garage Ltd, Newbiggin, Stainton, Penrith APPROVE Mr Braithwaite Subject to Conditions 8 Planning Application No: 14/0834 Recommended to: Erection of a new dwelling on land adjacent to Brookside, Glassonby REFUSE 81 Land adj to Brookside, Glassonby, Penrith Subject to Conditions Mr and Mrs A and J Relph

9 Planning Application No:14/0947 Recommended to: Non-material amendment to planning permission 10/0273 requiring the omission of a first floor window APPROVE and inclusion of a canopy to the front elevation. Subject to Conditions 88 13 Moorside, Hunsonby, Penrith, CA10 1PL Mr and Mrs D Brier

10 Planning Application No: 14/0765 Recommended to: Outline planning permission for the erection of two houses with approval sought for access APPROVE 92 Garden to Orchard Cottage, Little Salkeld, Penrith Subject to Conditions Mr and Mrs D Addis

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Item 1 Date of Committee: 18 December 2014

Planning Application No: 14/0652 Date Received: 24 July 2014

OS Grid Ref: 353046 Expiry Date: 19 September 2014 546213

Parish: Ainstable Ward: Kirkoswald

Proposal: Proposed Dwelling (Replacing Consent 01/0432)

Location: Site adjacent Holly House, Ainstable

Applicant: Mr and Mrs Robinson

Agent: Graham K Norman (Architect) Ltd

Case Officer: Rachel Lightfoot

Reason for Referral: The recommendation to approve the application is contrary to the view of the Parish Council and objectors have requested a hearing.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details and plans hereby approved (drawing numbers: 114-115-03H received 19/11/14 and drawing numbers: 114-115-04D, 114-115-05D, 114- 115-06D,114-115-07D, received 02/10/14) and shall not be varied other than by prior agreement in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 3. The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until full details of both hard and soft landscape works, including a phased programme of works, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out within the first planting season following the occupation of the dwelling or in accordance with the programme agreed by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme will include planting along the northern boundary particularly to help screen views of the house and define the limits of the garden area. Any trees or other plants which die or are removed within the first five years following the implementation of the landscaping scheme shall be replaced during the next planting season. 4. The whole of the access area bounded by the carriageway edge, entrance gates and the splays shall be constructed and drained to the specification of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. 5. Notwithstanding the details on the plans hereby approved, samples of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is commenced. The development shall be carried out in accordance with these details as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reasons 1. In order to comply with the provision of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. 3. To ensure that the development is landscaped in the interest of the visual character and appearance of the area. 4. In the interests of road safety. 5. In the interests of visual amenity.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

2. Site Description and Proposal 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The site is within the village of Ainstable and forms part of a larger three plot site (approved under planning permission reference 01/0432) on which two plots have been constructed and are inhabited. The site includes an additional area of land measuring 112m2 (on the north boundary) which was not previously approved for development. Planning permission 01/0432 is extant as the first two plots have been constructed. 2.1.2 The application proposes amendments to the approved layout and design. In summary, the detached garage is to be removed and the placed under the lounge of the bungalow, the finished floor level (FFL) increases from 201.5 to 202.6 at its highest point over the lounge area (an increase of 1.1m) and the resultant ridge heights (the proposal has two ridges) increase by 0.15m and 0.67m. The total footprint of the approved dwelling (measured externally) is 165m2 (the house is 129m2 and the detached garage is 36m2) and the footprint of the proposed house and integral garage is 167m2 (an increase of 2m2). For clarity these changes are set out in the table below. 2.1.3 The application also proposes a change to the site area. The approved site area is shown on the approved drawing as 737m2 although in measuring it from a scale plan it appears to be more like 765m2. The application extends the site to the north to include an area of agricultural land (+112m2) and confirms the proposed site area is 830m2. Basing the approved site area on these known accurate figures suggests that the original site area was (830m2 (proposed) – 112m2 (additional strip) = 718m2 although this is slightly less (19m2) that what is shown on the approved plans and much less (47m2) when the site area is calculated from the scale plan. For clarity the changes are summarised in the table below:

Ridge Max Ridge Min FFL Max Footprint Site Area

Approved Dwelling 206.5 206.5 201.5 165m2* 737m2**

Proposed Dwelling 207.17 206.65 202.6 167m2 830m2

Difference + 0.67m + 0.15 +1.1m +2m2 +93m2

* Including detached garage of 36m2 ** It has been difficult to ascertain the exact site area of the approved house due to the nature of the plans and apparent discrepancies between them. The approved site area is approximately 737m2 which is the site area given on the approved site plan. 2.1.4 The external appearance has changed including the proposed materials - most notably the change from stone to render on the south west elevation. The north east elevation includes additional and enlarged windows, the south east elevation includes an additional half-windowed door to a utility room and an additional door including side light, the south west elevation (which faces the properties Forella and Dean View) has one obscured glazed window and two roof lights as opposed to the bedroom and bathroom window, and the arrangement of openings on the north west elevation is slightly amended.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2.1.5 The application has been amended on several occasions through the application process. The first amendment received by the department on 01/10/14 reduced the north west elevation by approximately 2m and decreased both ridge heights by 0.53cm and 0.42cm. Full re-consultation was undertaken for this amendment. The second amendment was received on 05/11/14and realigned the northern boundary, highlighted an ash tree that was to be retained and relocated an existing hedge on the site. Full re- consultation was undertaken for this amendment. Further non-material amendments were also made which reduced the red line boundary, and relocated the incorrectly plotted ash tree. Full re-consultation was not considered necessary given the nature of these changes although the immediate neighbours and the parish council were re- notified. 2.2 Description of the Site and the Surroundings 2.2.1 The site lies on ground falling from the properties Dean View and Forella. The ground level falls approximately 1.5m from the rear elevations of those properties to the fence line and a further 2.6m across the width of the site (south to north). To the east, the ridge of the property Meadow Stone is noted at 207.81 which is approximately 0.64m higher than the proposed new bungalow primary ridge and 1.16m higher than the secondary ridge. Site sections have been submitted with the application to demonstrate how the building will appear on the site in comparison to Forella and Meadow Stone. No ridge of heights have been submitted for the property Brooklands as part of the application, the property is situated on lower ground to the north east of the site. 2.2.2 The site is bound by residential fencing to three sides - east, south and west. To the north the site extends beyond the heavily pruned hedge and includes an area of agricultural land previously not approved as part of the development. 3. Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response Highway Authority No objection subject to condition Tree Officer No objection subject to condition regarding hedgerow planting 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response

Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Council/Meeting Object Support No Response No View Expressed Ainstable 

4.1 The Parish Council’s original response to the application (before the amendment) has been included in its entirety as Appendix A to the committee report. The summary provided by the Parish Council is set out below. “The main concerns raised by the neighbouring properties are:  This planning application is for a substantially larger building than the existing application - 01/0432.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  This building is very different in style to the existing houses - the existing planning application was for a bungalow in the same style as the surrounding houses.  The plans appear to use out of date Ordnance Survey maps to show the contours of the ground. This plot has been raised by dumping soil excavated when 2 previous houses were sunk into the slope.  The roof line of the proposed development would be substantially higher than the existing planning application impacting on the visual amenities of the surrounding houses.  The proposed site has been extended into agricultural land with no apparent planning permission and no change of use.  The proposed development appears to be sited so as to require the use of the extended plot.  The proposed development appears to be sited too close to existing properties.  The proposed building would dominate the view from the surrounding houses, and would overshadow some of the properties.  The proposed building does not appear to take account of the design and finish conditions imposed on the original planning application. The parish council also has considerable concern about the non-compliance with the Eden Local Plan, and in particular the proposed development is:  Too large- the limit within the Eden Local Plan is 125m2 the floor area of the proposed dwelling is 156m2 with a further 32m2 for the garage and plant room.  Does not comply with local occupancy restrictions for new developments.  Does not comply with the requirement that all new developments should be easily accessed and used by all, regardless of age and disability. The parish council notes the following statement, included in the Eden Local Plan, and hopes that Eden Planning will take due regard of the strength of local feeling about this proposed development.” 4.2 Following the amendment to the application, the Parish Council has again objected to the proposal and its subsequent response is included in its entirety as Appendix B to the committee report. The comments are summarised as follows: “Whilst we acknowledge this revision has gone some way towards respecting the impact the previous proposed building would have on the village, we feel that the revised plan still requires some work to become acceptable to the parish council and the village. The main concerns still being raised by the neighbouring properties are:  This revised planning application is still for a substantially larger building than the existing application - 01/0432. This would, in the opinion of the parish council, still result in a building which is too large for the site, and would overshadow the surrounding properties.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  The parish council is very concerned that the roof line is still far too high. The only approved building for this site is a bungalow; the addition of a garage underneath the building raises the roof line of the proposed building to an unacceptably high level. The roof line of the proposed development would still be substantially higher than the existing planning application, impacting on the visual amenities of the surrounding houses.  The building design has improved, but this building is very different in style to the existing houses. The existing planning application was for a bungalow in the same style as the surrounding houses. This was to make use of natural sandstone, and had an agreed brand of roofing slate.  The revised application now appears to fit within the original site, without the requirement to be extended into the agricultural land for which the Planning Committee had previously refused permission. We are though still concerned that the plot is too small for the proposed building, and will result in an unacceptable cluttered appearance within the village.  The revised plan still appears to be far too close to the neighbouring properties. This proposed building would dominate the view from the surrounding houses, and would overshadow some of the properties in an unacceptable manner. The revised plan still has 13 steps up from the parking area, but now also has 2 steps from the hall up to the lounge. This design cannot be considered as having in any sense a “barrier free ‘access for all’ is achieved for both the occupiers and visitors to the dwelling regardless of their age and mobility” as stated in the Design & Access Statement - 14/0652.” 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to near neighbours and a site notice was posted on 5 August 2014. The following responses were received against the original proposal:

No of Neighbours Consulted 10 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 32 No of neutral representations 1 No of objection letters 31

5.2 Of the received objections, seven were on a standard letter format, the remainder were all individual although a number were generated from single households, for example three from the property Brooklands and two from the property Meadow Stone.

5.3 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are material considerations to the application: Impact on residential amenity:  Overlooking in regards to Forella, Dean View, Meadow Stone and Brooklands  Issues of overbearing in regards to Brooklands;  Proposed dwelling too large for plot;  Increase in finished floor level

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Materials: Design being too contemporary:  Too much glazing;  Too much render. Landscaping:  Removal of current hedge. 5.4 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are not material considerations:  Need for dwelling (the plot benefits from an extant planning permission and therefore has a fall-back position of an approved dwelling).

5.5 Following the first amendment all interested parties were re-notified and the following responses were received: No of Neighbours Consulted 32 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 38 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 38 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are material considerations to the application: Design:  The building should be clad in sandstone not render;  The building should be sunk into the ground by 1.5m as previously approved;  The height of the ridge is 0.7m greater than that originally approved;  The windows should be a traditional Cumbria style;  The modern design is out of keeping with the surrounding properties;  Effect on St Michael’s Church;  The proposed bungalow is 1.5m longer in the east-west direction, 1.4m longer in the north-south direction and 0.63m higher at the ridge line;  The proposed dwelling is 70cm higher and 1.4m longer than the original dwelling. Residential Amenity  The new property would seriously overlook surrounding property;  The distance between the new dwelling and Dean View is 12m;  The distance from Meadow Stone is 19.5m;  The distance from Brooklands is 24m but believe it should be 26.5m Biodiversity  The applicant’s removed a hedge prior to making the application

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Use of Additional Land  Extension of garden 5.6 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are not material considerations  The application form stated that the site could not be seen from a public road, bridleway etc. This is not a material consideration as it relates to site visits by Officers and not general visibility;  Loss of view, this is not a material planning consideration  The position of the house in a plot to the rear of other houses. This is not a material consideration as the plot is consented and as such the principle of a dwelling is set;  Disabled accessibility. This is controlled through Building Regulations 5.7 Of the 36 responses received 19 were from Ainstable and the remaining 17 were from outside Ainstable including 2 from Guernsey, 1 from Dalton, 2 from Armathwaite, 2 from New Zealand, 2 from Phoenix, 1 from Penarth, 1 from Hampshire, 1 from North Somerset, 2 from Penrith and 2 from Carlisle.

5.8 Following the second amendment all interested parties were re-notified and the following responses were received: No of Neighbours Consulted 32 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 40 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 54 5.9 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are material considerations to the application:  Additional agricultural land should not be used  The floor area has been increased  The building has been raised too high and it would be intrusive  The design is out of character and the house is too big  The footprint of the house has not been accurately shown on the site plan  There is uncertainty over the plot size  Impact on neighbouring properties - overlooking window to window and amenity  The building will be highly visible from nearby roads, footpaths and the church  Increased risk of flooding  The site is in the open countryside  The materials are unacceptable  The house in not easily accessible for disabled people 5.10 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are not material considerations  There is no need for further housing in the village

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Will spoil the view of neighbouring properties  Reference to the emerging Local Plan (2014-2032) policies  Reference to development plan policies which relate to the principle of new housing 6. Relevant Planning History

Date/Application No Description Outcome 97/0877 Residential Development (outline) Approved 20/08/98 01/0432 Two Detached Houses and One Approved at Detached Bungalow for Residential Planning Committee Use 23/8/01

7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan CS18 - Design of New Development Housing SPD - in particular Appendix H and design guidance therein Eden Design Summary Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework - Para 56 - Requiring Good Design The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Design of the proposed bungalow  Impact of adjacent residential properties 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The principle of a dwelling on the land has been established through the extant permission of 01/0432. The application seeks to vary the details of the approved scheme in respect of the bungalow. The majority of the site is allocated for housing under the Eden Local Plan 1996. The site area has been increased with a 4m strip (112m2 total) along the northern boundary. Due to the quality of the approved plans and uncertainty over the nearby boundaries there is uncertainty about whether the footprint of the proposed dwelling sits entirely within the approved site or it encroaches north into the new part of the site. Notwithstanding the uncertainty, the current full application proposes an extension beyond the original approved red line boundary and therefore the uncertainty of whether or not the footprint of the house is within the approved red line boundary or if it extends into the new site area is not critical to the assessment of the application. 8.2.2 With regards to the extension of the site along the northern boundary, this is assessed in the same way all residential garden extensions throughout the District are.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Consideration has been given as to whether the extension would cause harm to the landscape. It is considered that the use as residential is acceptable, no land is being used which is protected by any special designations and the use is immediately adjoining the settlement with appropriate boundary treatments to be provided. Consideration has also been given to the correspondence on planning file 97/0877 on which Members of the Planning Committee at that time felt that an extension to the site boundary as set by the Local Plan was undesirable. This view was contrary to officer advice which was that “I do not consider that the modest variation of the present site from the allocated site boundary is in itself a basis for objection to the principle of development” as set out in the committee report dated 19 March 1998. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 The land on which the bungalow sits is lower than that to the south and continues to fall away to the north towards the bottom of the valley. The proposed dwelling has an undercroft garage but remains in the most part single storey with an increase in the roof height from the approved dwelling of 0.67m on the primary ridge and 0.15m on the secondary ridge. Views from adjacent highways are limited as the property is accessed via a short track between two houses which would afford only a glimpsed view of the property all seen in the context of the existing properties. 8.3.2 Long range views would be in the context of the surrounding properties, particularly Dean View and Forella which sit higher than the proposal, they would also be filtered through new hard and soft landscaping which will be secured by condition. 8.3.3 There have been issues raised over ground levels and when these were recorded. The levels are expressed relative to a temporary bench mark (TBM) taken on the public highway adjacent to the site and correlated with the existing ridge heights of the neighbouring properties. Any changes to the ground level would not affect the proposed floor level. The finished floor level of the approved bungalow is 201.5, the finished floor level of the proposed dwelling is 202.6 at its highest point which represents an increase of 1.1m overall. 8.3.4 It is considered that the proposal would not give rise to any unacceptable impacts in terms of landscape and visual amenity and in this regard the proposal is in accordance with policy CS18 of the Eden Core Strategy. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 Concerns have been raised by the occupiers of nearby properties in relation to the amended design and the impacts on existing properties. 8.4.2 In relation to overlooking, the elevation facing Dean View and Forella has one bathroom window which would be opaque glazed. This window would be approximately 17m on an oblique angle from the nearest window at Forella and 16m from an oblique angle from the nearest window at Dean View. The obscured glazing and the lower position of the bungalow, with an intervening hit and miss fence, will not cause any demonstrable harm to occupiers of neighbouring properties through overlooking or light pollution. Two roof lights are proposed above the kitchen area, given that these are within the roof structure approximately 2.6m from the FFL, they will not cause overlooking.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.4.3 When the application was received the Council did not have access to scaled drawings of the approved house as they had been microfiched. During the determination of the application a scale plan has been secured and the following measurements have been taken from this. The previous permission resulted in a separation distance of approximately 11.8m from Dean View. This distance is maintained within the current proposal (it being 12m). It is therefore appropriate to give weight to the existing distance which a dwelling could be built at. Whilst the Council’s design guidance recommends a distance of 13m lower distances can be acceptable given the heights of dwellings and in terms of landform. The proposed dwelling is single storey in height compared to the adjacent Forella and Dean View and on lower land and 12m is considered acceptable in this case. 8.4.4 The elevation which faces Meadow Stone and Brooklands proposes a new half- windowed door (serving a utility area and not a primary window) and a new door including side light which were not part of the approved dwelling. The kitchen window is approximately 19.5m at its nearest point to the rear of Meadow Stone which, although falling 1.5m short of the guidance, is considered to be an acceptable distance. The door lights are approximately 26m from the elevation of Meadow Stone and the windows to the nearest part of Brooklands are approximately 24m away (on an oblique angle), both in excess of the 21m guidance separation distance. The large window to the north eastern elevation would be situated approximately 24.4m from Brooklands on an oblique angle at its nearest point. 8.4.5 It is considered that the proposal would not cause any demonstrable harm in terms of overlooking and in this regard the proposal is in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy and the design guidance contained within Appendix H of the Housing SPD. 8.4.6 With regard to potential overshadowing issues, the proposal lies on lower lying land to the north of Dean View and Forella and is of a similar height to Meadow Stone (the proposed dwelling ridge height is 9cm (at its highest point) lower than that at Meadow Stone). The proposal amends the ridge height from a previously approved level of 206.5 to a ridge height of 206.65 (an increase of 15cm) and 207.17 (an increase of 67cm). The increase in height is not considered to cause an increased element of overshadowing, particularly due to orientation, relationship and landform, to Dean View and Forella. At the closest point the proposal will be 7m to the boundary of Meadow Stone, and it is not considered, given this separation and the relatively minor increase in the ridge height, that a significant increased level of overshadowing would occur. The increased ridge height would not result in a significant level of shadowing at Brooklands with the overall amenity of Brooklands being maintained by the boundary hedge and planting. There is an elevated walkway leading to the main front door of the property, from this walkway oblique views of Brooklands would be filtered through existing vegetation. 8.4.7 It is considered that the proposal would not cause any demonstrable harm in terms of overshadowing of existing properties and in this regard the proposal is in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy and the design guidance contained within the Housing SPD. 8.5 Infrastructure 8.5.1 It is not considered that there are any infrastructure issues raised by the application.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.6 Natural Environment 8.6.1 In response to the impact on hedgerows, the Tree Officer has visited the site and raises no issues but requests the imposition of a condition requiring hedgerow planting which is considered appropriate given the edge of settlement location. Surface water drainage is proposed to a soakaway and given the topography of the land the development will not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. There are no other natural environment issues raised by the application. 8.7 Built Environment 8.7.1 The proposed new design of the dwelling retains the property as a bungalow. There are modern properties surrounding the site which run into more traditional buildings to the bottom of the valley. It is not considered that the amended design is out of keeping with the surrounding environment which demonstrates a variation of form and design including single and two storeys. Whilst completely rendered properties are not within the immediate environs of the site, the use of render has been accepted elsewhere in both Ainstable and throughout the District. However, the use of buff coloured stone for cills and headers may not be appropriate and in this regard, a condition requiring details of materials has been added to ensure that such are in keeping with the area. 8.7.2 It is considered that the design of the proposal is acceptable and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy. 8.8 Other Issues 8.8.1 Comments have been made on the information contained within the Design and Access Statement. This was produced in order to explain the design process and rational behind an application and is not required for an application of this type however it was submitted as an aid. The contents of the design and access statement are subjective and therefore open to interpretation as they represent the consideration of the designer and therefore comments such as ‘sensitively designed’ etc. may be disagreed with by objectors. However, the application is decided on its own merits and compliance with policy. 8.8.2 Comments have been made on the relevant policies to the determination of this application. As the site benefits from an extant planning permission, policies in relation to appropriate settlements for housing etc are not applicable. The Parish Council and other interested parties have referred to a number of policies in the emerging Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation (2014-2032) document and as such do not carry any weight in the determination of this application. The relevant policies are those contained within the adopted Core Strategy (CS18) and the NPPF in relation to design. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The New Homes Bonus is a material consideration in the determination of any application for new housing although it is up to the decision making authority to decide how much weight it is to apply to this in consideration against the main planning merits. Under the New Homes Bonus scheme, the Council receives an annual cash grant for each new home built. The cash grant for each house is dependent upon Council Tax banding with the average size house returning £1,439 plus an extra £350 if it is affordable. In two tier areas the local planning authority (ie Eden District Council) retains 80% of the bonus with 20% going to the County Council. Therefore if this

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE scheme, based on the indicative scale and layout, was to be agreed the total bonus to be received by the Council would be as follows:

Annual Bonus £ Affordable Houses (0* £1,789) 0.00 Other Houses (1* £1,439) 1,439 Total Annual Bonus 1,439 EDC Annual Share @ 80% 1,151.20 Est EDC Share over 6 years 6,907.20

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.7 New Homes Bonus 10.7.1 Section 70(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011 Section 143 with effect from 15 January 2012) requires that in determining planning applications, the Council must have regard to any local finance considerations as well as the Development Plan and any other material considerations. Section 70(4) goes on to explain that for these purposes “local finance consideration” means a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will be or could be provided to the relevant authority by as Minister of the Crown - such as the New Homes Bonus in this instance. It is up to Members to decide what weight to attach to it, if any. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons: The proposal is for a replacement housetype on a previously approved scheme and as such the principle of a dwelling on this site is accepted. It is considered that there would be no demonstrable harm caused by the proposed in terms of overshadowing or overlooking and that the dwelling is considered acceptable in terms of design and therefore in accordance with local and national planning policies.

Gwyn Clark Head of Planning Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Appendix A: Ainstable Parish Council original objection Letter received 31/08/14 Planning Application 14/0652 Number Site Address Site Adjacent Holly House Ainstable Carlisle

Description Proposed dwelling (replacing consent 01/0432).

Developer Mr & Mrs Robinson 54 Wyke Lane, Oakenshaw, Bradford, BD12 7ED

Agent Mr Graham Norman Graham Norman (Architect) Ltd Mereside, Greenbank Road, Eden Business Park, Penrith, CA11 9FB

Contents Planning Objection Summary Objection Eden Local Plan 3.1 Policy LS1 - Locational Strategy 3.19 Policy RUR1 - Rural Settlements and the Rural Areas 4.6 Policy DEV5 - Design of New Development 4.9 Policy HS2 - Housing to Meet Local Needs Detailed Objections Application Form Design and Access Statement

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Summary Objection The parish council has received comments from the households which surround this plot, with residents being unhappy about the size and location of this proposed development, and the impact on other houses. The main concerns raised by the neighbouring properties are:  This planning application is for a substantially larger building than the existing application - 01/0432.  This building is very different in style to the existing houses - the existing planning application was for a bungalow in the same style as the surrounding houses.  The plans appear to use out of date Ordnance Survey maps to show the contours of the ground. This plot has been raised by dumping soil excavated when 2 previous houses were sunk into the slope.  The roof line of the proposed development would be substantially higher than the existing planning application impacting on the visual amenities of the surrounding houses.  The proposed site has been extended into agricultural land with no apparent planning permission and no change of use.  The proposed development appears to be sited so as to require the use of the extended plot.  The proposed development appears to be sited too close to existing properties.  The proposed building would dominate the view from the surrounding houses, and would overshadow some of the properties.  The proposed building does not appear to take account of the design and finish conditions imposed on the original planning application. The parish council also has considerable concern about the non-compliance with the Eden Local Plan, and in particular the proposed development is:  Too large- the limit within the Eden Local Plan is 125m2 the floor area of the proposed dwelling is 156m2 with a further 32m2 for the garage and plant room.  Does not comply with local occupancy restrictions for new developments.  Does not comply with the requirement that all new developments should be easily accessed and used by all, regardless of age and disability. The parish council notes the following statement, included in the Eden Local Plan, and hopes that Eden Planning will take due regard of the strength of local feeling about this proposed development. The Council’s preference is that the location and nature of development in the District’s more rural areas is decided by those areas themselves, as it is the people who live and work in those areas that will have the best understanding of what is needed.

Eden District Council - Local Plan

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Taking these points Ainstable Parish Council is objecting to this planning application. We feel the development is too large for the proposed location and would substantially impact on the surrounding properties reducing their quality of life. We also feel that while this building plot may well be suitable for the bungalow on the original planning application, or one of a similar size, it is not suitable for a substantially larger house as defined on the current planning application. We feel that as this planning application appears to require in part the use of land which is currently designated as agricultural land, and has no existing planning permissions, it should be viewed as a new application to build on agricultural land and as such should be refused. Nigel Vear Chairman Ainstable Parish Council

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Eden Local Plan Ainstable Parish Council has examined this proposed development, and compared it to the policies set out in the Eden Local plan. We would maintain that this proposed development does not comply with the policies and objectives set out below. Objective 1 To make sure the majority development is focussed into areas where services are available, and where facilities can be supported (Policies LS1, LS2, PEN1 and 2, AL1, AP1, KS1, RUR1). Objective 2 To make the best and most efficient use of already developed land and buildings (Policies DEV1 and RUR2). Objective 15 To encourage and facilitate a sense of community and belonging, and make sure decisions are made at community level as far as possible.

Eden District Council - Local Plan There has been a fairly large response to this proposed development, with all the neighbouring properties registering objections plus many other households raising objections with regard to the design and the way this proposed development would overlook other properties within the village. The parish council fully supports Objective 15, and would expect Eden Planning to take due regard of the strength of feeling within the village, and the views of Ainstable Parish Council. 3.1 Policy LS1 - Locational Strategy

New development will be distributed as set out below: Smaller Villages, Hamlets and Open Countryside: In the following settlements:  Ainstable Small scale development will be permitted in these villages, to support the development of diverse and sustainable communities. Housing development in these locations will be limited to meet local demand only, must be of a high quality design and is restricted to infill sites or rounding off existing development. 3.1.5 Ninety one ‘Villages and Hamlets’ where no sites will be allocated for development, but where small scale, sensitive development will be allowed to help meet local demand, providing it is limited to infill or ‘rounding off’ development only. On proposals of more than four units schemes will be expected to provide some affordable housing for local occupancy. In the case of applications for one to three dwellings and single plot development occupancy will be limited through application of local connection criteria. The housing chapter provides more details.

Eden District Council - Local Plan Ainstable is classed as a small village, and as such the only new developments that should take place within the village would be for small scale affordable housing for local occupancy. This proposed development is by people with no apparent connection to the

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE village. The size and style of the proposed development could not be considered affordable as defined within the Eden Local Plan. 3.19 Policy RUR1 - Rural Settlements and the Rural Areas 3.19.3 The rural area makes up a large amount of the land area of the District and is one of its greatest assets, offering a tranquillity and quality of life that make them highly desirable places to be. However, it has to be remembered that these areas are living, working communities. A lot of these communities have their own issues to address, including a lack of suitable housing for local people, lack of access to public transport, loss of community facilities, declining school numbers and changes in the nature of the rural economy. The Council’s preference is that the location and nature of development in the District’s more rural areas is decided by those areas themselves, as it is the people who live and work in those areas that will have the best understanding of what is needed. To this end the Council is committed to support neighbourhood planning across the district. Whilst we have identified some additional development in some of the larger villages it is open to those villages to come together and alter or expand on those locations. Similarly, where we have not identified development opportunities neighbourhood plans could be produced to identify and guide new development.

Eden District Council - Local Plan There are 2 distinct comments within this paragraph. Ainstable does have a need for some very specific development to suit local needs, but not developments like this one. More important though is the statement that development should be decided locally - it is the people who live and work in those areas that will have the best understanding of what is needed. 4.6 Policy DEV5 - Design of New Development The District Council will support high quality design which reflects local distinctiveness. All development proposals will be expected to perform highly when assessed against best practice guidance and standards for design, sustainability, and place making. Proposals for major development will be assessed by the District Council using a traffic light system (red, amber and green) against the principles set out in twelve ‘Building for Life’ guidelines. It will be the responsibility of the developer to demonstrate how their proposals meet the principles. New development will be required to demonstrate that it: 1. Shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the District’s built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area. 2. Protects and where possible enhances the District’s distinctive rural landscape, natural environment and biodiversity. 3. Reflects the existing street scene through use of appropriate scale, mass, form, layout, high quality architectural design and use of materials. 4. Optimises the potential use of the site and avoids overlooking.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 5. Protects the amenity of existing residents and business occupiers and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. 6. Uses locally sourced materials wherever practically possible. 7. Protects features and characteristics of local importance. 8. Provides adequate space for the storage, collection and recycling of waste. 9. Can be easily accessed and used by all, regardless of age and disability. 10. Incorporates appropriate crime prevention measures.

Eden District Council - Local Plan The design of this proposed development is somewhat different to the other properties in the village, and whilst it may well be a well-designed house it does not fit in or complement the other properties. 4.6.1 Eden’s local built distinctiveness arises directly from its long tradition of vernacular architecture that continues to exert a strong influence on modern development. As the District has not been subject to large scale building pressures development has tended to be incremental and a large amount of pre-1919 property remains. The use of local materials is widespread and this gives variety within the overall common built form. 4.6.2 There are three main character areas in Eden based on the underlying geology:  Eden Valley with its typical red sandstone, dressed quoins and window surrounds; Eden District Council - Local Plan The parish council is also very concerned about the relevance of the architect’s Design and Access Statement, with particular regard to 4.6.9 when the proposed development has 13 steps from the parking space to the front door. Please see further comments in the Specific Objections section. 4.9 Policy HS2 - Housing to Meet Local Needs Applications for the development of housing on self-build sites will be supported throughout the district. Where sites are located in the towns and key hubs listed in Policy LS1 affordable housing contributions will be required in accordance with Policy HS1. Within the small villages and hamlets listed in Policy LS1 permission will be given for small scale housing (including sub-division of existing housing) in the following circumstances: 1. Development is restricted to infilling and rounding off of the current village settlement pattern. 2. The building is limited to no more than 125m2 in size. 3. Where a condition or legal agreement restricting occupancy to only those meeting local connection criteria is applied.

Eden District Council - Local Plan

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE The parish council is concerned that the location of this proposed development site does not follow the normal linear pattern of developments within Ainstable. The site, if developed, would result in a new property which is totally surrounded by existing houses. These houses would both overlook the new development, and also be overlooked by this development. The architect states in the Design and Access Statement that the floor area of the proposed dwelling is 156m2 with a further 32m2 for the garage and plant room. Policy HS2 states that the building is limited to no more than 125m2 in size - somewhat less than the proposed development. 4.9.2 The district council wishes to support those in rural areas who wish to build or commission their own home where they have a strong local connection, as this can help meet local housing aspirations and sustain villages. However, it does not want to see unfettered market development that would not support local housing aspirations. This policy is therefore aimed at providing a ‘middle way’ for those with strong local connections who either cannot afford or find an open market house in their own locality and are not considered as being in affordable housing need, whilst putting in place protections to prevent new houses ending up as second homes. A wider set of local connection criteria are applied than those for affordable housing to encourage housing to come forward through this policy. 4.9.3 No legal agreement will be applied to cap the value of the house at a price where it would be considered ‘affordable’ under the definition of affordable housing in Policy HS1 (as is the case with current policy). This is to both encourage take up of this policy and aid the provision of mortgages to support schemes. However, it should be noted by prospective applicants that whilst housing built via this policy is not considered ‘affordable’ under current definitions the resultant housing is likely to be lower than market value as the imposition of a legal agreement restricting occupancy reduces demand, and therefore the eventual selling price. This can be reflected in the amount paid for land if land is not already in the applicant’s ownership. Conditions or legal agreements restricting new homes to those with a local connection will only be removed if it can be demonstrated that the homes have been offered for sale to those in the locality at a discount reflecting its status as housing subject to a local connection criteria and no sale has been made. 4.9.4 Planning permission will not be given for open market housing which will not be occupied by those with local connections in the villages and hamlets listed in policy LS1 unless it helps cross subsidise the provision of affordable units. Whilst it is open to developers to construct new housing with the aim of selling it on to someone locally we would anticipate that most new housing in the smaller villages would come forward in the form of self-build units.

Eden District Council - Local Plan Detailed Objections Ainstable Parish Council would like to draw the following points to the attention of Eden Planning Committee. Application Form The application form contains a number of points to which the parish council would like to draw the attention of Eden Planning Committee.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 3. Description of the proposal Has the building work, change of use already started? 16. Trees and Hedges Are there any trees or hedges on the proposed development site?

Application Form - 14/0652 The applicant has answered No to both statements but the site has been extended by the removal of an established hedge and the erection of a fence 4 metres north of the original site. This hedge provided screening to some of the existing properties, and was known to providing active nesting habitat for many small birds. It has been suggested to the parish council that the applicant would also like to purchase more land to the immediate north of the plot, and to extend the garden area even further into the agricultural land. 10. Materials Roof - Artificial Slate Green

Application Form - 14/0652 The original planning application 01/0432 mentioned slate grey roof tiles. This was then agreed as a condition requiring the use of Redland Richmond Slate concrete roof tiles. The parish council does not regard a green roof as being intriguing or adding to the visual impact of the proposed development. 16. Trees and Hedges Are there any trees or hedges on the proposed development site?

Application Form - 14/0652 This site is/was bordered by mature native hedgerow and trees which the developer has removed prior to planning permission being granted. The hedgerow was known to provide nesting habitat for birds, including woodpeckers, sparrows and other native species. The hedgerow which has been removed also very effectively screened both this site and neighbouring houses both from neighbouring properties and helped to screen a number of properties when viewed from the church of St Michael and All Angels - grade 2 listed building. 16. Site Visit Can the site be seen from a public road, public footpath, bridleway or other public land?

Application Form - 14/0652 The applicant has answered No to this statement. The parish council would maintain that this proposed development is designed to have an excellent view of the church of St Michael and All Angels, and will be in itself be very visible from the public road and footpaths at the church.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Design and Access Statement The Design and Access Statement contains a number of points to which the parish council would like to draw the attention of Eden Planning Committee. The site is part of a larger site which has consent for a small development comprising two detached houses and a bungalow together with detached garages under application Ref No 01/0432. The two houses have now been completed and the remaining site has therefore an extant consent for a detached bungalow and detached garage. Design and Access Statement - 14/0652 The 2 houses on the original planning application have been finished for a few years now, and when purchased the owners were aware and accepted the additional bungalow which was intended to be built on the remaining part of the site. This new application proposes a substantially larger building with and additional floor level making it a large house and not a bungalow. Due to boundary repositioning, the site area of the consented site was reduced by 101m2. To account for this loss, an extra 112m2 of land has been purchased to the North of the site.

Design and Access Statement - 14/0652 The original owner of the land has chosen to redefine the plot to retain a substantial part of the plot for use with a different building. The new owner has purchased a slice of the land to the immediate north of the original building plot. This land is, we believe, defined as agricultural land and does not have any planning permission for use as building land. The parish council would maintain that as the plot is substantially redefined this should be seen as a totally new planning application, and one which does not comply with Eden Planning Policy. 4.9 Policy HS2 - Housing to Meet Local Needs Applications for the development of housing on self-build sites will be supported throughout the district. Where sites are located in the towns and key hubs listed in Policy LS1 affordable housing contributions will be required in accordance with Policy HS1. Within the small villages and hamlets listed in Policy LS1 permission will be given for small scale housing (including sub-division of existing housing) in the following circumstances: 1. Development is restricted to infilling and rounding off of the current village settlement pattern.

2 2. The building is limited more than to 125m in size. 3. Where a condition or legal agreement restricting occupancy to only those meeting local connection criteria is applied.

Eden District Council - Local Plan The proposed development is a luxury development for applicants who are not local - their current address is in Bradford - they also do not appear to have any connection with the parish. As this should now be considered a new development, and not simply a modification of an existing planning permission, then the affordable housing and local occupancy rules should apply to any development on this revised site.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE The entrance will have a covered approach with a level threshold in accordance with Part M of the Building Regulations. Internally the essential accommodation has been proved at one level. General circulation, width of internal doors, size of lobbies and toilets and the position of electrical sockets will be in accordance with the Building Regulations, Part M. These factors will ensure that barrier free ‘access for all’ is achieved for both the occupiers and visitors to the dwelling regardless of their age and mobility.

Design and Access Statement - 14/0652 The entrance to this proposed development can hardly be called level when it has 13 steps up from the vehicle parking area and garage. The layout of the proposed development indicates a step internally between the main hallway and the lounge. The parish council is unable to comment on the width of internal doors size of lobbies and toilets. We would like this aspect of the design investigated by somebody more qualified. The design of the proposed development is such that in the opinion of the parish council it would prove very difficult for any elderly, or less than able bodied, people to access the property. This statement appears to be a standard statement and is not relevant to this proposed development. The design of the dwelling has taken into account the site constraints due to the proximity of the surrounding properties, and the siting and location of windows has been carefully considered to take account of overlooking and privacy. The dwelling has been sited to respect the two houses to the South; the removal of the garage benefits Forella, the realignment to the North boundary reduced the overlap with Dean View. Consultations with the owners of Meadow Stone have also been undertaken and the location of the kitchen window has been agreed.

Design and Access Statement - 14/0652 The parish council is in full agreement with the owners of the surrounding houses about the proximity of this proposed development. It would appear that to fit onto the plot an accuracy of the odd centimetre would be required in the siting of the building to ensure the legal minimum distances. We feel that this proposed development would both overlook, and be overlooked, by the surrounding properties. Both Forella and Dean View are very concerned by the location directly in front of their living room windows. This development would obscure the view from both properties, and would place a large wall in front of their windows. The natural slope has allowed the formation of the garage at the lower level with only marginal raising of the finished floor level (ffl). The consented bungalow has a ffl of 121.50 with a ridge of 206.54, the proposed dwelling will have a floor level of 202.20 and 202.60 and ridges of 207.72. It should be taken into consideration that the floor levels of Dean View and Forella were raised when constructed as indicated on the drawing.

Design and Access Statement - 14/0652 The parish council has considerable reservations with regard to the above statement. The original planning consent was for a bungalow which would be partially sunk into the slope, it

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE seems odd that adding a garage underneath a house on the same site would only about 1m to the overall height of the property. The site as it is now is not the same site as on the original planning application, and the shape of the slope has altered somewhat due to the large amount of the soil dumped when the existing houses were sunk into the slope. We are somewhat concerned with the statement that the floor levels of Dean View and Forella were raised when constructed, and do wonder what survey this statement is based on. On entering both of these houses you are faced with a number of steps going down - this appears to be similar to the original plans. In conclusion the proposed dwelling has been sensitively designed to suit its location without detrimental effect on the surrounding properties.

Design and Access Statement - 14/0652 The parish council does not believe that this proposed dwelling suits its location. We agree that it is an interesting design that would make a good house but not on this plot. The house is, leaving aside policy restrictions, too large for the plot, and in an attempt to fit this design to the plot additional agricultural land was required. The design is very different to the surrounding properties, and would overlook and be overlooked by them. It would obscure the living room and kitchen windows of Dean View and Forella placing a large blank wall and roof directly in their sight line.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Appendix B: Ainstable Parish Council subsequent objection Letter received 16/10/14

Ainstable Parish Council Planning Objection Commentary and objection by Ainstable Parish Council in response to the following planning application:

Planning 14/0652 - revised application Oct 2014 Application Number Site Address Site Adjacent Holly House Ainstable Carlisle Description Proposed dwelling (replacing consent 01/0432). Developer Mr & Mrs Robinson 54 Wyke Lane, Oakenshaw, Bradford, BD12 7ED Agent Mr Graham Norman Graham Norman (Architect) Ltd Mereside, Greenbank Road, Eden Business Park, Penrith, CA11 9FB

NB These comments to be read in conjunction with the previous parish council objection to 14/0652 Parish Council Comments The parish council has inspected the revised plans for this planning application, and has also received further comments from the households which surround this plot. Whilst we acknowledge this revision has gone some way towards respecting the impact the previous proposed building would have on the village, we feel that the revised plan still requires some work to become acceptable to the parish council and the village. The main concerns still being raised by the neighbouring properties are:  This revised planning application is still for a substantially larger building than the existing application - 01/0432. This would, in the opinion of the parish council, still result in a building which is too large for the site, and would overshadow the surrounding properties.  The parish council is very concerned that the roof line is still far too high. The only approved building for this site is a bungalow; the addition of a garage underneath the building raises the roof line of the proposed building to an unacceptably high level. The roof line of the proposed development would still be substantially higher than the existing planning application, impacting on the visual amenities of the surrounding houses.  The building design has improved, but this building is very different in style to the existing houses. The existing planning application was for a bungalow in the same style as the surrounding houses. This was to make use of natural sandstone, and had an agreed brand of roofing slate.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  The revised application now appears to fit within the original site, without the requirement to be extended into the agricultural land for which the Planning Committee had previously refused permission. We are though still concerned that the plot is too small for the proposed building, and will result in an unacceptable cluttered appearance within the village.  The revised plan still appears to be far too close to the neighbouring properties. This proposed building would dominate the view from the surrounding houses, and would overshadow some of the properties in an unacceptable manner.  The revised plan still has 13 steps up from the parking area, but now also has 2 steps from the hall up to the lounge. This design cannot be considered as having in any sense a “barrier free ‘access for all’ is achieved for both the occupiers and visitors to the dwelling regardless of their age and mobility” as stated in the Design & Access Statement - 14/0652. The parish council has considerable concerns about the non-compliance of this planning application with both past and present the Eden Local Plans, and in particular feels the proposed development is:  Too large - the limit within the Eden Local Plan is 125m2 for all new developments in Ainstable.  Does not comply with local occupancy restrictions for new developments in Ainstable.  Does not comply with the requirement that all new developments should be easily accessed and used by all, regardless of age and disability. The parish council has been told by Eden planning officers that if this was a totally new application for this site it would not now be allowed. We are therefore somewhat concerned that the planning officers seem to be supporting and recommending that this planning application should be allowed. The parish council feels that this is a new planning application:  It has a new Application Number.  The Site has been changed and is no longer the same size or shape as previous applications.  The site makes use of Agricultural Land which was prohibited by Eden Planning Committee in 1997.  The Design is for a totally different building than the approved planning application 01/0432. Parish Council is therefore objecting to this revised planning application. We feel the development is still too large for the proposed location and would substantially impact on the surrounding properties reducing the quality of life of the owners and residents. We do feel that while this building plot may well be suitable for the bungalow on the original planning application - 01/0432, or one of a similar size. It is not suitable for a substantially larger house as is still being defined on the current planning application.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Parish Council Comments - continued We feel that as this planning application appears to require in part the use of land which is currently designated as agricultural land, and has no existing planning permissions. This planning application should be viewed as a new application to build on agricultural land, and as such should be refused. Parish Council Advice The parish council would be happy to see a bungalow which is no larger than that which was previously approved in Planning Application 01/0432. We would though expect to see any proposed buildings dug into the hillside to ensure the roof lines are kept to the lowest possible level as per all other recent developments within the village. We feel that the client, and the architect, need to seriously rethink their idea of placing the garage underneath the living area. Planning Application 01/0432 has a detached garage which is well located in the corner of the plot. This was carefully positioned to ensure that it did not impact on the view from the neighbouring properties, and was to be well disguised by the boundary hedge. It is essential to ensure that the impact of any proposed new buildings do not create any unnecessary stress or impact unduly on any of the surrounding properties and neighbours. To ensure this proposed building complies with this requirement, we feel that the orientation of the building should be reconsidered. The parish council also feel that the size and aspect of all of the windows should be revisited to ensure these do not overlook any other property in the village. Ainstable Parish Council will support sensible sustainable development within the parish where it will enhance the local area, and will not impact unduly on existing properties or residents of the parish. Nigel Vear Chairman Ainstable Parish Council

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Item 2 Date of Committee: 18 December 2014

Planning Application No: 14/0528 Date Received: 12 June 2014

OS Grid Ref: 348638 Expiry Date: 11 September 2014 528242

Parish: Dacre Ward: Dacre

Proposal: Outline Planning Permission for Residential Development with 30% Affordable

Location: Land at Staynegarth, Stainton

Applicant: Atric Ltd

Agent: Bruce Armstrong-Payne Planning

Case Officer: Kevin Hutchinson

Reason for Referral: The recommendation is contrary to the views expressed by the Parish Council and there is a request by an objector to be heard at Committee.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

Subject to a satisfactory response from Natural England it is recommended that delegated power be given to the Head of Planning Services to grant planning permission subject to the applicant first entering into a Section 106 Agreement to enable the provision of 30% affordable housing and to meet Council’s reasonable costs being paid in relation to that legal agreement, to the absolute satisfaction of the Director of Corporate and Legal Services and subject to the following conditions: It is recommended that authority to issue be granted to the Head of Planning Services subject to the following conditions and the signing of an S106 in respect of affordable housing provision: 1. No development shall commence until approval of the details of scale, layout and appearance of the buildings and the landscaping/boundary treatments (hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) has been obtained from the local planning authority in writing. 2. An application for the approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 3. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. 4. The approved plans and documents comprise drawing HDS/AL/OP/01, the topographical 2D survey both received 12 June 2014 and the junction plans SHD/A/SHD/OP/06RevC received 1 September 2014, the Drainage and Flood Risk Statement, Ecological Survey Work, Desk Based Assessment and Geophysical Survey Report Factual Ground Investigation Report all received 12 June 2014. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents except where conditions attached to this planning permission indicate otherwise or where alternative details have been subsequently approved in writing. 5. The carriageway, footways, footpaths, cycleways etc shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to a standard suitable for adoption and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. These details shall be in accordance with the standards laid down in the Cumbria Design Guide (or any superseding document). Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is complete. 6. The development hereby approved shall be carried out wholly in accordance with the recommendations of the Ecological Assessment produced by Lloyd Bore Associates Ltd and received by the LPA on 12 June 2014. 7. Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be produced and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This should include measures to: avoid pollution of Kirk Sike, such as the storing of any plant, fuel or chemicals on site within an

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE impervious bund capable of retaining at least 110% of all tanks capacity and located at lease 10m away from the water course; not undertaking any works that may affect the channel of Kirk Sike; keeping an emergency spill kit to hand in case of fuel/chemical spillage; and the implementation of a buffer zone of 5m along both banks of Kirk Sike inside which no works are to be undertaken or materials stored (with the exception of works including culvert/surface water outfalls and Himalayan balsam eradication works and unavoidable works by utility companies. All works shall comply with the Environment agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidance document titled Works and Maintenance or Near Water. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the CEMP unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority. 8. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for surface water and foul water drainage (inclusive of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The drainage scheme submitted for approval shall be in accordance with the principles set out in the Drainage and Flood Risk Assessment, ref RO/11094.4 rev4, dated June 2014, proposing surface water discharging into the local watercourse. The foul water from the development site should discharge into the manhole reference no NY 48277901 located along the 375mm diameter sewer at the south of the site. No part of the development shall be occupied until the drainage scheme has been constructed in accordance with the approved details. For the avoidance of doubt, neither surface water, land drainage, nor highway drainage shall connect into the public sewerage system (directly or indirectly). The development shall be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details. 9. No development shall commence within the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This written scheme of investigation will include the following components:  An archaeological evaluation;  An archaeological recording programme the scope of which will be dependent upon the results of the evaluation;  Where appropriate, a post-excavation assessment and analysis, preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store approved by the local planning authority, completion of an archive report, and submission of the results for publication in a suitable journal. 10. The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) Proposed Residential Development, Stainton, Cumbria dated June 2014 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:  Limiting the surface water run-off generated by the 1 in 100 year event (30% allowance for climate change) critical storm so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off-site;

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

 As per Section 5.0 pf the FRA - any flooding for the 100 year event with climate change will need to be stored on site to protect third party land from potential overland flows. Should flooding for the 100 year event plus climate change occur a flood routing or above ground storage drawing should be produced to demonstrate there is no risk to buildings or third party land;  Identification and provision of safe route(s) into and out of the site to an appropriate safe haven;  Confirmation of the work to be carried out on the culverts located within the proposed site including ongoing maintenance regimes;  Confirmation of the finished floor levels to ensure that surface water flow paths are maintained without risk to properties. The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reasons 1. To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. 2. To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. 3. To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. 4. To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt. 5. To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highways safety. 6. To ensure the development has an acceptable impact on biodiversity. 7. To ensure the development has an acceptable impact on biodiversity. 8. In the interests achieving an acceptable drainage scheme. 9. To ensure that a permanent and accessible record by the public is made of the archaeological remains that have been disturbed by the development. 10. In the interests of ensuring an appropriate drainage scheme and to ensure third party land is not detrimentally affected by the development. Informatives The application has been approved subject to the signing of an S106 Agreement requiring the provision of 30% affordable housing. The illustrative site layout plan that has been submitted as part of the application does not form part of the approval hereby granted.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The proposal is made in outline with all matters reserved for subsequent approval to secure the principle of residential development. It is accompanied by an indicative layout which shows 30 plots and incorporates 5 plots from a previously approved scheme under reference 12/0234 and shows the use of the same access position. 2.1.2 Whilst an indicative layout is provided, no approval for the layout is sought and therefore the layout is purely for information purposes. The application is also supported by archaeological scoping survey, a ground investigation report, a drainage and flood risk assessment, a geophysical survey report and a housing needs survey report for Dacre Parish (May 2009). The application provides for 30% of the dwellings to be affordable in line with Council policy. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site lies within the centre of the village of Stainton. It is bound to the north by residential development, to the east by agricultural land, to the south a hotel and to the west by residential properties and the village hall. 2.2.2 Stainton is designated as a Local Service Centre within the Eden Core Strategy where under CS2: locational Strategy “small scale development to sustain local services, support rural businesses and meet local needs, including housing, provision of employment and improvements to accessibility” is identified as being acceptable. 2.2.3 The site was the subject of a Committee site visit on 27 November 2014. 3. Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response Highway Authority No objection subject to conditions. Environment Agency No objection subject to conditions. Natural England Consultation response awaited in respect of a Shadow Habitats Assessment. United Utilities No objections subject to conditions. Archaeologist No objection subject to conditions. 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response

Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Object Support No Response No View Council/Meeting Expressed Dacre Parish  Council 4.1 Dacre Parish Council wish to object to the above application. While recognising the role of Stainton as a Key Hub in the emerging Eden Local Plan (ELP), our own Parish Plan indicates that support will not be given to any further

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE housing development in Stainton. Existing planning permission for Stainton provide for approximately 36 new dwellings, 9% of current housing stock. The Parish Council cannot identify any local need for market-led housing in excess of this, and the applicants provide no evidence of objectively assessed housing need for the village. The ELP proposals on the acceptability of new housing development in villages indicate that they should not impact on the character of the settlement. The Parish Plan seeks to ensure that the distinctiveness of settlements is maintained, and their rural character reflected. The Parish Council believe that this application for 30 houses cannot be considered as small-scale development and will have an adverse impact on the character of Stainton. Its location will mean the loss of a valued open space in the centre of the village which has the potential for recreational use. The applicants do not address the impact of their proposed development on the village character. Dacre Parish Plan seeks to resist development which exceeds the capacity of the local infrastructure. In this context the proposed development threatens to  Overload still further the foul water drainage in Stainton, which United Utilities have identified as a complex system with a siltation problem;  Increase the risk of flooding of adjacent low-lying land and the Recreation Ground;  In heavy rainfall contribute additional pollution of the River Eamont via Kirk Beck;  Exceed the safe capacity of the village roads, most of which were not constructed to 20th century width standards (CCC LTP 2 Policy LD1); and are obstructed by parked vehicles because residential parking is inadequate for current car ownership levels (see Parish Plan). The Parish Council note that the ELP does not identify any sites appropriate for housing development in Stainton. However, the Dacre Parish Plan indicates that sympathetic consideration will be given to redevelopment of disused buildings, previously developed land, and land no longer allocated for commercial use. A number of such sites have been identified in Stainton, and elsewhere in the parish. The Parish Council would prefer to see brown-field sites developed for identified housing needs. Finally, the Parish Council are concerned that, given the Government’s UK Climate Change warnings of higher rainfall and increased flood risk, the applicants are planning to build on an area which is already so wet that the houses will require ‘mini piles’ and will be ‘above ground level’. The parish Council are acutely aware of the distress to communities caused by flooding, having experienced such events at several locations in the parish in recent years. They would hope that similar situations can be avoided by a judicious choice of building sites. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to near neighbours and a site notice was posted on 26 June 2014.

No of Neighbours Consulted 35 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations 26 No of neutral representations 0 Received No of objection letters 26

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 5.2 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are material considerations to the application: Principle:  The site has not been considered in as part of the Eden Local Plan Preferred Sites and Policies;  There are extant permissions in the village which are not being built. Highways:  The entrance is on the brow of a hill which is very busy at school drop off and pick up times;  Concerns over highway safety. Effect on character of the village:  Loss of open space which is historically important to the village.  The changing character of the area may have a detrimental impact on tourism in the village. There are 27 holiday let properties in the village and it may prove difficult to let these if the village expands;  Change character of area to residential estate.  Indicative plan carries no weight in addressing community concerns and may impact on proposals for a replacement Village Hall. Flooding  Foul drain in road overflows;  Could lead to potential downstream flooding of the Recreation Ground as current ground provides a buffer to down stream use;  Northern part of the field is waterlogged in winter.  Flood risk assessment only covers part of the site and does not take into account the ‘real’ flood risk. Ecology  Land is greenfield and therefore used by wildlife.  Site provides a unique wetland in the middle of the village. Others  The proposal will have an impact on the provision and speed of the already slow broadband offer in the village. 5.3 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are non-material considerations:  Loss of view  May result in further housing coming forward.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 6. Relevant Planning History

Application No Description Outcome 09/0079 Residential Development (Outline) Withdrawn 09/0886 Residential Development (Outline) Granted 12/0234 Extension of Time Limit for Approved Implementation of Residential Development 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan CS1 - Sustainable Development Principles CS2 - Locational Strategy CS4 - Flood Risk CS5 - Transport and Accessibility CS6 - Developer Contributions CS7 - Principles for Housing CS8 - Making Efficient Use of Land Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework - Paragraph 14 - Decision-Taking Paragraph 49 - Context of Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Paragraph 50 - Delivering a Wide Choice of Houses The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues 8.1.1 The main planning issues are considered to be:  Principle  Highway Safety  Impact on ecology  Impact on flooding 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development with relevant policies for the supply of housing not considered up-to-date if the LPA cannot demonstrate a five year land supply. The Council cannot currently

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE demonstrate to five year housing land supply and therefore therefore in terms of decision-making, the NPPF states in paragraph 14 that: “For decision-taking this means:  Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and  Where the development plan is absent, silent or relative policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: o Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or o Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.” 8.2.2 Eden’s Core Strategy (CS2 Location Strategy) defines Stainton as a local service centre where development would be limited to “small scale development to sustain local services, support rural businesses and meet local needs including housing, provision of employment, improvements to accessibility”. CS2 Locational Strategy is a housing policy and given that the council cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of housing land this policy is not considered to be up to date and consistent with the NPPF. As such it is considered that little weight can be given to this restrictive housing policy in the determination of this application, and greater weight should be attributed to the policies within the NPPF. 8.2.3 Whilst it can be given limited weight in the determination of this application due to its draft status the Council is currently consulting on the preferred options for the Local Plan. Within the document Stainton is identified as a “Key Hub” which “will be the focus for development to sustain local services appropriate to the scale of the village, including new housing, the provision of employment and improvements to accessibility.” It is however noted that at this stage the Council in the Local Plan is not proposing to allocate any large sites for housing or employment within Stainton although it underlines that development is considered to be sustainable in this location. 8.2.4 Subsequently, in the absence of up-to-date local plan housing policies the proposed development should be considered within the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Council consider that Stainton, as a local service centre, is a sustainable location for development subject to the development being of an appropriate size and scale. 8.2.5 It is considered that Stainton is in a sustainable location close to the main district town of Penrith with good transport links to the wider facilities this settlement offers. Stainton also has a village school and is on the A66 and benefits from a village pub and village hall. The settlement has demonstrates a number of housing styles as it has developed over the decades character of the village has changed accordingly. 8.2.6 In principle the use of the land for housing is considered to represent a sustainable form of development as required by the NPPF and as such is considered to be acceptable. 8.2.7 Stainton is a village of some 416 properties and the current proposal as shown on the indicative plan of 30 dwellings represents an increase of only 7.2 %. Objectors to the proposal have indicated that there are a significant number of properties which have

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE been granted but have yet to be developed and which would cater for current demand. The table in the attached Appendix identifies recent unimplemented permissions, those permission which have commenced but have not yet been completed and current applications. The table shows some 36 properties, of which five (12/0234) are on the same site as the current application, Three (10/0944 and 12/0455) have been completed, and one (14/0370) beings a current application. It remains that there are permissions for some 27 dwellings to be developed or completed within the village, representing an increase of 6.5% 8.2.8 Members are reminded of the application at Lazonby by Story Homes (13/0241), where the issue of what could be considered ‘small scale’ to accord with CS2: Locational Strategy, in relation to development within Local Service Centres, discussion revolved around whether a 12% increase could or could not be considered small scale. The application was refused on the following ground: ‘The excessive size and scale of the development is considered harmful to the character and appearance of the village, contrary to the requirements of Eden Core Strategy Policies CS2 and CS18 which requires small scale development showing a clear understanding of the form and character of the District's built and natural environment complimenting and enhancing the existing area’. In the following appeal the Inspector concluded that there was a presumption in favour of sustainable development in the absence of a five year land supply and that a 12% increase ‘would as a matter of fact and degree, fall within the scope of being defined as small scale’. Accordingly, he took the view that ‘the moderate adverse effect of the setting of the settlement would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme’ and allowed the appeal. 8.3 Affordable Housing 8.3.1 The proposed development is outline and as such the layout or number of dwellings not be assessed. The indicative layout suggests 30 units and the applicant has stated their intention to provide 30% affordable housing which would take into account the extant permission for the residential development under 12/0234 which had no affordable requirement, and therefore could provide for 7 affordable units in accordance with this requirement of Policy CS10 of the Eden District Core Strategy. There is an evidenced demand for the affordable units and the provision has been deemed acceptable by the Affordable Housing Officer. As the layout is indicative only, any agreement would need to ensure that should the number of dwellings increase an appropriate level ie 30% affordable housing level was maintained. 8.4 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.4.1 The application site lies within the settlement of Stainton. The site is bound to the north and west by residential development, with an agricultural interface to the eastern boundary. The site will be viewed in the context of the existing development of the village. Views are generally limited and available from the open aspects beside the Village Hall and adjacent to Staynegarth. 8.4.2 As the application is in outline only, it is anticipated that any reserved matters application forthcoming would contain details of landscaping which could be employed to mitigate any visual impacts.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.5 Residential Amenity 8.5.1 An indicative layout has been provided which demonstrates that housing can be provided in a manner which provides sufficient separation distances as are required by the Housing Supplementary Planning Document. Although indicative, the layout plan does demonstrate that the site could be developed in a manner which provides adequate levels of amenity to residential occupiers of existing properties. 8.6 Infrastructure 8.6.1 Drainage 8.6.1.1The proposed development is not within an area designated as being at risk of flood. The application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment carried out by RWO Associates demonstrating that the site can be adequately drained both in relation to surface water and foul flows. The Environment Agency have confirmed that they have no objection in relation to the application, requesting conditions to be added in relation to requiring that any future details are in accordance with the mitigation measures within the FRA. 8.6.1.2In relation to foul drainage, United Utilities have consulted on the application and confirm that they have no objection to the proposed scheme subject to conditions regarding the detail of drainage schemes and connections to be provided at the reserved matters stage. 8.6.1.3With both technical consultees raising no objection, it is considered that in respect of foul and surface water there is no reason to refuse the application. 8.6.2 Highways 8.6.2.1Concerns have been raised in regards to the highway implications of the scheme. A single point of vehicular access is proposed adjacent to Stanyegarth. This access has been subject to extensive discussions with the Highway Authority and redesigned to agreed standards. As a result, the Highway Authority have no objection to the proposal subject to a standard condition applied to any consent. With the acceptance of the technical consultee in respect of highways, it is considered that this element of the proposal is acceptable. 8.7 Natural Environment 8.7.1 The application was accompanied by an Ecological Scoping Survey Report. Following consultation from Natural England, this was supplemented by a Shadow Assessment of Likely Significant Effects (ALSE) under Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2010. 8.7.2 It is concluded in the Shadow ALSE that the development would not have any significant effects in terms of the River Eden. Whilst various animals such as birds and bats may use the land, mitigation is put forward which would ensure proper account is taken of them. Final designs would be expected to demonstrate the incorporation of mitigation measures. It is considered that the application has demonstrated that development could be undertaken without significant and demonstrable harm to wildlife habitats. The final response is awaited from Natural England in this respect. 8.8 Built Environment 8.8.1 The application is accompanied by an indicative layout which shows a relatively low density scheme with plots demonstrating significant garden areas. Any future reserved

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE matters application would be expected to demonstrate how they have responded to the surrounding residential development styles and layout and would be considered at a later date. 8.8.2 In relation to archaeology, the application was accompanied by a desk based archaeological assessment and geophysical survey which has shown the potential for possible archaeological remains. Subsequently a condition is requested by the County Archaeologist. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The New Homes Bonus is a material consideration in the determination of any application for new housing although it is up to the decision making authority to decide how much weight it is to apply to this in consideration against the main planning merits. Under the New Homes Bonus scheme, the Council receives an annual cash grant for each new home built. The cash grant for each house is dependent upon Council Tax banding with the average size house returning £1,439 plus an extra £350 if it is affordable. In two tier areas the local planning authority (ie Eden District Council) retains 80% of the bonus with 20% going to the County Council. Therefore if this scheme, based on the indicative scale and layout, was to be agreed the total bonus to be received by the Council would be as follows: Annual Bonus (assuming a scheme of 30 £ dwellings) Affordable Houses (7* £1,789) 12, 523.00 Other Houses (23* £1,439) 33, 097.00 Total Annual Bonus 45, 620.00 EDC Annual Share @80% 36, 496.00 Est EDC Share over 6 years 218, 976.00 9.2 The Council has an agreed protocol for how it spends New Homes Bonus. Each year the first £100,000 is allocated to the Council’s Community Fund: This supports a range of community lead projects. The balance of available funding is allocated to the Council’s Housing Board for use in the support of affordable houses to address housing needs throughout the District. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10.7 New Homes Bonus 10.7.1 Section 70(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011 Section 143 with effect from 15 January 2012) requires that in determining planning applications, the Council must have regard to any local finance considerations as well as the Development Plan and any other material considerations. Section 70(4) goes on to explain that for these purposes “local finance consideration” means a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will be or could be provided to the relevant authority by as Minister of the Crown - such as the New Homes Bonus in this instance. It is up to Members to decide what weight to attach to it, if any. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development plan for the following reasons:  It is considered that the proposal represents a sustainable form of development supported by the Eden Core Strategy and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Framework with no adverse impacts been identified which are so great as to warrant refusal of the application.

Gwyn Clark Head of Planning Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Appendix 1 14/0370 - Inglenook: is under consideration. 13/0630 - Off Johns Road: granted outline approval for 11 dwellings 29 September 2014 (Land owner Mr F Thompson). 13/0378 - Near Gibsons Barns: originally granted consent 01/0585 and development was commenced in 2003. This was a revised application and works commenced on the revised application in September 2013. 13/0337 - Rear of the Mains: this was a reserved matters application for the erection of two dwellings (outline approval 10/0253). 4 barn conversions were approved under ref 08/0530 and 10/0332 this consent has commenced. The site is currently for sale. (Land owner Atric Ltd) 13/0282 - Rear of Thorn Lodge: This application was refused and dismissed on appeal. Planning consent was granted on appeal ref 09/0884 and development has commenced. 13/0243 - Near Inglenook: Outline application for 3 dwellings, reserved matters currently under consideration (14/0884) (Land owner Atric Ltd) 13/0158 - Hopland House: Development not commenced but the property has recently been sold. 12/0455 - Town End Farm: originally approved 02/0239 and commenced in Nov 2007. The development is complete and occupied. (Land owner Mr F Thompson) 12/0234 - Land at Staynegarth: Time extension application for 09/0886. This site forms part of the current larger proposal (14/0258). (Land owner Atric Ltd) and is subject to current application for Reserved Matters (14/0884) 11/0463 - Town End Farm: Works on site commenced 17 May 2011 This application was a revised application (access), original approvals were 08/0326 and 08/0327. 10/0944 - Rear of Rose Bank: Built and occupied

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Item 3 Date of Committee: 18 December 2014

Planning Application No: 14/0692 Date Received: 7 August 2014

OS Grid Ref: 369432 504179 Expiry Date: 11 November 2014

Parish: Ravenstonedale Ward: Ravenstonedale

Proposal: Retrospective application for the retention of a dry stone wall

Location: Lane Farm, Weasdale, Newbiggin-on-Lune, Kirkby Stephen CA17 4LY

Applicant: Mr J Davis

Agent: Mr Smart

Case Officer: Karen Thompson

Reason for Referral: A request for an objector to speak at Planning Committee has been received.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that the application be approved. 1. The approved plans comprise drawing no ps 943/pcn 02 rev 6 received by the Local Planning Authority on 12 November 2014. Reason 1. To specify the permission and for the avoidances of doubt.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The proposal is a retrospective planning application for the erection of a dry stone wall to the west of Lane Farm which is a grade II* listed building. 2.1.2 The original application included stock proof fence however this has subsequently been removed as per the agent’s email and amended plans received on 12 November. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application relates to a dry stone wall positioned within farmstead known as Lane Farm. Immediately to the east, and detached from the application barn is Lane Cottage, the farmhouse, which is a grade II* listed building, and is within the applicant’s ownership. Access to the farm is from the Church Gate/Weasdale road although there is also a right of way across the neighbouring land known as “Lane Hall‟ which has a gated access into the farmstead. 2.2.2 Lane Farm has been split between two owners, one owning the land and the applicant owning the buildings. The farm is an upland stock farm with beef and sheep and comprises 66.2 hectares of mixed cropping and mowing land with improved and rough grazing. 3. Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response Highway Authority No objections English Heritage No objections Conservation officer No objection to the dry stone wall as it is typical of the sort of boundary enclosure treatment that would be found on a traditional farmstead such as this. 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response

Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Object Support No Response No View Council/Meeting Expressed Ravenstonedale 

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 5. Representations a. Letters of consultation were sent to near neighbours and a site notice was posted on 30 September 2014. No of Neighbours Consulted 1 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations 1 No of neutral representations 0 Received No of objection letters 1 b. Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are material considerations to the application:  The dry stone wall would adversely change the setting of the grade II* listed building. 5.3 Objections were also raised with regards to the temporary post and wire fence. This however has subsequently been removed and therefore the objections raised are no longer relevant. 6. Relevant Planning History

Application No Description Outcome 97/0276 New Access between the Newbiggin to Approved Weasdale road, to the farmstead 12/0301 Proposed change of use of existing barn Approved to create a holiday let 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan CS17 - Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment CS18 - Design of New Development Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework - Section 7 - Requiring good design Section 12 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues 8.1.1 Impact of the stone wall on the setting of a listed building 8.2 Impact on listed building and character and appearance of the surrounding area i. The NPPF states that “when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation”. Any development should therefore seek to conserve and

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE enhance the special qualities of the historic asset. This approach is also taken by policies CS17 and CS18 of the Core Strategy which “promote the enhancement of the built environment through the use of high standards of design and sustainable materials”. ii. It is considered that the proposals do not adversely impact on the setting on the heritage asset or the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The design, materials and siting are typical to the character of the surrounding farmstead. The proposed wall will also act to improve the setting of the listed building by providing some separation and better revealing its significance. iii. The proposal has also been supported by the Conservation Officer who states that “the proposal would meet the requirements of policy 131 of the NPPF and assist in the preservation of the building through positive enhancement”. iv. Therefore it is considered that the proposals conserve and enhance the listed building and the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would comply with the NPPF and policies CS17 and CS18 of the core strategy. 8.3 Impact on neighbour amenities v. Policy CS18 states that the design of new development should “protect the amenity of existing residents”. It is considered that small height and scale of the wall will have minimal impact on the amenity of the neighbour in terms of any loss of light, privacy or overbearing impact. The development therefore complies with CS18. 8.4 Other issues - Highways vi. The consultation response from the Highways Authority indicated that site is remote from the highway and is not considered to have any impact on existing highways conditions. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 Consideration has also been given to the following issues:  Equality  Natural Environment and Rural Communities  Crime and Disorder  Children 9.1.2 There are no implications arising from this report. 10. Conclusion c. It is considered that the proposal accords to the Development Plan for the following reasons: The retrospective application for the dry stone wall is considered to conserve and enhance the setting of the listed building and the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The development does not impact on neighbouring amenity and will not adversely impact the surrounding highways conditions. Therefore the development is in accordance with National and Local Planning Policy.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Gwyn Clark Head of Planning Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Item 4 Date of Committee: 18 December 2014

Planning Application No: 14/0872 Date Received: 30 September 2014

OS Grid Ref: 356367 Expiry Date: 25 November 2014 514178

Parish: Shap Ward: Shap

Proposal: Single storey side and rear extensions and raise roof to form first floor accommodation.

Location: 9 Brackenber Lodge, Shap

Applicant: Miss L Evans

Agent: Mr G Rae G R Architects

Case Officer: Mr D R Cox

Reason for Referral: A neighbouring objector has requested a hearing and the recommendation is contrary to the view of the Parish Council.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details and plans hereby approved (Drawing Numbers 141-0 and 2, dated as received 30 September 2014) and shall not be varied other than by prior agreement in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reasons 1. In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The proposal is for the erection of a single storey side and rear extension to the existing detached dwelling, known as 9 Brackenber Lodge, together with the raising of the existing roof to form additional first floor accommodation. 2.1.2 Redevelopment of the ground floor proposes the removal of an existing bathroom and use of the space created for a larger kitchen, with a small extension at the rear to provide a dining area. It is also proposed to add a small utility room and wc to the west end of the property, still leaving space for two cars in the remaining driveway. It is also proposed to extend and convert the store room at the east end into an en-suite for the existing ground floor bedroom. Additionally, it is proposed to convert the second ground floor bedroom into a study, incorporating a stair up to the new first floor accommodation. Overall, this would result in an increasing of the ground floor area by 12m2. 2.1.3 To create the new first floor accommodation the application proposes to raise the roof of the main part of the house by 900mm (from the present 6.1m ridge height), which will provide 1500mm headroom at the internal eaves, and incorporate dormer windows to provide suitable daylight and ventilation. The first floor accommodation will provide the replacement second bedroom, and the additional third bedroom, bathroom and store room. The increased overall first floor area would be approx. 47m2. 2.1.4 External materials proposed in the extensions and overall raised ridge height are to match the existing stone walls, slate roofs, cast iron rainwater goods and plastic windows. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 No 9 is one of an associated cluster of several single and two storey, detached and terraced dwellings, part of the former Brackenber Lodge (former Shap Workhouse), to the immediate west of the village and local service centre of Shap.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2.2.2 The (west facing) front of the house adjoins the communal access to the other properties at Brackenber Lodge, leaving little scope for extension in that direction, with the (east facing) rear garden sloping down and away from the house. 2.2.3 No 9 is located between No 10 (immediately to the south east) and a new two storey dwelling, converted from Stores under application Ref No 00/0871 (immediately to the north-west). 3. Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response Cumbria County Council No comment or observation received. 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response

Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Object Support No Response No View Council/Meeting Expressed Shap  4.1 Shap Parish Council objects to the above application for the following reasons: - The additional height and dormer windows are out of keeping with the rest of the area. - The other buildings in the group are lower, and none feature dormer windows. - The buildings are a group of historic interest, being the former workhouse. - The additional height would give unacceptable overlooking and overshadowing to No 10 next door. These objections are on the basis that the development is contrary to policies CS17.1, 18.1, 18.3 and 18.5. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to near neighbours and a site notice was posted on 7 October 2014.

No of Neighbours Consulted 9 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations 3 No of neutral representations 1 Received No of objection letters 2 5.2 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are material considerations to the application:  Overlooking -The development has new dormer windows which will overlook previously private areas of 10 Brackenber Lodge.  Overshadowing - The roof is to be raised, shadowing 10 Brackenber Lodge from sunlight.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Out of character - The form and character of the development does not satisfy EDC housing Policy H8 which states “The scale of the proposed extension will not detract from the scale and character of the original building or its setting”.  Abutting wall - The development constructs a new wall immediately alongside the wall of 10 Brackenber Lodge.  Land Ownership - The development constructs a new wall on land owned by 10 Brackenber Lodge (not a material consideration).  Overbearing - in relation to the neighbouring courtyard and the raising of the roof.  Separation - to be maintained between properties in order to maintain character of Brackenber Lodge as a cluster of buildings.  Dormer windows - are felt to be out of keeping. 5.3 Letters of support were also received which provided the following comments: - We have no objection to this planning application. 6. Relevant Planning History

Application No Description Outcome 12/0999 Retrospective application for the erection Full Approval of a garden shed. 14 February 2013 10/0163 Erection of Stable building on agricultural Full Approval land. 21 April 2010 09/0950 Erection of stable building on agricultural Full Approval land. 13 January 2010 08/0493 Erection of summer house in rear garden. Full Approval 18 August 2008 08/0018 Erection of two-storey extension at rear Full Approval and change of use to Bed and Breakfast. 19 March 2008 00/0871 (The Store adj.) conversion of existing Full Approval store/workshop into dwelling. 18 January 2001 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Core Strategy Policy CS18 “Design of New Development” Other Material Considerations Eden Residential Design Guidelines

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE National Planning Policy Framework The policies and guidelines detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues 8.1.1 Impact on Neighbours. 8.1.2 Design. 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 Planning permission is required in this instance because the proposal, though relatively minor, results in an increase in finished ridge height which falls outside the scope of normal residential permitted development rights. This does not raise a fundamental objection to the proposal, the consideration of which revolves around form and design and potential impact on adjoining owners. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 The extensions and height modifications proposed relate to an existing dwelling, located within and seen in the context of a cluster of existing detached and terraced dwellings (Brackenber Lodge), ranging in design and height and utilising matching themes designs and traditional materials. Set within and against this backdrop, of this range of associated buildings, it is not therefore considered that there would be any adverse landscape or visual impacts as a result of the proposal which are sufficient to warrant a recommendation of refusal. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 The objector’s house, the neighbouring attached property, No 10 Brackenber Lodge, is located immediately to the south-east of the application site. Gardens to the front of these properties slope down to the Docker Beck and are open generally to public overview from the shared access road (3232) to Brackenber Lodge overall. Although the neighbours have expressed concern regarding possible overlooking, there are no windows proposed in the modified south east gable to No 9, and with the main emphasis of view of any extension to the front of No 9 being both to the north-east and mutually over gardens already open to general public overview, it is not considered that there would be any significant or unreasonable loss to neighbouring privacy or residential amenity in this aspect. 8.4.2 In terms of overshadowing, and with the proposal only involving an increase in finished ridge height by 900mm, with a stepped down separation from the shared boundary with No 10 of approx. 0.2m, and being to the north-west of and set back to that property, then any additional overshadowing again is likely to be very marginal and unlikely to result in any significant or unreasonable loss to neighbouring residential amenity. 8.4.3 Brackenber Lodge, though historically used as the former “workhouse” for Shap, has no other material designation or standing, being neither listed building/s nor located in any designated conservation area. Its character is therefore defined by the existing and mixed range of traditional, two storey, detached and more recent development, and which exhibit many of the features and use most of the materials proposed within the

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE development envisaged. In particular it is to be noted that gable fronted dormer windows which break the gutter line are already a feature of the main body of the existing Brackenber Lodge (No 3). The development proposed would not be out of character in this aspect. 8.4.4 The modification of the boundary wall between No 9 and No 10 , to facilitate the replacement of the existing ground floor store with a utility room and wc, bounding onto the existing flat roof garage (to No 10) is not considered either unreasonable or problematic to the latter in terms of either character or amenity. Any issue of land ownership is a civil matter and does not constitute a merial planning consideration. 8.5 Built Environment 8.5.1 Relationship of the proposed extended dwelling to other neighbouring property will continue to reasonably reflect and complement the general nature of existing design theme, character and relationship and will not result in any unreasonable or overbearing impact on property to the north-west (the former Store converted to a dwelling under application Ref No 00/0871), or the existing former coach house/garage block, located across the shared access road to the rear (south-west) of Nos 9 and 10 Brackenber Lodge. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 There are no legal implications arising from this report. 9.1.2 Consideration has also been given to the following issues:  Equality  Natural Environment and Rural Communities  Crime and Disorder  Children 9.1.3 There are no implications arising from this report. 10. Conclusion 10.1 It is considered that the proposal accords to the Development Plan for the following reasons: - The design and materials would be in keeping with the host building and the locality. - It is not thought that the extension would cause unacceptable harm to living conditions or amenities of neighbours.

Gwyn Clark Head of Planning Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Item 5 Date of Committee: 18 December 2014

Planning Application No: 14/0884 Date Received: 7 October 2014

OS Grid Ref: 348505 Expiry Date: 2 December 2014 527831

Parish: Dacre Ward: Dacre

Proposal: Reserved Matters Approval Sought for Appearance, landscaping, Layout and Scale in Relation to the Outline Application 13/0243

Location: Site Adjacent to Inglenook, Stainton

Applicant: JIW Properties Ltd

Agent: Graham K Norman (Architect) Ltd

Case Officer: Rachel Lightfoot

Reason for Referral: An objector has requested a hearing, Members requested that the Reserved Matters application be brought to Committee following their approval of the outline permission and the recommendation to approve the application is contrary to the view of the Parish Council.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby granted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details and plans hereby approved (drawing numbers 114-153-01, 114-153- 03A, 114-153-04A, 114-153-10 received 7 October 2014, 114-153-02D, 114-153-05C, 114-153-06B, 114-153-07B, 114-153-08B received 5 November 2014, and 114-153-09B received 10 November 2014 and shall not be varied other than by prior agreement in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 2. Samples of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is commenced, and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in this application. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 3. Notwithstanding the details provided, details of all boundary treatments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4. Notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, no fences or walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority through the submission of a planning application. Reasons 1. To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. 2. To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings. 3. To ensure appropriate boundaries are maintained due to the sensitive edge of settlement location of the site. 4. To ensure appropriate boundaries are maintained due to the sensitive edge of settlement location of the site.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The proposal seeks reserved matters consent for the erection of three dwellings at Stainton. Previously, the site was granted planning permission under reference 13/0243. One of the conditions relevant to the reserved matters was that housing to the rear of the site be single storey with two storey limited to the road frontage. The proposal provides for two single storey dwellings at units 2 and 3. 2.1.2 Unit 1 faces the road and is two storey with an attached garage. It is accessed from the rear with a double aspect. The stone boundary wall to the front is to be retained. To the rear units 2 and 3 are single storey. Following discussions with the agent, the ridge heights have been reduced by 0.4m with a height of approximately 5.3m which is not

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE unusual for a single storey dwelling and is considered appropriate. In addition, Unit 2 has been redesigned to detach the garage and reduce the length of the house by approximately 7m, the sunroom has also been removed in order to reduce the bulk of the dwelling. Unit 3 has reduced the sunroom element and again lowered the height of the ridge by 0.35m to a total height of approximately 5.3m. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site benefits from an outline consent under reference 13/0243. No approval was given to any layout which was supplied only for indicative purposes. It was a requirement that a single reserved matters application be made for the three dwellings and that development to the rear be single storey. 2.2.2 The site is situated at the periphery of the settlement and border to the north/west by five dwellings. To the east, the site is bordered by a stone wall and mature hedgerow. Access is provided via Snuff Mill Lane and the land rises from Snuff Mill Lane to the western boundary. 3. Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response Cumbria County Council No objection 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response

Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Object Support No Response No View Council/Meeting Expressed Dacre  4.1 The response of the Parish Council is as follows: The parish council wish to object to this development on the following grounds. Pedestrian safety The parish council is extremely concerned about the safety of less-abled people and pedestrians, and in particular children, living in this proposed development. Since the units have four bedrooms it seems likely that they will be family homes. Draft EDC Policy DEV3 indicates that development will only be permitted if it “will provide safe and convenient access to pedestrians and cyclists.” No footways are shown on the site plan so presumably pedestrians are expected to use the site road. Snuffmill Lane has no footway, and its width makes it impossible that one could be constructed. Further, at its north end it has a narrow pinch-point between adjacent properties. Snuffmill Lane is a busy “rat-run” between the A66 and the A592. It is very unlikely that parents living in the development would permit their children to walk to the nearby local primary school (which has a ‘walk-to-school’ initiative) and would instead use a car. The Parish Council believe very strongly that the developer should demonstrate how the development will provide safe pedestrian access for residents on the development to the services in Stainton.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Scale and density Dacre Parish Plan indicates that new developments should respect the distinctive and rural nature of settlements. The draft EDC Policy DEV5 requires developers to show that they have “a clear understanding of the form and character of the District ... [and] complement and enhance the existing area,” and that they have protected and enhanced the “distinctive rural landscape.” Draft Policy DEV1 indicates that the “massing and scale of new development [should] respect local character. The parish council consider that the scale and density of the proposed development is excessive. The development is taking place in a rural area, not in a town. The site is on the edge of Stainton with open countryside to the south. The adjacent properties are more widely spaced. It is considered that a development consisting of two units would be more appropriate for this site. Context of the site The draft EDC local plan advises (p98) that developers should “work with the site and its context.” Policy DEV5 indicates that developments should “reflect the existing street scene through the use of appropriate ... materials.” The proposed units appear to have a brick finish. The adjacent properties are generally rendered. The parish council consider that the finish of the units in this development should be in keeping with the character of adjacent properties. Further, the parish council note that properties are to be separated by brown stained timber palisade fences. A fence of this type is completely out of character of the area and the site, where boundaries are of either stone walls or hedges. The parish council consider hedging to be more appropriate. Water management The District Council will no doubt be aware of existing water management problems in Stainton, related to its site on a slope and issues with surface water drainage. The Parish council are concerned that the developer appears to have made no provision for the removal of surface water from the site roads. The hard surface of these means that, without drains, they will discharge all rainfall onto Snuffmill Lane. This lane is already prone to local flooding, and an additional rainfall burden will exacerbate this. Car Parking The Parish Plan indicates that all new properties should have parking space for at least three cars. This was based on the parish survey which showed that half the properties in the parish owned two more cars. Further, the Parish Council receives complaints from Stainton residents about parking issues on public roads. National surveys have shown that most garages are used for storage, not parking. The four bedroom units on this site are very likely to own more than two cars. The Parish Council considers it imperative that each unit has at least three parking spaces.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to near neighbours and a site notice was posted on 14 October 2014. No of Neighbours Consulted 7 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations 13 No of neutral representations 0 Received No of objection letters 13 5.2 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are material considerations to the application: The single storey dwellings are not considered to be single storey; Loss of environment through using greenfield land for development; Loss of light to nearby houses; Scale of development is too great; Extra potential strain on sewers. 5.3 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are non-material considerations: Height would allow 2 storey development in future; Need is for affordable housing; Larger than footprint of houses on original plan. 5.4 Following the receipt of amended plans, 5 further letters have been received which do not raise any additional issues. 6. Relevant Planning History

Application No Description Outcome 13/0243 Outline Application for the Erection of Approved at Three Dwellings with Approval Sought for Planning Committee Access 15/8/13 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Policy No - Description CS18 - Design of New Development Housing Supplementary Planning Document Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework - Policy No - Description Paragraph 56 - Requiring Good Design The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Impact on the landscape character of the village.  Impact on highway safety. 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The principle of housing on the site up to a maximum of three properties has been accepted through the previous granting of outline planning permission under reference 13/0243. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 The proposal seeks reserved matters approval for three dwellings. Amendments were sought in relation to bringing the roofs down as low as possible and they now sit at 5.3m high which is a typical bungalow height. The ridge of the proposed new bungalows sits approximate 5.18m below that of the adjacent dwelling known as The Poplars. In respect of the two storey house to the road frontage, the ridge height matches that of the adjacent Inglenook. It is considered that the lower roofs of the properties, the use of natural slate and an appropriately coloured brick with stone boundary features would not be unreasonable in terms of the impacts on the landscape given that residential development on the site has already been accepted. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 In relation to residential amenity, the dwellings exceed the minimum window to window distances of 21m and window to gable distances of 13m. Distances to La Roque are measured at 28.05m and to Hill Crest at 23.092m. It is not considered that these properties would be affected by a loss of light given the single storey nature and the distances involved. Some light to the bottom of their garden areas may be lost at certain times but it is not considered that this would be so great as to warrant refusal of the application. 8.5 Infrastructure 8.5.1 There are no infrastructure issues which arise as a result of this reserved matters application which is looking at detail only and does not give rise to any issues not considered under the previous application. An objection was received from a neighbouring resident in regards to highway safety and the movement of the entrance from that shown on the previous illustrative plan, this has also been raised by the Parish Council. The Highway Authority have confirmed that they have no objection to the proposals and it is therefore considered that the application is acceptable in this regard. 8.6 Natural Environment 8.6.1 There have been no changes in circumstances since the grant of outline consent in relation to the natural environment.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.7 Built Environment 8.7.1 The proposed dwellings are single storey to the rear and two storey to the road frontage. In terms of the two storey house, this has a ridge height to match the adjacent property at Inglenook. Proposed materials include buff brick and slate roofs with timber fencing. The bungalow to the rear of the site has been reduced in footprint and the garage separated to a stand alone building to reduce its bulk and it considered to represent an acceptable proposal. Comments have been received in relation to the footprint of the dwellings. The previous illustrative plan detailed 3 two storey dwellings which by their nature have a smaller footprint than a single storey property. The stipulation of Planning Committee was that the properties to the rear should be single storey and the application is in compliance with this. Due to the levels of the site this results in a ridge which is approximately 2.19m higher than the property at Hill Crest. 8.7.2 It is considered that the success of the scheme will be in the boundary treatment to the site and it is importance in relaying a countryside appearance rather than that of an urban housing estate. In this regard, a condition is added to the decision notice to require further details of the boundaries. It is anticipated that all boundaries should be stone wall to replicate a field wall with limited use of timber fencing to less public views. A condition is added in regards to this and also removal of permitted development rights to erect new boundaries. 8.7.3 In relation to the relationship of the proposals to the immediately surrounding built environment, this is a very mixed area in terms of housing styles from traditional properties to the inter war property known as Inglenook and the more modern bungalows to the west. There is therefore scope for a contemporary approach to the development in this area of widely varied types. It is not considered that, in this context, the proposal is at odds with the character of the area. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The New Homes Bonus is a material consideration in the determination of any application for new housing although it is up to the decision making authority to decide how much weight it is to apply to this in consideration against the main planning merits. Under the New Homes Bonus scheme, the Council receives an annual cash grant for each new home built. The cash grant for each house is dependent upon Council Tax banding with the average size house returning £1,439 plus an extra £350 if it is affordable. In two tier areas the local planning authority (ie Eden District Council) retains 80% of the bonus with 20% going to the County Council. Therefore if this scheme, based on the indicative scale and layout, was to be agreed the total bonus to be received by the Council would be as follows: Annual Bonus £ Affordable Houses (0* £1,789) 0 Other Houses (3* £1,439) £4,317.00 Total Annual Bonus £4,317.00 EDC Annual Share @80% £3,453.60 Est EDC Share over 6 years £20,721.60

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

9.2 The Council has an agreed protocol for how it spends New Homes Bonus. Each year the first £100,000 is allocated to the Council’s Community Fund: This supports a range of community lead projects. The balance of available funding is allocated to the Council’s Housing Board for use in the support of affordable houses to address housing needs throughout the District. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10.7 New Homes Bonus 10.7.1 Section 70(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011 Section 143 with effect from 15 January 2012) requires that in determining planning applications, the Council must have regard to any local finance considerations as well as the Development Plan and any other material considerations. Section 70(4) goes on to explain that for these purposes “local finance consideration” means a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will be or could be provided to the relevant authority by as Minister of the Crown - such as the New Homes Bonus in this instance. It is up to Members to decide what weight to attach to it, if any. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords to the Development Plan for the following reasons:

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Gwyn Clark Head of Planning Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Item 6 Date of Committee: 18 December 2014

Planning Application No: 13/0514 Date Received: 17 July 2013

OS Grid Ref: 352068 Expiry Date: 2 September 2013 528849

Parish: Penrith Ward: Penrith South

Proposal: Application to modify the Section 106 Agreement attached to Planning Approval 09/0098 and 11/0446 to enable the provision of 65% market led housing and 35% affordable housing from 100% affordable housing previously agreed.

Location: Land at Beacon Farm, Eamont Bridge, Penrith

Applicant: Mr J Heath

Agent: Mr Bruce Armstrong-Payne

Case Officer: Kevin Hutchinson

Reason for Referral: The Proposal is contrary to Policy CS9: Housing of Rural Exception Sites, which requires the provision of 100% affordable housing to meet an identified local housing need. The application was deferred from the previous meeting due to an unexpected request by an objector to be heard at Committee.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that delegated power be given to the Head of Planning Services to approve this variation subject to a Deed of Variation in respect of the Section 106 being entered into to the absolute satisfaction of the Director of Corporate and Legal Services and the Head of Planning Services and the Council’s reasonable costs being paid in relation to that Section 106 Agreement enabling the provision of 35% affordable housing and 65% market led housing.

2. Site Description and Proposal Proposal 2.1 Outline planning permission was granted under 09/0098 for the erection of twenty-four affordable dwellings on 24 July 2009 and the permission was granted an extension of time under 11/0446 on 1 March 2012. The approved development was the subject of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the provision of the affordable housing which was to be provided at 100% as it was a site which was approved contrary to policy for a residential development beyond the limit of Penrith. 2.2 The current proposal seeks to reduce the level of affordable housing following a viability appraisal of the development and was initially submitted on the basis of providing 30% affordable housing and 70% market led housing. Following protracted discussions the level of viability the application was amended to provide for an agreed viable level of affordable housing of 35% affordable housing and 65% market led housing. 2.3 The proposal otherwise remains in outline for the erection of twenty-four houses with access and layout agreed. The drawings submitted with the application indicate a development comprising ten pairs of semi-detached properties and a terrace of four. The road serving the development would be an improvement, by way of new turning lanes, to the roadway granted, on appeal, to serve the chicken sheds presently on the site. This would also necessitate a new junction arrangement to the A6 road. The houses would be set against the fall in the landform from the A66 roadway. Description of the Site and the Surroundings 2.4 The application site sits in an area of open countryside to the north of Skirsgill Lane, and to the west of the A6 at Kemplay Bank. The site is generally flat, although behind it the ground rises steeply up to the A66 trunk road with mature planting beyond. The site is generally separated from other residential uses by open fields. 2.5 The site is presently occupied by a range of large chicken sheds and is accessed via an incomplete track from the A6 which is to be upgraded with a ghost island junction as part of the extant outline planning permission. 2.6 The site is within the administrative area of Penrith but is more clearly physically and visually associated with the village of Eamont Bridge. 2.7 The outline planning permission 09/0098 was the subject of a suspensive condition requiring that ‘No dwellings shall be occupied until signalised pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities at the A6/A66 roundabout have been provided and brought in to full operational use.’ In the meantime the Kemplay roundabout has now been

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE reconstructed in accordance with the requirements of this condition improving pedestrian and cycle connectivity between Eamont Bridge and the southern end of Penrith. 3. Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response

CCC Highway Authority No Objection

Affordable Housing Officer The financial viability of the currently proposed 35% affordable housing has been independently tested and agreed by the Council as providing for the maximum proportion of affordable housing that can be delivered by this scheme. There is a continued need for affordable rented properties in the immediate area and the site is sufficiently close to the southern limit of Penrith to cater for such demand.

Penrith Civic Society No Comment - Insufficient information provided to enable us to comment sensibly.

4. Representations Letters of consultation were sent to near neighbours and a site notice was posted on 23 July 2013 when the application was originally submitted and again on 2 October 2014 when the application was amended to provide for a revised proportion of 35% affordable housing.

No of Neighbours Consulted 17 No of letters of support 0

No of Representations 4 No of neutral representations 0 Received

No of objection letters 4

4.1 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are material considerations to the application:  The site has a long history of refusals for residential development, as the site extended into the open countryside beyond the limits of Penrith.  The site was only granted planning permission on the basis that it was considered as an ‘exceptions site’ that was able to provide for 100% affordable housing.  The reduction in the provision of affordable housing to only 35% no longer justifies the release of this ‘exceptions site’ for residential development. 4.2 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are non-material considerations:  The site has been the subject of a series of applications for residential market led development which were refused.  The site is the subject of flooding with the development extending into the flood plain and exacerbate further flooding problems in the area.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  The site is inappropriate for development being in the countryside beyond the limits of Penrith.  There is no need for market led development.  The proposal will impact on the trees to the north of the site.  The proposal would have an adverse impact on the Eamont Bridge Air Quality Management Area.  The proposal should be resubmitted as a new free standing application. 5. Relevant Planning History

Date/ Description Outcome Application No

89/1024 Nine detached bungalows Refused as the site lay beyond with garages. the limits of the village, adverse impact on amenity of the location; Skirsgill Lane incapable of accommodating additional residential development; approval would set a precedent for further residential development along the lane.

92/0853 Thirty detached houses Refused as the site is in open and bungalows and ten countryside outside low cost flats. consistently accepted limits of Eamont Bridge; no justification to override policy to protect the open countryside; affect on rural amenity; unacceptable reduction in separation of Penrith from distinct and detached settlement of Eamont Bridge; precedent for further development. An appeal against this refusal was dismissed.

00/0824 Access road to agricultural Refused because of the impact development. on the character of streetscape through loss of substantial part of wall; impact on highway. This application was allowed on appeal.

02/0168 Private access road. Refused because of inadequate turning facilities;

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Date/ Description Outcome Application No impact on flood plain; would lead to pressure for development since the design of the road was not commensurate with need; detrimental to visual amenity and amenity of local residents.

04/0689 Three affordable houses Refused because site outside and associated car limits of village; contrary to parking. policy and guidance with no demonstrable proven need.

08/0447 Development of twenty- Refused as the development seven affordable homes. would encroach into the countryside; no overriding need for the development is established.

09/0098 Outline application for Approved 24 July 2009 subject erection of twenty-four to S106 Agreement requiring affordable dwellings and the provision of 100% access road affordable housing.

11/0446 Extend time limit of Approved 1 March 2012. 09/0098 subject to Deed of Variation of S106 Agreement requiring the provision of 100% affordable housing.

6. Policy Context Development Plan Eden Local Plan Saved Policies NE1: Development in the Countryside Eden Core Strategy CS1 Sustainable Development Principles CS2 Locational Strategy CS5 Transport and Accessibility CS6 Developer Contributions CS7 Principles for housing CS9 Housing on Rural Exceptions Sites CS10 Affordable Housing CS18 Design of New Development

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework - National Planning Guidance The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 7. Planning Assessment Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle of a housing scheme in this location  The change in the ratio of affordable housing in respect of a ‘rural exceptions site’ Principle 7.1 The principle of a residential development on this site was established by the grant of outline planning permission under 09/0098 and this was subsequently granted an extension of time under 11/0446, extending the life of the outline planning permission to 1 March 2015. The site therefore has an extant permission. 7.2 Objections received relating to flooding, the absence of need for market led dwellings, potential impact on trees, and the potential impact on the Eamont Bridge Air Quality Management Area are not material considerations of the application as these were considered as part of the original application. 7.3 Consideration of the current application turns on the issue of whether or not a residential development which was approved contrary to planning policy is still considered acceptable in the light of the reduced amount of affordable housing now proposed. 7.4 At the heart of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is set against the advice of paragraph 49 which states that ‘Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year land supply of deliverable housing sites.’ As the Local Authority cannot demonstrate a five year land supply the relevant policies must be considered out of date and that planning permission must be granted unless ‘..any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the framework when taken as a whole.’ 7.5 For decision taking the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be seen as the golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking and help to provide for a wide choice of high quality homes through the support for affordable housing. In rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and could support services in a village nearby. The NPPF supports the provision of affordable housing on rural exception sites, seeking to address the needs of the local community and acknowledging that ‘..small numbers of market homes may be allowed at the local authorities discretion, for example where essential to enable the delivery of affordable units without grant funding.’ This approach to affordable housing is particularly relevant where the provision of affordable housing is the corporate priority of the Local Authority.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Financial Viability 7.6 In this instance the site has the benefit of an extant permission for housing and is now required to reconsider the viability of the scheme. The NPPF advises that ‘..local planning authorities should take account of changes in market conditions over time and, wherever appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled.’ 7.7 Policy CS9 allows for small scale housing development in rural settlements outside Key and Local Service Centres where it provides for 100% affordable Housing, as per the extant consent. Policy CS10 considers where the financial viability of the scheme is in doubt the Council will require the provision of a financial viability assessment to be undertaken and independently assessed to confirm the maximum proportion of affordable housing that can be achieved by a scheme and still remain financially viable. 7.8 In this instance the amended viability assessment provided by the applicant (amended to now provide for 35% affordable housing - eight units) confirms that due to the high cost of abnormals relating to the provision flood scheme compensatory works, site grading and stabilisation, landscaping and open space could be in the region of £300,000 imposing a significant cost into the value of the scheme. A financial viability assessment check has been undertaken independently by the Council’s consultants NPS Group, who confirm that the scheme can accommodate 35% (8 No) affordable units within the scheme based on intermediate affordable units. These being either dwellings sold at a discounted rate of 60% of market value, or rented at 80% of market rent ideally through a Registered Social landlord (RSL), for people who qualify under the terms of being in affordable need. Accordingly, the amended proportion of affordable housing (35%), cross subsidised by market led housing (65%) has been verified and is considered acceptable in the light of the changing circumstances of this development proposal. Residential Amenity 7.9 The site benefits from an outline planning permission and the potential impact on neighbouring properties is not a material consideration of this application. The final design, including appearance, layout and scale will be the subject of an application for the ‘Reserved Matters’ which is currently required to be submitted by 1 March 2015. Infrastructure 7.10 The provision of infrastructure necessary to serve the development was fully considered in respect of the original outline application and are not a material consideration of this application. Natural Environment 7.11 The proposed development on countryside beyond the development limits of Penrith was fully considered in respect of the original outline application which did not highlight any significant or unacceptable impacts on the natural environment. Built Environment 7.12 The final design, including appearance, layout and scale will be the subject of an application for the ‘Reserved Matters’ which is currently required to be submitted by 1 March 2015.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8. New Homes Bonus 8.1 The New Homes Bonus is a material consideration in the determination of any application for new housing although it is up to the decision making authority to decide how much weight it is to apply to this in consideration against the main planning merits. Under the New Homes Bonus scheme, the Council receives an annual cash grant for each new home built. The cash grant for each house is dependent upon Council Tax banding with the average size house returning £1,439 plus an extra £350 if it is affordable. In two tier areas the local planning authority (ie Eden District Council) retains 80% of the bonus with 20% going to the County Council. Therefore if this scheme, based on the indicative scale and layout, was to be agreed the total bonus to be received by the Council would be as follows: Annual Bonus £

Affordable Houses (8* £1,789) 14,312

Other Houses (16* £1,439) 23,024

Total Annual Bonus 37,336

EDC Annual Share @80% 29,869

Est EDC Share over 6 years 179,214

8.2 The Council has an agreed protocol for how it spends New Homes Bonus. Each year the first £100,000 is allocated to the Council’s Community Fund: This supports a range of community lead projects. The balance of available funding is allocated to the Council’s Housing Board for use in the support of affordable houses to address housing needs throughout the district. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 9.7 New Homes Bonus 9.7.1 Section 70(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011 Section 143 with effect from 15 January 2012) requires that in determining planning applications, the Council must have regard to any local finance considerations as well as the Development Plan and any other material considerations. Section 70(4) goes on to explain that for these purposes “local finance consideration” means a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will be or could be provided to the relevant authority by as Minister of the Crown - such as the New Homes Bonus in this instance. It is up to Members to decide what weight to attach to it, if any. 10. Conclusion 10.1 It is considered that the proposal does not accord to the Development Plan in that the proposal would involve the development in the countryside which does not involve the provision of 100% Affordable Housing contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS9. 10.2 It is however the case that the application has been able to provide a validated financial viability assessment confirming that the scheme can provide for a ratio of 35% affordable housing cross subsidised by 65% market led housing, in respect of a site with the benefit of an extant planning permission for a residential development in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS10, the Housing Supplementary Planning Document: Economic Viability Assessments and the related themes of the NPPF. Gwyn Clark Head of Planning Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Item 7 Date of Committee: 18 December 2014

Planning Application No: 14/0654 Date Received: 24 June 2014

OS Grid Ref: 347150/529242 Expiry Date: 18 September 2014

Parish: Dacre Ward: Dacre

Proposal: Erection of single dwelling

Location: Braithwaite's Garage Ltd, Newbiggin, Stainton, Penrith

Applicant: Mr Braithwaite

Agent: PFK Planning

Case Officer: Tony Ryniejski

Reason for Referral: Approval would be an exception to the Council's usual practice of tying the occupation of dwellings permitted in connection rural businesses to persons employed by the business concerned.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details and plans hereby approved (drawing numbers 1351.PP.1 and 2 received 24 July 2014 ) and shall not be varied other than by prior agreement in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 3. The occupation of the dwellings hereby approved shall be limited to the following description of persons: a. Who currently lives in the relevant locality and has done so for a continuous period of at least three years; and/or b. Who works in the relevant locality and has done so for a continuous period of at least three years; and/or c. Who has moved away but has strong established and continuous links with the relevant locality by reason of birth or long term immediate family connections; and/or d. Who has an essential need through age or disability to live close to those who have lived in the relevant locality for at least three years. Definition of Locality: This term will be taken to apply to the Parish of Dacre and any adjoining Parish. 4. The dwelling shall not be occupied until the vehicular access and parking requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan and brought into use. These facilities shall be retained and capable of use at all times thereafter and shall not be removed or altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. 5. Prior to their use on site details of the external stone, render and roof slates shall be submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reasons 1. In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. 3. The permission is granted as an exception to the Council’s planning policies which restrict new housing development outside identified Key and Local Service Centres. 4. To ensure a minimum standard of access provision when the development is brought into use. 5. To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The proposal seeks full planning permission to erect an occupational dwelling in connection with Braithwaite’s Garage, Newbiggin, Stainton. The application effectively seeks to reposition and to change the design of a house which was approved under delegated powers last year, application reference 13/0506, as well as to substitute the attached condition which tied its occupancy to the garage business with an alternative local occupancy condition. 2.1.2 The proposed two storey dwelling would be finished in local stone and render, under a natural slate roof and would be accessed through the existing Garage forecourt. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 Braithwaite’s Garage is a long established vehicle sales and repair business located to the south of the Village Hall, on the eastern side of the village. It comprises of an extensive sales forecourt area, workshop and showroom buildings as well as a dwelling occupied by Mr Braithwaite Senior and his wife. The occupational dwelling proposed under the current application would be located on land immediately to the rear of the garage premises, at the eastern end of the site. 3. Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response Highway Authority No objection subject to the imposition of a condition. 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response

Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Object Support No Response No View Council/Meeting Expressed Dacre  5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to near neighbours and a site notice was posted on 6 August 2014.

No of Neighbours Consulted 2 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations 0 No of neutral representations 0 Received No of objection letters 0 6. Relevant Planning History

Application No Description Outcome 13/0506 Erection of occupational dwelling Approved

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Saved Eden Local Plan: Policy HS7 - Workers dwellings in the countryside Core Strategy Policy: CS1 - Sustainable development principles CS2 - Locational strategy CS3 - Rural settlements and the rural areas CS7 - Principles for housing CS18 - Design of new development Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework - Para 55 - Sustaining rural areas The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues 8.1.1 Housing for rural workers 8.1.2 Design 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The existing house at the garage is occupied by Mr Braithwaite Senior and his wife who are now largely retired. As a consequence the business is now primarily run by their two sons, Mark and Nigel, who are Managing Directors and presently both live in Penrith, along with their respective families. 8.2.2 Mark, who is mainly involved with running the vehicle repair, servicing and recovery operations, has found it increasingly difficult to oversee and operate this side of the business whilst continuing to live in Penrith and as a consequence there is a need for him and his family to relocate nearer to the business. 8.2.3 Though the site proposed for the dwelling is well related to the both business premises and the village settlement pattern because Newbiggin is not identified as being a Local Service Centre the 2013 application was considered under Saved Eden Local Plan Policy HS7. This is an ‘exceptions policy’ which allows the approval of agricultural workers dwellings and dwellings in connection with established rural businesses, where a proven operational and functional need has been established. Applications approved under this policy are then normally subject to a condition restricting occupation to farm or forestry workers or, as in this case, an employee of the relative rural business concerned. 8.2.4 Whilst initially accepting the imposition of the original occupancy condition the applicant has run into difficulties in obtaining a mortgage due to the restriction and as well as now seeking to amend the design and position of the dwelling also seeks relief from a condition tying the occupation of the dwelling to an employee of the business, in lieu of

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE a local occupancy restriction which, it has been stated, would be acceptable to mortgage providers. 8.2.5 The applicant has provided copies of letters from three mortgage lenders confirming such, along with a letter from the Company’s Accountant setting out the reasons why the dwelling could not reasonably be financed by other means. As this contains financial information about the applicants and the Company’s financial affairs it has to be treated as being confidential and cannot therefore be reproduced in this report. Officers however have no reason to doubt the information being put forward to support the application. 8.2.6 Though the substitution of the ‘business occupancy condition’ with a ‘local occupancy condition’ would be contrary to the Council’s normal practices the siting of the dwelling, immediately adjacent to the rear of the Garage premises and accessed through the business forecourt, means that it is doubtful that the property would ever be likely to be sold separately from the business in this particular instance. It is also the case that in the unfortunate event that the business were to fail at some time in the future the imposition of a ‘local occupancy condition’ means that the dwelling would become available to meet the needs of the wider local community and that it would be prevented from becoming a market led, second or holiday home. 8.2.7 In other respects no objections have been received and the design details and materials proposed, subject to the agreement/confirmation of exact type and colour, are considered to be satisfactory. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 The site is immediately to the rear of one of the existing garage buildings and the new house would appear as being well related to the existing settlement pattern. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 There would no adverse impact on any neighbours. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The New Homes Bonus is a material consideration in the determination of any application for new housing although it is up to the decision making authority to decide how much weight it is to apply to this in consideration against the main planning merits. Under the New Homes Bonus scheme, the Council receives an annual cash grant for each new home built. The cash grant for each house is dependent upon Council Tax banding with the average size house returning £1,439 plus an extra £350 if it is affordable. In two tier areas the local planning authority (ie Eden District Council) retains 80% of the bonus with 20% going to the County Council. Therefore if this scheme, based on the indicative scale and layout, was to be agreed the total bonus to be received by the Council would be as follows:

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Annual Bonus £ Affordable Houses (3* £1,789) 0 Other Houses (None* £1,439) 1,439.00 Total Annual Bonus 1,439.00 EDC Annual Share @80% 1,151.20 Est EDC Share over 6 years 6,907.20 9.2 The Council has an agreed protocol for how it spends New Homes Bonus. Each year the first £100,000 is allocated to the Council’s Community Fund: This supports a range of community lead projects. The balance of available funding is allocated to the Council’s Housing Board for use in the support of affordable houses to address housing needs throughout the District. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10.7 New Homes Bonus 10.7.1 Section 70(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011 Section 143 with effect from 15 January 2012) requires that in determining planning applications, the Council must have regard to any local finance considerations as well as the Development Plan and any other material considerations. Section 70(4) goes on to explain that for these purposes “local finance consideration” means a grant

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE or other financial assistance that has been, or will be or could be provided to the relevant authority by as Minister of the Crown - such as the New Homes Bonus in this instance. It is up to Members to decide what weight to attach to it, if any. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords to the Development Plan for the following reasons: The proposal is for housing required to satisfy the functional and operational needs of an existing rural business in a location where unrestricted, market led housing would not otherwise be permitted.

Gwyn Clark Head of Planning Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning Files 14/0654 and 13/0506

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Item 8 Date of Committee: 18 December 2014

Planning Application No: 14/0834 Date Received: 26 September 2014

OS Grid Ref: 357923 Expiry Date: 21 November 2014 539099

Parish: Glassonby Ward: Langwathby

Proposal: Erection of a new dwelling on land adjacent to Brookside, Glassonby

Location: Land adj to Brookside, Glassonby, Penrith

Applicant: Mr and Mrs A+J Relph

Agent: Space Designed Solutions

Case Officer: Rachel Lightfoot

Reason for Referral: The recommendation to refuse the application is contrary to the views of the Parish Council

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that the application be refused for the following reason: 1. The proposed dwelling is considered to be located in the open countryside outwith the village of Glassonby and in a location where local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes unless special circumstances are demonstrated. It is not considered that there is an essential need for the applicant to live in this location and the design is not of an exceptional quality or innovative nature. Therefore the application is contrary to Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CS9 Housing on Rural Exception Sites of the Eden Core Strategy and Policy NE1 of the Eden Local Plan (Saved Policy).

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The proposal is to provide a single storey dwelling for the applicants with an attached garage, parking area and garden. The new dwelling would have a floor area of approximately 138.7sqm with an attached garage. The dwelling consists of three bedrooms, living room, bathroom, ensuite and utility room, kitchen diner and hall area. 2.1.2 Justification for the location and provision of the dwelling is put forward on the basis of the applicant’s personal circumstances relating to a degenerative medical condition with a local connection to the village and a dwelling (Brookside) which is considered by the applicants to be unsuitable and further not suitable for disabled adaptations. 2.1.3 The submission is accompanied by a statement that the applicant is also willing to offer one of the following which would be delivered through a s106 agreement: 1. Provision of the existing property at Brookside as an affordable dwelling (i.e. subject to a discount which would limit the value of the property to the Council’s current maximum value of £136,000, or 2. Provision of a plot of land to the east of the application site for self build etc. This would the provision of the land only. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site is considered to lie outwith the village boundaries of Glassonby. It is approximately 105m from the last dwelling in the village to the site (as the crow flies) with Brookside being a further 70m on (again as the crow flies).The site is adjacent to an existing dormer bungalow on a greenfield site which slopes gently south to north and accessed via an existing track. 3. Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response Cumbria County Council - No objection Highway Authority Housing Officer Comments have been provided that the existing house would not be acceptable as an affordable house due to its location and value.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response

Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Object Support No Response No View Council/Meeting Expressed Glassonby  4.1 Parish Response: Glassonby Parish Councillors have no objections to the above planning application and apologies for the delay one of the Parish Councillors had forgot to return the plans before the deadline and they took a little tracking down. The Parish Councillors would like to mention that the application is for one of the Parish Councillors of which he has declared an interest. Glassonby Council have started the long process of trying to see if any housing could be built in the Parish especially in Glassonby for local residents. The Parish had a housing survey done in 2011 which showed the lack of affordable and local homes for the young, family and elderly people in the parish, of which it has become apparent that we are in desperate need of. The application is for a retirement bungalow of which the village has very few. The residents need to move from a house to a bungalow for medical reasons. The Parish Council are aware that the above application has been declined once in the past and therefore would like to see the application passed. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to near neighbours and a site notice was posted on 09 October 2014

No of Neighbours Consulted 6 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations 1 No of neutral representations 0 Received No of objection letters 1 5.2 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are material considerations to the application:  The site is outside of the village and visible from the road in a village with no services and other applications have been declined/withdrawn on this basis. 6. Relevant Planning History There is no relevant planning history

Application No Description Outcome 95/0315 Outline application for one storey Refused – outside dwelling and garage village boundary

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

The refusal reasons read as follows: 1. The proposed development is contrary to Policy NE1 of the Eden District Local Plan (Deposit Draft) which seeks to protect the countryside from unnecessary development 2. The proposed development would consolidate the unsatisfactory isolated development in the area to the detriment of the visual amenity of the landscape. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Policy No - Description CS1 - Sustainable Development Principles CS2 - Locational Strategy CS7 - Principles for Housing CS9 - Housing on Rural Exception Sites NE1 - Development in the Open Countryside - Eden Local Plan Saved Policies Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework - Paragraph 55 - New homes in the countryside The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues Justification, relating to the provision of housing as an exception to policy. Design and layout. 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The proposal seeks the approval of a dwelling on land which is considered to be outwith the settlement boundaries of Glassonby. As a settlement, Glassonby is neither a key nor local service centre in the adopted Eden Core Strategy which reflects the lack of services within the settlement. The site is considered to be outside the boundary in any case and as a result, Policy CS9 - Housing on Rural Exception Sites is relevant and requires that new houses in these locations are to be affordable to meet and identified local housing need. In addition, paragraph 55 of the NPPF requires that isolated new homes in the countryside should be avoided unless there are special circumstances such as the essential need for a rural worker to live at or near their place of work; where the development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset; where the development would re-use a redundant or disused building or where the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design would justify approval. 8.2.2 The applicants, Mr and Mrs Relph reside at the dwelling known as Brookside which is approximately 70m from the site. Mrs Relph has a medical condition which limits her mobility and is progressive. A letter of support from the Parkinsons UK accompanies the application. The application is argued on the basis that the dwelling would meet

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Mrs Relph’s current and future needs and in addition that there is potential to either secure an affordable unit through the control of the existing property at Brookside or through the ‘gifting’ of a plot. 8.2.3 The applicants assert that the current house at Brookside is unsuited for modification and extension to provide accommodation which would meet Mrs Relph’s medical needs and that other suitable accommodation is not present in Glassonby where the applicants have spent all of their lives and have been active members of the community. It is intended that their daughter would reside at the house at Brookside in order to assist with care. 8.2.4 Whilst Officers have sympathy with the medical predicament the applicants are in, personal circumstances are not a reason for granting planning permission and difficult personal decisions in terms of finding dwellings appropriate for care requirements are faced throughout the District on a regular basis particularly as the population continues to change. Whilst there is a desire to stay within Glassonby, there has been no consideration of dwellings or land which may be more appropriate in other villages adjacent. The land has been subject to a previous refusal in 1995 on the basis that it was considered to be in the open countryside resulting in unsatisfactory isolated development in the area to the detriment of the visual amenity of the landscape. It is not considered that there have been any material changes in circumstances which would change this view. (Members are reminded that similar stances have been taken at Skirwith - ref 13/0749, and an appeal was similarly dismissed at Gill Forge, Ellonby ref 10/0492). 8.2.5 However, as a justification for permitting the dwelling, the applicants are proposing to either enter into a s106 to restrict the existing property at Brookside in terms of its value to discount it to an affordable value or provide a plot which would be transferred to the Council. It is not considered that affordable housing in this location is sustainable into the long term, it is not well related to services and functions such as schools and shops would have to be accessed by car and is of a size and value placing it well beyond what can legitimately be considered ‘affordable’ . For these reasons it is unlikely that any affordable housing would have a long term sustainable future in this location and it is not considered that the consolidation of additional dwellings is appropriate. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 The dwelling is positioned within the open countryside but adjacent to an existing bungalow which was built pre 1974. The site will be visible from the adjacent road as it rises up the hill with little impact from the roadside once at the entrance to the site. From the village, views are limited by existing hedgerow and it is not considered that in this element, the dwelling would have an impact. However, within the wider landscape, the addition of another property within this location would consolidate the residential nature of the site and would not be generally welcomed. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 The proposed dwelling would be adjacent to the existing house at Rose Bank. It is considered that sufficient separation distances have been provided for in order to ensure that residential amenity is not compromised. There is no objection in this regard.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.5 Built Environment 8.5.1 The bungalow is simply detailed with rendered walls and a slate roof. It is not considered that the design is inappropriate and there is no objection in this regard. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The New Homes Bonus is a material consideration in the determination of any application for new housing although it is up to the decision making authority to decide how much weight it is to apply to this in consideration against the main planning merits. Under the New Homes Bonus scheme, the Council receives an annual cash grant for each new home built. The cash grant for each house is dependent upon Council Tax banding with the average size house returning £1,439 plus an extra £350 if it is affordable. In two tier areas the local planning authority (ie Eden District Council) retains 80% of the bonus with 20% going to the County Council. Therefore if this scheme, based on the indicative scale and layout, was to be agreed the total bonus to be received by the Council would be as follows: Annual Bonus £ Affordable Houses (3* £1,789) Other Houses (1* £1,439) £1,439.00 Total Annual Bonus £1,439.00 EDC Annual Share @80% £1,151.20 Est EDC Share over 6 years £6,907.20 9.2 The Council has an agreed protocol for how it spends New Homes Bonus. Each year the first £100,000 is allocated to the Council’s Community Fund: This supports a range of community lead projects. The balance of available funding is allocated to the Council’s Housing Board for use in the support of affordable houses to address housing needs throughout the District. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10.7 New Homes Bonus 10.7.1 Section 70(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011 Section 143 with effect from 15 January 2012) requires that in determining planning applications, the Council must have regard to any local finance considerations as well as the Development Plan and any other material considerations. Section 70(4) goes on to explain that for these purposes “local finance consideration” means a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will be or could be provided to the relevant authority by as Minister of the Crown - such as the New Homes Bonus in this instance. It is up to Members to decide what weight to attach to it, if any. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal does not accord to the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: the site is considered to be in the open countryside without sufficient justification given for allowing an exception to normal planning policy. The personal circumstances of applicants are not sufficient to override adopted local and national policy.

Gwyn Clark Head of Planning Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer  Background Papers: Planning File

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Item 9 Date of Committee: 18 December 2014

Planning Application No: 14/0947 Date Received: 24 October 2014

OS Grid Ref: 358189 535374 Expiry Date: 21 November 2014

Parish: Hunsonby Ward: Langwathby

Proposal: Non-material amendment to planning permission 10/0273 requiring the omission of a first floor window and inclusion of a canopy to the front elevation.

Location: 13 Moorside, Hunsonby, Penrith, CA10 1PL

Applicant: Mr and Mrs D Brier

Agent: None

Case Officer: Mr Daniel Addis

Reason for Referral: One of the applicants is employed by the Council and works in the planning department.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that the application for a non-material amendment is approved.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 Planning permission 10/0273 for a two storey front extension, single storey rear extension and erection of detached garage was granted on 17 June 2010. This application seeks a non-material amendment to the permission which requires the omission of a first floor window and inclusion of a canopy to the front elevation. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application property lies within the village of Hunsonby, approximately 100 metres south of the village swimming pool. 3. Statutory Consultees No consultations were required for this application. 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response It is not necessary to consult the parish council on applications of this nature. 5. Representations Applications of this type are not advertised and representations are not taken into account. 6. Relevant Planning History

Application No Description Outcome 10/0273 Proposed two storey front extension, Approved 17 June single storey rear extension and erection 2010 of detached garage. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan The development plan is not relevant to this type of application. Other Material Considerations Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) The extracted sections of PPG below are the most relevant considerations relating to this application. Non-Material Amendments “There is no statutory definition of ‘non-material’. This is because it will be dependent on the context of the overall scheme - an amendment that is non-material in one context may be material in another. The local planning authority must be satisfied that

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE the amendment sought is non-material in order to grant an application under section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.” Consultation/publicity “As an application to make a non-material amendment is not an application for planning permission, the existing Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 provisions relating to statutory consultation and publicity do not apply. Therefore local planning authorities have discretion in whether and how they choose to inform other interested parties or seek their views.” Notification “As an application for a non-material amendment is not an application for planning permission, the normal provisions relating to notification do not apply. Instead, before the application is made, the applicant must notify anyone who is an owner of the land which would be affected by the non-material amendment or, where the land comprises an agricultural holding, the tenant of that holding. The applicant must also record who has been notified on the application form. Anyone notified must be told where the application can be viewed, and that they have 14 days to make representations to the local planning authority.” Considerations “The local planning authority must have regard to the effect of the change, together with any previous changes made under section 96A. They must also take into account any representations made by anyone notified, provided they are received within 14 days of notification.” Decision “The decision only relates to the non-material amendments sought and the notice of the decision should describe these. It is not a reissue of the original planning permission, which still stands. The two documents should be read together.” 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Determining Issue  Whether the changes to the original permission are material or non-material. 8.2 The window 8.2.1 The omission of a window will not result in a material change to the permission and therefore it is non-material. 8.3 The canopy 8.3.1 The addition of a canopy will not result in a material change to the permission and therefore it is non-material. 8.4 Conclusion 8.4.1 The omission of the window and the addition of a canopy even when both taken together are considered to be non-material.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 9. New Homes Bonus This is not relevant to this application. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 None 10.1.2 Consideration has also been given to the following issues:  Equality  Natural Environment and Rural Communities  Crime and Disorder  Children 10.1.3 There are no implications arising from this report. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposed changes to the original planning permission by virtue of the omission of a window and the addition of a canopy are non-material and therefore that the application should be approved.

Gwyn Clark Head of Planning Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Item 10 Date of Committee: 18 December 2014

Planning Application No: 14/0765 Date Received: 5 September 2014

OS Grid Ref: 356 623 Expiry Date: 28 October 2014 536 084

Parish: Hunsonby Ward: Langwathby

Proposal: Outline planning permission for the erection of two houses with approval sought for access

Location: Garden to Orchard Cottage, Little Salkeld, Penrith

Applicant: Mr and Mrs D Addis

Agent:

Case Officer: Mr Kevin Hutchinson

Reason for Referral: The Applicant is an employee of Development Management, at the request of the Local Member and an objector has requested to be heard at Committee

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that delegated power be given to the Head of Planning Services to grant planning permission subject to the applicant first submitting a Unilateral Undertaking should this be required to the absolute satisfaction of the Director of Corporate and Legal Services in respect of the provision of a 3% financial contribution towards affordable housing and subject to the following conditions: 1. The development permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. 2. Application for approval of all remaining reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 3 Approval of the details of the scale, layout, and external appearance of the building (s), and the landscaping of the site (called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. 4. No development shall take place within the area indicated as of archaeological interest until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This written scheme will include the following: i) An archaeological evaluation: ii) An archaeological recording programme the scope of which will be dependent upon the results of the evaluation; iii) Where appropriate, a post excavation assessment and analysis, preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store approved by the Local Planning Authority, completion of an archive report, and submission of the results for publication in a suitable journal. 5. As part of the submission of the Reserved Matters, a scheme for surface water and foul water drainage on separate systems (inclusive of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage scheme submitted for approval shall be in accordance with the principles set out in the planning application proposing surface water discharging into the soakaway. No part of the development shall be occupied until the drainage scheme has been constructed in accordance with the approved details. For the avoidance of doubt, neither surface water, land drainage, nor highway drainage shall connect into the public sewerage system (directly or indirectly). The development shall be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details. Reasons 1. In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

3. The application is in outline form only and is not accompanied by full detailed plans. 4. To afford opportunity for an examination to be made to determine the existence of any remains of archaeological interest within the site and for the preservation, examination or recording of such remains. 5. To ensure that the site can be adequately drained in respect of foul and surface water drainage.

Informative In order to define the terms of the permission no permission is granted or implied in respect of the housing layout of the site as shown on the revised drawing No C1420- 01-RevA and received on 9 October 2014. 2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The proposal relates to part of an extensive garden/orchard area to the front of Orchard Cottage within the village of Little Salkeld. A rectangular front garden to Orchard Cottage is maintained as its front and only garden area, with the remaining 0.2Has subdivided to provide for the application site. The proposal, which is supported by an indicative layout plan, shows two detached, two storey dwelling houses within spacious grounds taking access from a new and separate access position to the north of the garden area. 2.1.2 The applicant is willing to agree to provide the 3% financial contribution towards affordable housing through a Unilateral Undertaking (should this be required) and has confirmed that this will be provided prior to the release of any planning permission that may be forthcoming. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 Orchard Cottage forms an end of terrace building on a row of farm buildings. The farm buildings to Bank House all face west into the farm yard, with Orchard Cottage conversely facing east in to the orchard area to the rear of the farm yard. Orchard Cottage is retaining the immediate rectangular front garden area and part of the orchard for its own domestic use. The remaining area of the orchard forms the application site which is to be provided with a new access arrangement. 2.2.2 The application site is on slightly undulating ground rising to the north east, located between a single track road to the north and is set within its junction to the village road from Langwathby, which runs north-south along the eastern boundary. The boundary to the north and east is formed by a substantial boundary wall between 1.5m and 2m in height. The village road to the east is at its highest point at the junction with the single track road, dropping towards Orchard Cottage to the east, and also dropping southwards towards the southern entrance to the village at the crossing point of a small river some 90m to the south. 2.2.3 The consequence of the respective change in levels is that the southern part of the application site is located well above the village road level with the boundary wall forming a retaining structure in this southern portion. The change in level also has the

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE consequence in that the neighbouring dwelling ‘Orchard Bungalow’ to the south is set in a correspondingly low cut terrace, some 3m below that of the neighbouring ground level of the application site. 2.2.4 The application site is located within the established limits of Little Salkeld, which is identified as a Local Service Centre within the Eden Core Strategy which identifies such settlements as capable of accommodating ‘small scale development to sustain local services, support rural business and meet local needs, including housing , provision of employment and improvements to accessibility’. 3. Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response CCC Highways No objection, access arrangements shown on amended plan are acceptable. Environment Health No objection Tree Officer No objection subject to a condition preventing the felling of trees without the consent of the Local Planning Authority to prevent their unnecessary loss of trees. CCC Historic Environment No objection subject to the implementation of a Officer programme of archaeological recording of the site in accordance with a written scheme of investigation. Affordable Housing Officer No objection subject to the applicant first providing a Unilateral Undertaking to provide a 3% financial undertaking. 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response

Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Object Support No Response Observation Council/Meeting Hunsonby x 4.1 ‘The Councillors of Hunsonby Parish Council have no objections to the plans submitted but ask that the planners consider any comments from neighbours’ 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to 5 near neighbours and a site notice was posted on 9 September 2014

No of Neighbours Consulted 5 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations 2 No of neutral representations 0 Received No of objection letters 2

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 5.2 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are material considerations to the application:  Loss of attractive garden within village.  Alterations to access road will have an adverse impact on the character of the village and has adverse impact on road safety both on access road and at junction where there is restricted visibility.  Existing long-standing access should be used.  No need for additional development, with 18 dwellings recently approved at Thompson’s Board Mill.  Little Salkeld has insufficient facilities to accommodate additional development.  The proposal would overload the foul drainage sewer which is already at capacity.  Access and the overall detailed application should be considered at the same time.  Proposed development will overlook and have an overbearing impact on adjacent property at Croft House, due to high site level relative to Croft House and also Croft Bungalow.  Proposal is out of character and will appear overbearing in this part of the village due to changes in levels throughout the site and in respect of adjoining land which is as much as 1.5m above the road level at the southern-most part of the site. 6. Relevant Planning History

Application Description Outcome No 91/0597 Residential Development (Outline) Refused 17 October 1991 1. The development of the site would result in a significant intrusion into the visually important area of open space in the centre of Little Salkeld resulting in a serious detriment into the visual amenity of the area and the character of the village. 2. The development of the site could lead to subsequent pressure to develop the remainder of the field which would result in a further erosion of the character of the settlement. 3. The proposed development would have an adverse affect upon the amenity and occupation of nearby dwellings.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan: Eden Core Strategy CS1 Sustainable Development Principles CS2 Locational Strategy CS6 Developer Contributions CS7 Principles for Housing CS10 Affordable Housing CS16 Principles for the Natural Environment CS18 Design of New Development Housing SPD: Residential Development Guidelines Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework - Introduction: Achieving Sustainable Development The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Site Access  Impact on adjoining residential amenity  Impact on natural Environment  Affordable Housing 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The site history is a material consideration, however since the refusal of outline planning permission 91/0597 in October 1991 there has been a material change in circumstances in the adoption of the Eden Core Strategy in 2010 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March 2012. 8.2.2 The NPPF published in March 2012 states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development with relevant policies for the supply of housing not considered up-to-date if the LPA cannot demonstrate a five year land supply. The Council cannot currently demonstrate to 5 year housing land supply and therefore in terms of decision-making, the NPPF states in paragraph 14 that: ‘For decision-taking this means:  Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and  Where the development plan is absent, silent or relative policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or  Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.’ 8.2.3 Eden Core Strategy CS2: Locational Strategy identifies Little Salkeld as a Local Service Centre, where development would be limited to “small scale development to sustain local services, support rural businesses and meet local needs including housing, provision of employment, improvements to accessibility”. However, given that the council cannot demonstrate an up-to-date 5 year supply of housing land this policy is not considered to be up to date and consistent with the NPPF. As such it is considered that little weight can be given to this restrictive housing policy in the determination of this application, and greater weight should be attributed to the policies within the NPPF which presumes in favour of sustainable development. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 The site is well related to the central part of the village and is similar in many respects to many other infill development sits coming forward throughout the District. The previous refusal was based on its potential impact on the character of the village and the importance of maintaining the ‘open space’. 8.3.2 In reviewing this issue, the site is within a semi mature orchard area to the front of Orchard Cottage, containing a wide variety of semi mature fruit and other trees. The trees are not the subject of a TPO and the site is not within a protected landscape designation, within the grounds of a Listed Building or within a Conservation Area. Although the proposal would involve the clearing of a number of trees within the site to enable the erection of two dwellings, the Council Tree Officer confirms that they are localised and limited amenity value in the area and has no objection to specified removal. Otherwise the site is well contained and centrally located within the village which in turn is set within an undulating landscape which contains view to a localised impact. 8.3.3 The NPPF is very clear in advising approval ‘Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.’ In this instance it is considered that the loss of the garden/orchard area to enable this development does not ‘significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,’ such as to warrant a recommendation of refusal on this ground. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 The third reason for refusal based on the proposal having an adverse effect upon the amenity and occupation of nearby dwellings could remain a valid ground and should be re-considered. 8.4.2 Within the grounds of Orchard Cottage, the proposal retains a rectangular amenity space between 15m and 27m deep to be enjoyed by Orchard Cottage and which would provide for an adequate separation distance with the proposed development. 8.4.2 The two adjacent properties most affected by the proposal are Orchard bungalow to the south within a low terrace area and Croft House on the opposite side of the road junction to the north east of the site. Orchard Bungalow to the south is set on a low

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE terrace some 3m below ground level of the southern end of the application site. The indicative layout plan shows a two storey dwelling on the southern part of the site some 20m from and overlooking towards the rear of the bungalow containing two bedroom windows. Although the inter-visibility of the respective windows and the change in levels between the two dwellings is of concern, it is considered that if the dwellings was re-orientated to face east this concern could be adequately addressed. As this is an outline application with only access being sought, it is considered that the layout and detailing of the southern-most property can be adequately addressed at the Reserved Matters stage. 8.4.3 Croft House on the opposite side of the road junction is orientated to face due south, with a blank two storey gable bounding the village road. The indicative layout plan shows the northern most dwelling also orientated north south, with a corresponding gable facing the gable of Croft Houses, which is considered otherwise acceptable. 8.4.4 Overall although there may be concerns over the layout shown on the indicative plan submitted in support of the application, it is considered that the concern relates primarily to its relationship to Orchard Bungalow. Such concern can be addressed at the Reserved Matters stage by reorientation, and/or the repositioning the dwelling on the site, coupled with appropriate boundary fencing/hedging. 8.5 Infrastructure 8.5.1 The site can be adequately accessed and serviced, there being no objection from United Utilities and County Highways. 8.6 Natural Environment 8.6.1 The orchard garden provides an attractive private garden area within the village, but is not the subject of any specific protective designation or TPO. The loss of some of the trees to enable the development is not considered unacceptable within this village location and some of the existing trees on site can be retained to form the basis of a landscaping scheme within any subsequent Reserved Matters application. However, the use of a condition preventing felling does not protect trees in the period running up to the implementation of the proposal. If the trees are of sufficient concern then the only mechanism to ensure the protection is by their use of a TPO. The tree officer confirms that they are not of sufficient importance to warrant protection of a TPO. 8.7 Built Environment 8.7.1 Little Salkeld is an attractive rural village, with a loose built form, which in the vicinity of the application site is dominated by the Bank House Farm group amongst a scattering of traditional vernacular stone houses. The exception to this is Orchard Bungalow to the south which is a modern bungalow and Sunny Gill again to the south, which is a modern two storey dwelling. 8.7.1 Within this varied built environment it is considered that the development of this elevated central site would be acceptable subject to an appropriate design being considered at the subsequent Reserved Matters stage. 8.8 Affordable Housing Contribution 8.8.1 The applicant is agreeable to provide the necessary Unilateral Undertaking to provide a 3% financial contribution to affordable housing required by policy in respect of residential developments of three or less. This would be a prerequisite to the issue of a planning permission.

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The New Homes Bonus is a material consideration in the determination of any application for new housing although it is up to the decision making authority to decide how much weight it is to apply to this in consideration against the main planning merits. Under the New Homes Bonus scheme, the Council receives an annual cash grant for each new home built. The cash grant for each house is dependent upon Council Tax banding with the average size house returning £1,439 plus an extra £350 if it is affordable. In two tier areas the local planning authority (ie Eden District Council) retains 80% of the bonus with 20% going to the County Council. Therefore if this scheme, based on the indicative scale and layout, was to be agreed the total bonus to be received by the Council would be as follows: Annual Bonus £ Affordable Houses (none @ £1,789) Other Houses (2 @ £1,439) £2,878 Total Annual Bonus £2,878 EDC Annual Share @80% £2,302 Est EDC Share over 6 years £13,813 9.2 The Council has an agreed protocol for how it spends New Homes Bonus. Each year the first £100,000 is allocated to the Council’s Community Fund: This supports a range of community lead projects. The balance of available funding is allocated to the Council’s Housing Board for use in the support of affordable houses to address housing needs throughout the District. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions.

100

Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10.7 New Homes Bonus 10.7.1 Section 70(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011 Section 143 with effect from 15 January 2012) requires that in determining planning applications, the Council must have regard to any local finance considerations as well as the Development Plan and any other material considerations. Section 70(4) goes on to explain that for these purposes “local finance consideration” means a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will be or could be provided to the relevant authority by as Minister of the Crown - such as the New Homes Bonus in this instance. It is up to Members to decide what weight to attach to it, if any. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords to the Development Plan for the following reasons: The proposal provides for a modest residential development, within a designated Local Service Centre without any significant or demonstrable, material adverse impact on the character or amenity of the area and secures the requisite financial contribution towards affordable housing. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with policies CS1, CS2, CS6 and CS10 of the Eden Core Strategy.

Gwyn Clark Head of Planning Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

101