Resources Legal and Democratic Services  The Lonsdale Building  The Courts  Carlisle  CA3 8NA  Fax 01228 226372 Tel 01228 606060  Email [email protected]

To: The Chair and Members of the Development Control and Regulation Committee

Agenda

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATION COMMITTEE

A meeting of the Development Control and Regulation Committee will be held as follows:

Date: Thursday 3 January 2013 Time: 11.00 am Place: Council Chamber - County Offices, Kendal

Angela Harwood Assistant Director – Legal and Democratic Services

Group Meetings:

Labour: 10.15am Committee Room 1 Conservative: 10.00am Committee Room 2 Liberal Democrat: 10.00am Committee Room 4

Enquiries and requests for supporting papers to: Janine Hounslow Direct Line: 01228 226906 Email: [email protected]

This agenda is available on request in alternative formats

Serving the People of Cumbria

1 MEMBERSHIP

Conservative ( 9) Labour (5) Liberal Democrat (3)

Mr LN Fisher (Chairman) Mr I Stockdale (Vice-Chair) Mrs BC Gray Mr W Bleasdale Mr KR Hamilton Mr J McCreesh Mrs HF Carrick Mr JS Holliday Mr I Stewart Mr J Cowell Mr G Humes Mr P Hornby Mr FI Morgan Mr AP Richardson Mr M Stephenson Mrs V Tarbitt Mr A Toole

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Agenda and Reports

Copies of the agenda and Part I reports are available for members of the public to inspect prior to the meeting. Copies will also be available at the meeting.

The agenda and Part I reports are also available on the County Council’s website – www.cumbria.gov.uk

Background Papers

Requests for the background papers to the Part I reports, excluding those papers that contain exempt information, can be made to the Legal and Democratic Services Unit at the address overleaf between the hours of 9.00 am and 4.30 pm, Monday to Friday.

2 A G E N D A

PART 1: ITEMS LIKELY TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC

1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENC E

To receive any apologies for absence.

2 CHANGES IN M EMBERSHIP

To note any changes in membership.

3 DISCLOSURES OF INTER EST

Members are invited to disclose any disclosable pecuniary interest they have in any item on the agenda which comprises

1 Details of any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain.

2 Details of any payment or provision of any other financial benefit (other than from the authority) made or provided within the relevant period in respect of any expenses incurred by you in carrying out duties as a member, or towards your election expenses. (This includes any payment or financial benefit from a trade union within the meaning of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

3 Details of any contract which is made between you (or a body in which you have a beneficial interest) and the authority

(a) Under which goods or services are to be provided or works are to be executed; and

(b) Which has not been fully discharged.

4 Details of any beneficial interest in land which is within the area of the authority.

5 Details of any licence (alone or jointly with others) to occupy land in the area of the authority for a month or longer.

6 Details of any tenancy where (to your knowledge)

(a) The landlord is the authority; and

(b) The tenant is a body in which you have a beneficial interest.

7 Details of any beneficial interest in securities of a body where

3

(a) That body (to your knowledge) has a place of business or land in the area of the authority; and

(b) Either –

(i) The total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body; or

(ii) If that share capital of that body is of more than one class, the total nominal value of the shares of any one class in which the relevant person has a beneficial interest exceeds one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that class.

In addition, you must also disclose other non-pecuniary interests set out in the Code of Conduct where these have not already been registered.

Note

A “disclosable pecuniary interest” is an interest of a councillor or their partner (which means spouse or civil partner, a person with whom they are living as husband or wife, or a person with whom they are living as if they are civil partners).

4 EXCLUSION OF PRESS A ND PUBLIC

To consider whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during consideration of any item on the agenda.

5 MINUTES

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting held on 13 November 2013 (copy enclosed). (Pages 1 - 6)

6 HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 a Proposed Dedication of Bridleway and Footpath at Murton Fell, Parish of Murton, District of Eden

[Electora l Division: Appleby]

This report informs members that the Ministry of Defence has agreed to dedicate a number of public rights of way on their property at Murton Fell and High Cup Nick. This can be done by an Agreement under Section 25 of the Highways Act 1980. (Pages 7 - 10) b Proposed Dedication of Footpath at St Bees Head, Parish of St Bees, District of Copeland.

[Electoral Divisions: Kells and Sandwith; St Bees and Egremont; Mirehouse]

4 This report informs members that as a result of coastal erosion part of a very popular coastal walk along the cliffs at St Bees Head has been lost, and temporary measures have been put in place to secure public access. This can be done by an Agreement under Section 25 of the Highways Act 1980. (Pages 11 - 16)

7 WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981 a Legal Event Modification Order No 3 - 2000-2009

[Electoral Divisions: All]

This report informs members that Officers have been collating the information to bring Cumbria County Council’s Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way up to date since its last review in 1976. All the legal events in all six district of the county for the period 2000 to 2009 have been recorded and Legal Event Modification Order No 3 is now ready to make. (Pages 17 - 24) b Section 53 Proposal to Add a Right of Way to The Definitive Map in the Parish of Lowca: District of Copeland

[Electoral Division: Distington and Moresby]

This report informs members of An application has been received by the County Council to add a section of bridleway from the bottom of Lowca where it meets the Parton road to its junction with public bridleway 413015 locally known as Micklam Coastal Walk in the parish of Lowca. A decision needs to be made whether to proceed with the next stage of the process by making a legal order. If that order is then confirmed Cumbria’s Definitive Map and Statement will be altered to record the new section of public right of way. (Pages 25 - 30)

8 REPORTS ON CONSULTAT IONS BY DISTRICT COU NCILS, NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITIES, ADJOINING PLANNING AUTHORITIES & GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS, ETC.

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Schedule 1, paragraph 7, the County Council is consulted on those applications which are considered to fall within the agreed Development Control Code of Practice for Cumbria. Case Officer Contact Details are provided in the Footnote, following the list of Applications/consultations which may be considered at future meetings, etc. (Pages 31 - 32) a Planning Application No. 1/12/0793 Erection of 295 No. Dwellings (Including 59 No. Affordable Dwellings), Associated Open Space and Infrastructure, Land bounded by Hammonds Pond, Oaklands Drive and Durdar Road, Carlisle (Pages 33 - 70) b Planning Application No. 1/12/0878 Erection Of 128 No. Dwellings, Associated Open Space and Infrastructure, Land between Townhead Road and Station Road, Dalston (Pages 71 - 100) c Planning Application No. 5/12/0845 Siting of 3 Wind Turbines (132 metres high to blade tip), control building, anemometer mast and access tracks, Land to the North of Killington Reservoir (Pages 101 - 110)

5 d Planning Application No. 5/12/0832 Hybrid application for full permission for demolition of existing buildings, erection of foodstore, petrol filling station, kiosk, car wash, new vehicular and pedestrian access, creation of new internal roads, car parking including recycling area, landscaping and boundary treatments and outline permission for the erection of business units for b1(business) or b2 (general industrial) with vehicular access, Land South of the A590 and North of Railway Line, Ulverston (Pages 111 - 134)

9 REPORTS ON APPLICATI ONS FOR PLANNING PER MISSION

These are applications which are determined by the County Council after taking into account the views of consultees and relevant representations. Applications in this category are prescribed by legislation. Private applications principally relate to minerals and waste management activities and associated development. County applications are developments which are to be carried out by the County Council itself or jointly with any other person. (Pages 135 - 136) a Planning Application No. 3/11/9009 & 3/11/9010 Variation of Planning Permission 3/91/0571 to extend the period of operation and Variation of Planning Permission 3/04/9015 to extend the period of time for the soil storage bund for 22 years at Low Plains Quarry for 22 years, Low Plains Quarry, Armathwaite, Penrith (Pages 137 - 198) b Planning Application No. 4/12/9005 Retention of temporary aggregate loading facility and access track, Land at Castle Farm, Off A5093, Millom, LA18 5EY (Pages 199 - 214) c Planning Application No. 5/12/9009 Erection and operation of wash plant and associated infrastructure and increased height of screening mound. Roan Edge Landfill and Recycling Facility Site, New Hutton, Killington, Kendal, LA8 0AP (Pages 215 - 238) d Planning Application No. 6/12/9014 Proposed Conservatory, Newbarns Primary School, Rising Side, Barrow-in-Furness, LA13 9ET (Pages 239 - 248)

10 APPLICATIONS/CONSULT ATI ONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

[Electoral Divisions: Various]

To receive a report from the Assistant Director – Planning and Sustainability (copy enclosed).

To note that these are applications/consultations that have recently been determined by the Assistant Director – Planning and Sustainability in accordance with their schemes of delegation. (Pages 249 - 250)

11 APPLICATIONS/CONSULT ATIONS PROPOSED TO B E DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

6 [Electoral Divisions: Various]

To receive a report from the Assistant Director – Planning and Sustainability (copy enclosed).

To note that these applications that have been submitted to the County Council but are not ready/appropriate for presentation to the Committee of for determination under delegated powers and/or have been recently withdrawn or determined as invalid or not requiring planning permission etc. (Pages 251 - 252)

12 APPLICATIONS TO BE C ONSIDERED AT FUTURE MEETINGS

[Electoral Divisions: Various]

To receive a report from the Assistant Director – Planning and Sustainability (copy enclosed).

To note the list of outstanding planning applications. (Pages 253 - 256)

7 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATION COMMITTEE

Minutes of a Meeting of the Development Control and Regulation Committee held on Tuesday, 13 November 2012 at 11.00 am at Council Chamber - County Offices, Kendal, LA9 4RQ

PRESENT :

Mr LN Fisher (Chairman)

Mr I Stockdale (Vice-Chair) Mr G Humes Mr W Bleasdale Mr J McCreesh Mrs HF Carrick Mr FI Morgan Mr J Cowell Mr AP Richardson Mrs BC Gray Mr M Stephenson Mr KR Hamilton Mrs V Tarbitt Mr P Hornby Mr A Toole

Also in Attendance:-

Mr T Bowes - Solicitor Mrs J Corry - Team Leader, Development Control Mr I Fairlamb - Planning Services Manager Ms J Hounslow - Senior Democratic Services Officer Mrs M Mason - Senior Planning Officer Mr A Sims - PROW Mapping Officer, Environment Ms M Spark - Solicitor

-

PART 1 – ITEMS CONSIDERED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PUBLIC AND PRESS

63 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Mr I Stewart.

64 CHANGES IN MEMBERSHIP

There were no changes in membership on this occasion.

65 DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

There were no disclosures of interest made.

66 EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

Page 1

RESOLVED, that the press and public be not excluded during consideration of any items of business.

67 MINUTES

Minute No. 56 – A590 Underpass, Witherslack, fifth line down read “to obviate nuisance from non-motorised road users” but it should have read “to obviate nuisance to non-motorised road users”.

Subject to the above, it was,

RESOLVED, that the minutes of the meeting held on 2 October 2012 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

68 HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 PROPOSED UPGRADING AND DIVERSION OF PARTS OF FOOTPATH NO 124006 PARISH OF MIDGEHOLME, DISTRICT OF CARLISLE

The Committee considered a report from the Corporate Director – Environment which gave details that as part of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) the County Council proposed an upgrade to the whole route of public footpath no 124006 in the parish of Midgeholme to a public bridleway by way of an agreement with the landowners under Section 25 of the Highways Act 1980. The Rights of Way Mapping Officer had received one objection regarding the diversion at Tarn House, stating that the new route would not be as aesthetically pleasing. In his opinion, it was acceptable, as the original path ran in front of the house and bordered woodland but the new route was at the back of the house but was elevated so had views over open countryside.

RESOLVED, that the Senior Manager – Legal Services be authorised to

(i) make a Diversion Order under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 to divert that section of public footpath no 124006 in the parish of Midgeholme as shown A-B to a new route A- B; and divert that section of public footpath no 124006 in the parish of Midgeholme as shown C-D to a new route C-D; and as shown on the plans at Appendix A and to take all the necessary action to confirm the order.

(ii) enter into an agreement under Section 25 of the Highways Act 1980 with the relevant landowners to upgrade the whole route of public footpath no 124006 in the parish of Midgeholme to a public bridleway.

69 HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 SECTION 119 PROPOSED DIVERSION OF FOOTPATH NO 540003 PARISH OF KIRKBY LONSDALE, DISTRICT OF SOUTH LAKELAND

2 Page 2 The Committee considered a report from the Corporate Director – Environment which gave details that as part of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) the County Council proposed to divert a section of public footpath no 540003 in the parish of Kirkby Lonsdale. The Rights of Way Mapping Officer stated that the River Lune had eroded much of the existing definitive line so the diversion was to establish the walked line as the definitive line.

RESOLVED, that the Senior Manager – Legal Services be authorised to make a Diversion Order under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 to divert that section of public footpath no 540003 in the parish of Kirkby Lonsdale as shown C-D to a new route A-B-C as shown on the plan at Appendix A and to take all necessary action to confirm the order.

70 REPORTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

(1) Planning Application No. 1/12/9011Section 73 application to vary conditions of 1/11/9009 Faugh no 2 Quarry, to extend time limit to 2022, reduce extraction rate, and amend restoration plan. Faugh No 2 Sand Pit, Heads Nook, Brampton, Carlisle, CA8 9EG

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and reminded members that they had previously granted an 18 month extension to allow them to investigate firstly local markets for the sand extracted and secondly to produce a revised restoration scheme. Since the report had been written the restoration scheme had been received and the proposal appeared to contain all of the necessary information required. Any adverse impact of the proposal could be adequately mitigated through the suggested schedule of conditions with some amendments to conditions 2, 5 and 16. The subject of pursuing the applicant for a bond was raised but government advice was not to seek bonds unless in exceptional circumstances. Most of the restoration work would be completed in the next couple of years as the applicant wished to use the land for agricultural use.

RESOLVED, that planning permission be GRANTED for the reasons stated in Appendix 1 and subject to the conditions in Appendix 2 to include the following amendments to:-

1. Condition 2, to include the Restoration Phasing Scheme – letter dated 12 November 2012 in the list of approved documents;

2. Condition 5 to read: notwithstanding the provision of Parts 4 or 19 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 (or any other revoking and re-enacting that order) no motorsports shall take place and no buildings, fixed plant or machinery shall be erected, altered or extended without planning consent, on any part of the site;

3. Condition 16 to read: prior to the restoration of areas A2 or A3, as defined in the approved documents, final restoration details

3 Page 3 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details submitted shall conform to the document ‘Restoration Scheme and Working Method Statement 2Nov 12 v3’, and shall include the following details:

a. seed mixes for all areas (A1, A2 and A3) to restored to pasture, b. a plan showing areas where top soil shall be spread; and c. the total quantity of soil forming material to be imported to the site.

Once approved the details shall be implemented in full.

(2) Planning Application No. 1/12/9012 Use of existing Fines Stabilisation Building for the importation, storage, bailing and export of Solid Recovered Fuel, Hespin Wood Resource Park & Landfill Site, Todhills, Carlisle

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and informed members that since the report had been written, Carlisle City Council had commented on the application. Although, they had no objection to the application they did raise the impact of the additional vehicles visiting the site and asked that if necessary, extra conditions be imposed to restrict the times that vehicles arrived/left the site and the routes taken. The proposal would lead to an extra 42 HGV movements per day, but there had been no objections from the Highways Authority and the current routing agreement using the CNDR had already been submitted and was controlled by a condition. The issue relating to dust would be covered by Condition 9 Dust Suppression Scheme.

There was concern raised at the number of road miles and carbon footprint when transporting materials from Barrow and Workington to Carlisle. They were informed that it was not cost-effective for the applicant to build a fines plant in each of the three locations.

RESOLVED, that planning permission be GRANTED for the reasons stated in Appendix 1 and subject to the conditions in Appendix 2 to include an amendment to Condition 9 c) ‘and odour’ to be removed from the last sentence.

(3) Planning Application No. 4/12/9004 Variation of conditions 1 and 3 of planning permission 4/09/9012 for extension to operational time of HWRC site. Yeathouse Quarry, Yeathouse, Frizington, Cumbria, CA26 3QR

The Team Leader - Development Control presented the report and informed members that the applicant had held pre-application discussions for a new site and it was hoped that application would be received in the new year. The 15 month extension to the HWRC would enable the new facility to be developed.

4 Page 4 RESOLVED, that planning permission be GRANTED for the reasons stated in Appendix 1 and subject to the conditions in Appendix 2.

71 APPLICATIONS/CONSULTATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

The list of applications/consultations determined under delegated powers was noted.

72 APPLICATIONS/CONSULTATIONS PROPOSED TO BE DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

The local member for Longtown & Bewcastle raised concerns on behalf of Kingmoor Parish Council (PC) regarding planning application no. 1/12/9015 Construction of a noise/visual screen to reduce noise pollution and visual intrusion on the Carlisle Northern Development Route (CNDR). They had asked that consideration be given to the choice of screening material and suggested that the larch be used. The poor condition of the footpath was also raised. Although, not a planning consideration, highways officers would be asked to investigate.

The local member for Ulverston East made a request for planning application no. 5/12/0832 Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, land south of the A590, Ulverston be considered by Committee, as it was a major concern to local residents. As it was a Category 1 application, the Planning Services Manager would speak to colleagues in South Lakeland District Council to ascertain their timescales for consideration of the application.

The list of applications/consultations proposed to be determined under delegated powers was noted.

73 APPLICATIONS/CONSULTATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED AT FUTURE MEETINGS

The list of applications to be considered at future meetings was discussed.

RESOLVED, that a site visit be held to:-

(1) Planning Application No. 1/12/0878 Erection of 128 dwellings on land between Townhead Road and Station Road, Dalston on 28 November 2012;

(2) Planning Application No. 5/12/0845 Siting of 3 wind turbines on land to the north of Killington Reservoir on 28 November 2012;

(3) Planning Application No. 2/12/9011 Erection and operation of 4 wind turbines at Lillyhall Landfill Site, Joseph Noble Road, Workington on 21 January 2013;

5 Page 5 (4) Planning Application No. 3/12/9013; 3/12/9014; and 3/12/9015 Review of working scheme and conditions, Extension of time for operations at Flusco Quarry Landfill site, Newbiggin, Penrith on 21 January 2013.

The meeting ended at 11.55 am

6 Page 6

Agenda Item 6a

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL & REGULATION COMMITTEE

Meeting date: 3 January 2013

From: Corporate Director – Environment

HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 PROPOSED DEDICATION OF BRIDLEWAY AND FOOTPATH AT MURTON FELL, PARISH OF MURTON, DISTRICT OF EDEN.

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 The Ministry of Defence has agreed to dedicate a number of public rights of way on their property at Murton Fell and High Cup Nick.

1.2 Plan at Appendix A shows the route of the footpaths and bridleway to be dedicated.

1.3 This can be done by an Agreement under Section 25 of the Highways Act 1980.

2.0 POLICY POSITION , BUDGETARY AND EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS , AND LINKS TO COUNCIL PLAN

2.1 The relevant procedure is an “administrative quasi-judicial” one. Members have discretion as to whether or not to enter into an Agreement, but such discretion must be exercised reasonably.

2.2 The relevant corporate theme is the creation and protection of a high quality environment for all.

3.0 RECOMMENDATION

3.1 It is recommended that the Senior Manager, Legal Services be authorised to enter into an Agreement under Section 25 of the Highways Act 1980 with the Ministry of Defence to dedicate new public footpaths and a bridleway in the parish of Murton as shown on plan at Appendix A.

Page 7

4.0 BACKGROUND

Detail

4.1 In 2001 a public inquiry was held to consider whether the Ministry of Defence should compulsorily extinguish the rights of commoners at Warcop Training Area. The Ministry of Defence were granted permission to extinguish the common rights on the condition that a wide range of undertakings were implemented.

4.2 These included the physical creation and legal dedication of a number of new public rights of way on their estate around Murton Fell as set out at Appendix A.

4.3 The proposed paths have been provided and signed on the ground for a number of years and used by the general public. They have not yet however been legally dedicated so that they can be formally recorded on the County Council’s Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way.

4.4 All costs relating to the legal establishment of these paths and the completion of the Agreement are to be paid for by the Ministry of Defence.

Consultation

4.5 Eden District Council has been consulted in accordance with Section 25(3) of the Highways Act 1980, and support the proposal.

5.0 LEGAL CRITERIA

5.1 Section 25 of the Highways Act 1980 enables a local authority to enter into an Agreement with any person having the necessary power to dedicate a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway over land in their area.

6.0 OPTIONS

6.1 The Committee may accept or reject the recommendation.

7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 The proposal is an administrative, procedural process to formally adopt a number of routes on Ministry of Defence land at Murton Fell and High Cup Nick as public rights of way.

7.2 The Committee are asked to support the recommendations and instruct the County Council to enter into an Agreement with the landowner to create the new public footpaths and bridleway as shown in the plan in Appendix A.

A Brown Strategic Asset Manager

November 2012

Page 8

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Plan showing proposed dedication

IMPLICATIONS

Staffing: Nil Financial: Nil Electoral Division: Appleby – Martin Stephenson

PREVIOUS RELEVANT COUNCIL OR EXECUTIVE DECISIONS [including Local Committees]

No previous relevant decisions.

CONSIDERATION BY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY

Not considered by Overview and Scrutiny.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

No background papers

Contact: Andy Sims - Countryside Mapping Officer (01228 221024) E-mail: [email protected]

Page 9

Appendix A

Page 10

Agenda Item 6b

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL & REGULATION COMMITTEE

Meeting date: 3 January 2013

From: Corporate Director – Environment

HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 PROPOSED DEDICATION OF FOOTPATH AT ST BEES HEAD, PARISH OF ST BEES, DISTRICT OF COPELAND.

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 As a result of coastal erosion part of a very popular coastal walk along the cliffs at St Bees Head has been lost, and temporary measures have been put in place to secure public access.

1.2 The landowners have agreed to formalise these arrangements and dedicate an alternative route further inland.

1.3 Plan at Appendix A shows the route of the footpath to be dedicated.

1.4 This can be done by an Agreement under Section 25 of the Highways Act 1980.

2.0 POLICY POSITION , BUDGETARY AND EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS , AND LINKS TO COUNCIL PLAN

2.1 The relevant procedure is an “administrative quasi-judicial” one. Members have discretion as to whether or not to enter into an Agreement, but such discretion must be exercised reasonably.

2.2 The relevant corporate theme is the creation and protection of a high quality environment for all.

3.0 RECOMMENDATION

3.1 It is recommended that the Senior Manager, Legal Services be authorised to enter into Agreements under Section 25 of the Highways Act 1980 with the relevant landowners to dedicate a new public footpath in the parish of St Bees.

Page 11

4.0 BACKGROUND

Detail

4.1 Existing public footpath 422003 is a very popular cliff side path situated at the northern end of the beech at St Bees. It gives extensive views of the surrounding area and pedestrian access to St Bees Head.

4.2 The path is very well used by locals and numerous holiday makers visiting the area. As an indication of its popularity any problems which are found on the route are very quickly reported to the Highway Authority. To confirm this, a path counter installed on the route last August showed that some 3,200 walkers used the path in a single week.

4.3 The route will likely form part of the England Coastal Trail currently being developed around the coastline of England, and which has entered an advanced planning stage for this section of the route in Cumbria. The path has therefore both strategic and local importance as a recreational route, and public access along it needs to be maintained.

4.4 Many years ago, a section of the route was lost at St Bees due to coastal erosion. Although the right of passage no longer exists and the County Council has no duty to reinstate the path temporary measures were put in place with the landowners permission to provide a safe alternative route further inland. This has latterly included installing a fenced corridor which separates walkers from both the cliff edge and from stock in the adjacent field.

4.5 These temporary arrangements have been secured with the landowner through a number of time limited permissive access agreements, the last of which has now expired. The Council wishes to formalise these arrangements through a more permanent and cost effective solution, and has approached the landowners concerned with a view to dedicate the 228 metre route as a right of way. The Plan at Appendix A shows the proposed route of the footpath to be dedicated.

4.6 The majority of the land on which the path is located is farmed by one local landowner who generally keeps livestock in the adjoining fields. The remainder is on land owned by the RSPB.

4.7 To secure the route as a right of way the Council has negotiated a dedication agreement with the key affected landowner which would involve a single compensation payment of £2,500. This compares favourably with a succession of time consuming and costly permissive path agreements and associated responsibilities for providing and maintaining fencing along the route which offer no security of access in the long term.

Consultation

4.8 Copeland Borough Council has been consulted in accordance with Section 25(3) of the Highways Act 1980 and is supportive of the proposal.

Page 12

5.0 LEGAL CRITERIA

5.1 Section 25 of the Highways Act 1980 enables a local authority to enter into an Agreement with any person having the necessary power to dedicate a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway over land in their area.

6.0 OPTIONS

6.1 The Committee have two options;

• support the recommendation – which will formalise the current temporary arrangements and secure the route for the future.

• reject the recommendation – which will result in the route being permanently lost, and create a break in a key recreational access link along the coast.

7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 Coastal erosion has threatened and made unsafe this section of a very popular coastal path for many years. The proposal to dedicate a safe alternative route away from the edge of the cliff provides a more cost effective and secure solution in the long term.

7.2 The Committee are asked to support the recommendation and instruct the County Council to enter into Agreements with the landowners to create a new public footpath in the parish of St Bees as set out in this report.

A Brown Strategic Asset Manager

December 2012

APPENDICES

A - Plan showing proposed dedication

IMPLICATIONS

Staffing: Nil Financial: Compensation costs, land agent fees and advertising costs Approx £3,600 Electoral Division: Kells and Sandwith – Wendy Skillicorn; St Bees and Egremont – David Southward and Mirehouse - John Woolley

PREVIOUS RELEVANT COUNCIL OR EXECUTIVE DECISIONS [including Local Committees]

No previous relevant decisions.

Page 13

CONSIDERATION BY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY

Not considered by Overview and Scrutiny.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

No background papers

Contact: Andy Sims - Countryside Mapping Officer (01228 226328) E-mail: [email protected]

Page 14

Appendix A

Page 15

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 16 Agenda Item 7a

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL & REGULATION COMMITTEE

Meeting date: 3 January 2013

From: Corporate Director – Environment

WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981 LEGAL EVENT MODIFICATION ORDER NO 3 – 2000-2009

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Officers have been collating the information to bring Cumbria County Council’s Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way up to date since its last review in 1976.

1.2 In order to make any amendment to the Definitive Map and Statement an Order must be made under the provisions of Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

1.3 All the legal events in all six district of the county for the period 2000 to 2009 have been recorded and Legal Event Modification Order No 3 is now ready to make. A copy of the Schedules to the proposed Order are attached at Appendix A to this report and lists all the path orders to be included.

2.0 POLICY POSITION , BUDGETARY AND EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS , AND LINKS TO CORPORATE STRATEGY

2.1 The relevant corporate theme is the creation and protection of a high quality environment for all.

2.2 This matter is a decision making process of a quasi-judicial nature. There should be no policy or political consideration given and any potential financial implication should be ignored. It is solely a matter of ensuring that the legal steps must be taken.

Page 17

3.0 RECOMMENDATION

3.1 That the Assistant Director Legal & Democratic Services be authorised to make Legal Event Modification Order No 3 to modify the Definitive Map and Statement pursuant to Section 53(3) (a) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

4.0 BACKGROUND

4.1 The Definitive Map and Statement was first drawn up under the provisions of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. Reviews were carried out under that Act in 1967 and 1976. The relevant date for the 1976 review was 1 January 1976. This means that all amendments to the rights of way before that date should have been incorporated into that reviewed Map and Statement. However, the task of carrying out a review is so complex and time consuming that the 1976 review was not concluded until 1989.

4.2 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was in force by the conclusion of the 1976 review. This Act introduced different and new procedures for altering the Definitive Map and Statement.

4.3 An evidential Modification Order under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 can alter a public right of way. This is where evidence becomes known of an incorrect route or of a new route not previously on the map and statement. This is the procedure that frequently comes before this committee. Such an order serves to establish or confirm the route and incorporates authority to amend the Definitive Map and Statement.

4.4 However, a public path may also be altered, created or extinguished by various other methods under a number of other legislative provisions, particularly the Highways Act 1980 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Such provisions will result in an order being made by the Courts or the Highway Authority or the Planning Authority and such matters frequently come before this committee. Such orders are called “legal events” and will allow a valid alteration to the right of way but do not in themselves authorise any amendment to the Definitive Map and Statement.

4.5 In order to make any amendment to the Definitive Map and Statement an Order must be made under the provisions of Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Section 53 (2)(a) is a provision to place a duty upon the Surveying Authority to make such modifications to the map and statement as appear to them requisite in consequence of legal events. A copy of the Schedules to the proposed Order are attached at Appendix A to this report and lists all the path orders to be included.

5.0 OPTIONS

5.1 There are no procedures or grounds for any person or authority to raise objections. This is an administrative, procedural process only; the alterations to the rights of way having already taken place.

5.2 The Committee may accept or reject the recommendation

Page 18

6.0 CONCLUSION

6.1 The proposal is an administrative, procedural process only. Some 180 legal events have occurred during the period 2000-2009 in the areas concerned. The County Council has a duty as the Surveying Authority to record these on the map and statement.

6.2 The Committee are asked to support the recommendation.

A Brown Strategic Asset Manager November 2012

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Schedules to the proposed Order

IMPLICATIONS

Staffing: Nil Financial: Nil Electoral Division(s): All within the Allerdale, Barrow, Carlisle, Copeland, Eden and South Lakeland areas *

PREVIOUS RELEVANT COUNCIL OR EXECUTIVE DECISIONS [including Local Committees]

“No previous relevant decisions”.

CONSIDERATION BY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY

“Not considered by Overview and Scrutiny”.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

“No background papers”

Contact: Sandra Pattinson, Countryside Mapping Officer (01228 226328) E-mail: [email protected]

Page 19

APPENDIX A

District Parish Auth Status RoW No Location Order Made Conf' Remarks

AL BOLTONS CCC FP 211004 Mealsgate Diversion 17/03/00 03/06/05 . AL BOTHEL & THREAPLAND ADC FP 213005 Threapland Lees Diversion 15/09/00 23/07/02 Spur remaining? AL BOTHEL & THREAPLAND CCC FP 213005 Threapland Lees Diversion 15/04/05 29/09/06 AL BOWNESS ON SOLWAY CCC FP 214026 Disused railway line Creation 03/02/03 Kissing gate at each Agreement end to install - Number Required AL BOWNESS ON SOLWAY CCC FP 214027 Glasson Creation Order 27/09/02 23/01/04 HWP AL BRIDEKIRK ADC FP 215004 Home Farm, Diversion 17/09/99 27/10/00 AL CALDBECK CCC FP 221089 Caldbeck Creation Order 20/05/05 16/03/07 AL CAMERTON CCC FP 222009 Camerton Creation 11/10/04 AL DEAN CCC FP 225012 Pardshaw Diversion 05/05/00 22/09/00 AL DEAN CCC FP 225018 Deanscales Extinguishment 10/09/04 29/10/04 AL DEAN CCC FP 225029 Moorland Close Diversion 19/03/99 26/05/00 AL DEARHAM CCC FP 226001 Sycamore Road Diversion 04/02/05 18/03/05 AL HOLME ABBEY CCC FP 233010 Foulsyke Farm Diversion 21/04/06 16/06/06 AL HOLME EAST WAVER ADC FP 234005 Moss Side, Kirkbride Diversion 06/01/78 25/02/00 TCPA - 1971 AL HOLME LOW CCC FP 235001 Helledike Beck Diversion 01/10/99 24/03/00 AL HOLME ST CUTHBERT CCC FP 236013 New Cowper Sand QuarryTemp Diversion 30/04/04 09/09/05 Temporary diversion. Will be reinstated /re voked when complte. LEMO possibly not necessary. AL KIRKBRIDE CCC FP 240021 Kirkbride village Diversion 07/05/04 18/06/04 AL MARYPORT CCC FP 244051 Solway Ind Est Diversion 17/04/03 06/06/03 AL MARYPORT CCC FP 244052 Solway Ind Est Extinguishment 17/04/03 06/06/03 AL PLUMBLAND CCC FP 248004 Little Cross Diversion 31/01/97 10/12/04 AL SEATON ABC FP 250005 Seaton Mill Diversion 07/11/84 17/08/01 AL SEBERGHAM CCC FP 251024 Ling Diversion 20/06/03 22/08/03 AL SILLOTH CCC FP 253019 Skinburness Creation 19/07/04 AL WESTWARD CCC FP 258028 Clea View Diversion 15/01/99 14/04/00 AL WIGTON CCC FP 259015 Speet Gill Creation 25/05/04 AL WORKINGTON CCC FP 262031 Barepot Diversion 23/03/84 18/01/02

District Parish Auth Status RoW No Location Order Made Conf' Remarks

BA ASKAM & IRELETH CCC FP 602055 Moor Farm Creation 28/02/03 BA ASKAM & IRELETH CCC FP 602057 & Moor Farm Exting 28/02/03 BA ASKAM CCC FP 602039 & 602040Housthwaite Hill Stopping up 21/11/95 A595 Side Roads Order BA BARROW-IN-FURNESS BBC FP 601004 Rampside Diversion 18/01/88 07/03/01 BA BARROW-IN-FURNESS BBC FP 601066 Red Ley Lane Diversion 14/03/84 07/03/01 BA BARROW-IN-FURNESS CCC FP 601076 Park House Diversion 01/02/08 10/07/08 Confirmed by Inspector. BA DALTON CCC FP 602035 Stopping up 21/11/95 A595 Side Roads Order BA LINDAL & MARTON CCC FP 602046 Marton Diversion 10/12/04 04/02/05

Page 20

District Parish Auth StatusRoW No Location Order Made Conf' Remarks

CA BEAUMONT CCC FP 103005 Park Farm, Grinsdale Diversion 10/10/03 06/02/04 CA BEAUMONT CCC FP 103005 Kirkandrews on Eden Diversion 05/03/04 13/07/07 CA BEAUMONT CCC FP 103008 The Heugh Diversion 29/11/0217/01/03 Added by JRD

CA BEAUMONT CCC FP 103015 Dollys Beck Creation 16/04/03 CA BEAUMONT CCC FP 103015 Dollys Beck Creation Order 07/03/03 21/05/04 CA BEAUMONT CCC FP 103016 Knockupworth Gill Creation 11/03/03 CA BEWCASTLE CCC FP 104031 Kinkry Hill Diversion 25/08/00 01/12/00 CA BRAMPTON CCC FP 105001 Millfield Extinguishment 16/01/04 27/02/04 CA BRAMPTON CCC FP 105019 Breconside Farm Diversion 22/02/02 17/05/02 HWP; width 1.8m CA BRAMPTON CCC FP 115044 Talkin Tarn Creation 20/05/04 Committee Agreement resolution CA BURGH BY SANDS CCC FP 106032 Speergarth Holes Creation 29/11/02 20/5/04 CA BURTHOLME CCC FP 107003 Field 2237 Diversion 05/07/0214/03/03 width 1.8m stile & kissing gate

CA BURTHOLME CCC FP 107003 & 107004 Howgill/Low Wall Diversion 25/08/00 14/03/03 With 107004

CA BURTHOLME CCC FP 107003 & 107004 Haytongate Diversion 29/09/00 17/05/02 HWP CA FARLAM CCC FP 115025 Low Bowbank Diversion 10/10/08 23/01/09 CA HAYTON CCC FP 117002 Rosegarth Diversion 21/12/01 01/03/02 CA IRTHINGTON & CCC FP 119011 & 132006 Wallhead Diversion 12/03/99 02/08/02 HWP; width 2m; STANWIX RURAL with 132006

CA KINGMOOR CCC FP 120004 Gallo Rosso Extinguishment 18/12/03 11/06/04 Lemo - stopping up for a distance of approx 87 metres

CA KIRKLINTON CCC FP 123001 Milltown Diversion 31/10/0330/04/04 CA NICHOLFOREST CCC BW 126031 Craigburn Farm, Diversion 28/07/00 15/09/00 Catlowdy CA ROCKCLIFFE CCC FP 128003 Witherhill Woods Diversion 01/03/02 07/05/04 CA ROCKCLIFFE CCC FP 128005 Rail Crossing Diversion 03/12/99 28/01/00 CA ROCKCLIFFE CCC FP 128005 Garriestown Diversion 01/03/02 07/05/04 CA ROCKCLIFFE CCC FP 128010 Rockcliffe Beck Creation 13/06/02 13/06/02 Dedication. Agreement Width 1.8m CA ST CUTHBERT CCC FP 129021 Newbiggin Hall Diversion 16/05/03 28.11.2003 CA STANWIX RURAL CCC FP 132023 Rickerby Park Creation 07/12/01 HWP Agreement CA WALTON CCC FP 135004 &135018 & Hillfield Diversion 22/02/02 12/04/02 HWP - with 135022 135018 (-20m) & 022 (+10m) CA WALTON CCC FP 135024 High Dovecote Creation 31/01/03 Number Agreement Required CA WATERHEAD CCC FP 136024 & 136025 Birdoswald Creation 05/05/00 Agreement CA WATERHEAD CCC FP 136024 Birdoswald Extinguishment 25/01/02 15/03/02 HWP CA WATERHEAD CCC FP 136025 High House Creation 03/11/03 Agreement CA WATERHEAD CCC FP 136026 & 136025 Coombe Crag to High Creation Order 25/01/02 15/03/02 HWP House CA WATERHEAD CCC FP 136027 Bankshead Creation 18/04/07 HWP width Agreement 1.8m CA WATERHEAD & CCC FP 136028 & 136027 & Bankshead Creation 29/04/02 HWP width BURTHOLME 107025 Agreement 1.8m CA WETHERAL Carlisle CitylFP 138050 Clinthead Farm Diversion 13/05/05 11/07/05

Page 21

District Parish Auth Status RoW No Location Order Made Conf' Remarks

CC CARLISLE CITY CCC FP 109076 Sheepmount Diversion 25/01/02 08/03/02 HWP CC CARLISLE CITY City Council FP 109166 Parham Drive Extinguishment 23/08/05 09/11/05 CC CARLISLE CITY NW Gov FP 109168 Raffles Stopping-up 11/02/04 Made by Gov Office NW CC CARLISLE CITY NW Gov FP 109169 Raffles Stopping-up 11/02/04 Made by Gov Office NW CC CARLISLE CITY NW Gov FP 109170 Raffles Stopping-up 11/02/04 Made by Gov Office NW

CC CARLISLE CITY NW Gov FP 109171 Raffles Stopping-up 11/02/04 Made by Gov Office NW

CC CARLISLE CITY NW Gov FP 109172 Raffles Stopping-up 11/02/04 Made by Gov Office NW

CC CARLISLE CITY NW Gov FP 109173 Raffles Stopping-up 11/02/04 Made by Gov Office NW

CC CARLISLE CITY City Council FP 109217 308 Warwick RoadDiversion 07/08/01 05/02/03 Inspectors decision CC CARLISLE CITY CCC FP 109285 Morton Park Stopping-up 25/06/02 04/04/03 CC CARLISLE CITY CCC FP 109394 Rickerby Park Creation 07/12/01 HWP Agreement

District Parish Auth Status RoW No Location Order Made Conf' Remarks

CP DISTINGTON CCC FP 404021 Fairy Path Distington Creation 06/01/06 Confirmation date Infant School Agreement taken as per CP EGREMONT CCC FP 406003 Moor Row Diversion 16/01/04 27/02/04 CP LAMPLUGH CCC FP 412019 Eskett Quarry Diversion 14/04/00 25/08/00 CP LOWCA CCC FP 413015 Disused opencast Creation 09/10/03 CP LOWCA CCC FP 413007/8/14 / Disused opencast Diversion 09/08/02 03/10/03 Crosses into CP MILLOM CCC FP 415012 Caravan site, Haverigg Diversion 07/03/08 22/07/08 . CP MORESBY CCC FP 417009 Lambhill Quarry Diversion 10/05/02 28/06/02 CP ST. BEES CCC FP 422008 Birkhams Quarry Diversion 30/01/09 13/03/09 This path crosses the CP ST. BEES CCC FP 423016 Millfield/Beverley Creation 22/09/03 CP WHITEHAVENCBC FP 431006 Scilly Banks Diversion 25/08/04 26/09/05 Copeland Borough Council, T&CPA

Page 22

District Parish Auth Status RoW No Location Order Made Conf' Remarks

ED AINSTABLE CCC FP 301014 Aimbank Diversion 12/12/03 06/02/04 ED AINSTABLE CCC FP 301018 Beck Cottage Diversion 05/04/02 24/05/02 ED ALSTON MOOR CCC FP 302010/302011/302031 West Ashgill, Middle Lea, Low Diversion 12/12/03 05/04/07 Lea House, Howgillsike ED ALSTON MOOR CCC FP 302014 Dryburn Diversion 24/11/00 26/01/01 ED ALSTON MOOR CCC FP 302026 West Ashgill, Middle Lea, Low Creation Agreement 22/03/04 Lea House, Howgillsike ED ALSTON MOOR CCC FP 302030/302142 West Ashgill, Middle Lea, Low Extinguishment 12/12/03 05/04/07 Lea House, Howgillsike ED ALSTON MOOR CCC FP 302065 South Hudgill Diversion 01/02/02 03/05/02 ED ALSTON MOOR CCC FP 302127 Greenends Diversion 01/02/02 21/06/02 width 1.8m ED ALSTON MOOR NCC FP 302135 Ayle - Clargyll Hall Diversion 20/06/07 14/09/07 Crosses county boundary (NCC - CCC) ED APPLEBY EDC FP 341011 Brampton Hall Diversion 28/04/06 14/06/06 ED ASBY EDC FP 304009 Great Asby Diversion 22/09/04 27/10/04 ED BOLTON CCC FP 308015 Cross Rigg Creation Agreement 08/09/08 ED BROUGH CCC FP 309016 Augill Beck Diversion 17/03/00 15/12/00 ED CASTLE SOWERBY CCC FP & BW 312004 & 312037 Thistlewood Diversion 16/05/03 04/07/03 ED CROSBY RAVENSWORTH CCC FP 319055 Low Lankaber Diversion 10/01/03 23/03/03 ED CROSBY RAVENSWORTH CCC FP 319094/319095/319096 River Lyvennet, Maulds Creation Agreement 15/03/00 Dedication Meaburn ED GREAT STRICKLAND CCC FP 325002 Great Strickland Diversion 24/05/02 27/06/03 ED GREAT STRICKLAND CCC FP 325003 Moorside Diversion 07/07/00 29/09/00 ED HESKET CCC FP 328017 Oaklands House Diversion 13/09/02 08/11/02 ED HESKET CCC FP 328021 Sceugh Dyke House Diversion 10/01/03 21/03/03 Minus 15 metres ED HUNSONBY EDC FP 331005 Druid's Head, Little Diversion 22/03/00 31/05/00 Salkeld ED KIRKOSWALD EDC FP 337012 Marcris Cottage Diversion 07/04/03 19/05/03 ED KIRKOSWALD CCC FP 337038 Marcris Cottage, Park Creation 18/11/02 ED KIRKOSWALD CCC FP 337039 Marcris Cottage, Park Creation 18/11/02 Head Agreement ED LONG MARTON CCC FP 341021 Long Marton Diversion 05/08/05 23/08/05 ED ORTON CCC BW 355015 Martinagap & Howgill LodgeDiversion 10/10/03 10/12/04 conf with modifications ED PENRITH CCC FP 358005 Brougham Diversion 02/07/04 03/11/04 ED PENRITH EDC FP 358013 Eden Business Park Ext & Create 10/08/07 08/10/07 ED PENRITH EDC FP 358029 Eden Business Park Ext & Create 10/08/07 08/10/07 ED RAVENSTONEDALE CCC FP 359024 Brunt Hill Diversion 02/04/04 21/04/06 ED RAVENSTONEDALE CCC FP 359024 Scandal Beck Diversion 15/08/06 17/11/06 ED RAVENSTONEDALE CCC FP 359051 Greenside Lane Diversion 13/09/02 08/11/02 ED SHAP RURAL CCC FP 361026 Rail Crossing Extinguishment 07/01/00 07/04/00 ED SKELTON CCC FP 362037 Newlands Hill Diversion Order 27/04/07 31/10/07 ED SLEAGILL CCC FP 363013 Sleagill Beck Diversion 11/08/02 29/11/02 width 1.8m 1.2m over ED SOCKBRIDGE & TIRRIL CCC FP 364009 Sockbridge Mill Diversion 10/01/03 09/05/03 ED STAINMORE CCC FP 366031 Upmanhowe Diversion 13/09/02 10/06/05 min width 1.8m stile @ NY8413 1276 ED STAINMORE CCC FP 366039 366040 Barras Diversion 07/07/00 07/06/02 ED TEBAY CCC FPs 367007 & UnnumberedSt James's Church Diversion 09/06/06 05/09/06 ED TEMPLE SOWERBY FP 368002 Spinney Ext. & Create 07/10/04 07/10/04 Side Roads Order - A66 ED TEMPLE SOWERBY FP 368004 Whitfell Spinney Ext. & Create 07/10/04 07/10/04 Side Roads Order - A66 ED TEMPLE SOWERBY BW 368005 Whitfell Spinney Ext. & Create 07/10/04 07/10/04 Side Roads Order - A66 Trunk Road ED WHARTON CCC BW 373005 & 373013 Wharton Hall Creation 10/07/00 ED WHARTON CCC BW 373005 373008 Wharton Hall Extinguishment 25/10/96 14/07/00 BW 373011 373014 FP 373015 ED YANWATH & EAMONT BRIDGE CCC FP 375003 Southwaitegreen Mill Creation Order 28/10/05 06/01/06 ED YANWATH & EAMONT BRIDGE CCC FP 375003 Southwaitegreen Mill Extinguishment 12/12/03 06/12/06

Page 23

District Parish Auth Status RoW No Location Order Made Conf' Remarks

SL SL01 ARNSIDE SLDC FP 502011 Holgates Caravan Park Diversion 20/11/01 25/03/02 SL SL02 BEETHAM CCC FP 504012 Rail Crossing Diversion 03/12/99 28/01/00 SL SL03 BEETHAM CCC FP & 504014 & Waterhouse Mill Diversion & 29/01/02 Magistrates Order SL SL04 BROUGHTON WEST CCC FPBW 504053 520022 Otter Bank DiversionExtinguishment 04/03/05 06/05/05 SL SL05 BROUGHTON WEST CCC BW 520061 Broughton Tower Estates Creation 25/01/05 Committee Res'n. Requires more Agreement details about 'status' of original order. See GW message to As 22.03.2011.

SL SL06 BURTON CCC FP 515007 Crag House farm Diversion 12/09/2008 31/12/08 Confirmed by SoS with ref. to BS5709 included. This modification to be subject of an omnibus LEMO item which will change the path number to 507026. In the meantime the 'Post 76' line is attributed path No 515007 and 'Present line' is attributedf 507026. SL SL07 CASTERTON SLDC FP 509005 High Casterton Diversion 03/12/04 28/01/05 SL SL08 GRAYRIGG CCC FP 527016 Rail Crossing Diversion 03/12/99 28/01/00 SL SL09 HOLME SLDC FP 533004 North Road Diversion 16/03/00 05/05/00 SL SL10 KENDAL SLDC FP 536008 & Burneside Road Diversion 29/09/00 29/05/01 536009 SL SL11 KENDAL SLDC FP 536070 Murley Moss Diversion 27/10/00 06/08/01 SL SL12 KENDAL / UNDERBARROW CCC FP 536036, Golf Course / Boundary Diversion Order 04/05/07 09/11/07 AND BRADLEYFIELD 577046 Bank SL SL13 KIRKBY IRELETH SLDC FP 539057 Winnow Quarry Diversion 22/05/01 23/01/02 SL SL14 KIRKBY IRELETH SLDC FP 539074 Crossbeck Farm, SoutergateDiversion 06/08/02 20/06/03 SL SL15 KIRKBY LONSDALE CCC FPs 540001 & 540005Low Biggins Extinguishment. 12/05/06 14/09/07 Error in Extinguishment schedule. See correspondednce with CCC legal / technical in South Lakes section of LEMO confirmed orders file.

SL SL15A KIRKBY LONSDALE CCC FP 540001 Low Biggins Creation 13/06/06 See associated extinguishment. Agreement SL SL16 LAMBRIGG CCC FP 546013 Beck Houses Creation 23/06/00 Agreement SL SL17 LAMBRIGG CCC FP 546005 & Beck Houses - Rail Diversion 14/01/00 30/06/00 SL SL18 LAMBRIGG CCC FP 546009 Lambrigg Head House Diversion 12/05/06 01/09/06 SL SL19 LOWER ALLITHWAITE SLDC FP 549011 The Lodge, Hard Crag Diversion 20/11/01 25/03/02 SL SL20 LOWER ALLITHWAITE SLDC FP 549023 Pit Farm, Cartmel Diversion 07/07/00 25/08/00 SL SL21 LUPTON CCC FP 552003 Lupton Smithy Diversion 05/08/05 07/10/05 SL SL22 MILNTHORPE CCC FP 556003 Ackenthwaite Diversion 15/04/05 03/06/05 SL SL23 MILNTHORPE CCC FP 556007 Rail Crossing Diversion 03/12/99 28/01/00 SL SL24 OLD HUTTON SLDC FP 560010 Low Bleaze Diversion 26/09/01 20/11/01 With 560012 SL SL25 OLD HUTTON SLDC FP 560012 Low Bleaze Diversion 26/09/01 20/11/01 SL SL26 PATTON SLDC FP 562001 Patton Hall Diversion 29/09/00 24/11/00 SL SL27 PENNINGTON CCC FP 563001 Green Lane Diversion 12/05/06 17/11/06 SL SL28 PRESTON RICHARD CCC FP 565026 14 Woodside Road Diversion 06/09/02 18/10/02 re-made 2004 SL SL29 PRESTON RICHARD CCC FP 565026 Endmoor Diversion 13/02/04 26/08/05 SL SL30 SEDGWICK CCC FP 569002 Rail Crossing Diversion 03/12/99 14/04/00 SL SL31 SKELSMERGH SLDC FP 570004 Skelsmergh Hall, nr Diversion 20/10/00 13/02/01 With 570007 Kendal SL SL32 SKELSMERGH SLDC FP 570038 Watchgate WTW Diversion 18/04/01 06/08/01 SL SL33 SKELSMERGH & WHITWELL SLDC FP 570038 & 585011Watchgate Diversion 27/01/04 22/04/04 SL SL34 STAINTON CCC FP 572011 Greenways Diversion 01/05/02 05/06/02 SL SL35 STAINTON & HINCASTER NETWO FP 572007 & 532009Wellheads, Level Crossing Extinguishment 28/04/03 With Creation Agreements for RK RAIL 572007 & 532005

SL SL36 STAINTON & HINCASTER CCC FP 532009 Wellheads, Level Crossing Creation 13/02/06 With Exting 572007 & 532005 SL SL37 STAINTON & HINCASTER CCC FP 572007 Wellheads, Level CrossingAgreement. Creation 13/02/06 With Exting 572007 & 532005 SL SL38 STRICKLAND ROGER SLDC FP 575003 Hagg Foot Farm DiversionAgreement. 07/05/03 20/06/03 SL SL39 STRICKLAND ROGER SLDC FP 575019 The Old Barn, Burneside Diversion 15/05/03 23/06/03 SL SL40 WHINFELL SLDC FP 584007 Topthorn House Diversion 07/11/03 04/02/04 SL SL41 WHINFELL SLDC FP 584010 Crook House Diversion 11/10/02 18/11/02 SL SL42 WHINFELL SLDC FP 584013 Topthorn House Diversion 07/11/03 04/02/04 SL SL43 23/12/97 Omited from Omnibus LEMO 2 in ALDINGHAM CCC FP 501039 Gleaston Creation error - to be included in LEMO 3. SL SL44 23/12/97 Omited from Omnibus LEMO 2 in ALDINGHAM CCC FP 501039 Gleaston Creation error - to be included in LEMO 3.

Page 24 Agenda Item 7b

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL & REGULATION

COMMITTEE

Meeting date: 3 rd January 2013

From: Corporate Director – Environment

WILDLIFE & COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981 – SECTION 53 PROPOSAL TO ADD A RIGHT OF WAY TO THE DEFINITIVE MAP IN THE PARISH OF LOWCA : DISTRICT OF COPELAND

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 An application has been received by the County Council to add a section of bridleway from the bottom of Lowca where it meets the Parton road to its junction with public bridleway 413015 locally known as Micklam Coastal Walk in the parish of Lowca. A plan (Appendix A) shows the section of path to be added.

1.2 The purpose of this report is to present Members with the evidence regarding the proposed claimed right of way and for a decision to be made whether to proceed with the next stage of the process by making a legal order. If that order is then confirmed Cumbria’s Definitive Map and Statement will be altered to record the new section of public right of way.

2.0 POLICY POSITION , BUDGETARY AND EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS , AND LINKS TO COUNCIL PLAN

2.1 The relevant corporate theme is the creation and protection of a high quality environment for all.

2.2 This matter is a decision making process of a quasi-judicial nature. There should be no policy or political consideration given and any potential financial implication should be ignored. It is solely a matter of weighing the strength of evidence and if it is sufficient to meet the burden of proof then the legal steps must be taken.

3.0 RECOMMENDATION

3.1 It is recommended that the Senior Manager, Legal Services be authorised to make an Order under Section 53(3)(c)(i) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to add a public bridleway as shown on the plan at Appendix A. Page 25 4.0 BACKGROUND

4.1 The path, subject of this application, is situated at Micklam in the parish of Lowca commencing at the Parton Road to the south of Lowca northwards along the coast to the top of the former Micklam Brickworks to meet public bridleway 413015.

4.2 The application received in April 2011 was accompanied by 6 rights of way evidence forms from people stating that they have used the claimed section of path on foot, horseback and bicycle regularly for pleasure for a period of years ranging from 28 to 51 (an analysis of the user evidence is attached as Appendix B).

4.3 A statement was also received from a local resident and his usage has been incorporated into the analysis referred to above.

4.4 The application was generated following the making of an Order under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the effect of which being to stop up public bridleway no 413005 at Micklam Farm.

4.5 An initial examination of the witness forms submitted shows that there appears to be evidence of uninterrupted use of more than 20 years. This would raise a presumption of dedication by the landowners concerned of a public right of way for pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists having taken place pursuant to Section 31 Highways Act 1980.

4.6 The initial consultation carried out was for a restricted byway although recent case law has found that horse and cycle user evidence can now, in general, give rise only to presumed dedication of a public bridleway. (Whitworth 2010)

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 The statutory requirement for consultation has been undertaken. Further, the usual prescribed organisations and known landowners/occupiers have been consulted in writing.

5.2 The application is supported by the local Ramblers’ representative:-

“The proposed restricted byway would complete a missing link in the public Rights of Way network in this section of the Cumbria coast. At present a detour away from the coast has to be made through the village of Lowca, along what at times, can be a busy road. The new route would enable the public to walk safely away from traffic with accompanying good views out to sea. We understand the claim is based on continued regular use over many years without restriction and is part of a well used round walk from Lowca village. This restricted byway would also seem to be the obvious route in this area for the proposed new English Coastal route.”

5.3 Objections have been received from the current and previous owners of the land forming part of the former Micklam Brickworks who claim that the public were not allowed on the lands for health and safety and security reasons and that the public were regularly challenged and notices put up on site saying “No Entry Heavy Plant Working”. None of the seven witnesses have said that they have been challenged or that they saw any prohibitive notices.

Page 26 5.4 Comparison is made to the recent stopping up of bridleway no 413005 under section 257 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 when it was recognised that there would be some loss to users of the bridleway but noted that other routes were available. The Wildlife and Countryside Act application is concerned with the recording of rights and the County Council can only consider matters of evidence rather than those concerning suitability or desirability of such a change .

5.5 The Local Access Forum member reported that the proposed addition to the Definitive Map would formalise a route apparently in long term usage for locals and provide a welcome mapped coastal route for visitors and long distance walkers.

5.5 The local councillor Mr Ross has been consulted and has not responded.

6.0 LEGAL POSITION

6.1 The County Council has a statutory duty to keep the Definitive Map and Statement of Rights of Way under continuous review (s.53 Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981). If evidence is discovered by the authority that a right of way exists which is not shown on the map and statement, the Council should make an order modifying the map and statement adding the claimed right of way to the map

6.2 The application as submitted is made pursuant to section 53(3)(c)(i) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 on the grounds that there has been a discovery by the Order Making Authority “..of evidence which (when considered with all other relevant evidence available to them) shows that a right of way which is not shown in the map and statement is reasonably alleged to subsist over land in the area to which the map relates, being a right of way to which this part applies”

6.3 The burden of proof imposed on the Council at this stage of the procedure is to consider whether or not sufficient evidence is available for an Order to be made based on whether or not the evidence as produced shows a reasonable allegation that such a right of way exists. This is a lesser burden of proof than is required if the Order were to be made and a public inquiry held into its provisions. At that stage the burden of proof is based on the higher “balance of probabilities” test.

6.4 Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 states that where a way over any land, other that a way of such a character that use of it by the public could not give rise at common law to any presumption of dedication, has been actually enjoyed by the public as of right and without interruption for a full period of 20 years, the way is to be deemed to have been dedicated as a highway unless there is sufficient evidence that there was no intention to dedicate.

6.5 A restricted byway was introduced by the National Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC) and is defined as a right of way on foot, on horseback or leading a horse and a right of way for vehicles other than mechanically propelled vehicles.

6.6 Recent case law has dictated that horse and cycle user evidence can now, in general, give rise only to presumed dedication of a public bridleway and not a restricted byway: Whitworth #2.

Page 27

7.0 OPTIONS

7.1 The Committee may accept or reject the recommendation. Should they reject the recommendation the applicant has the right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate at Bristol.

8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 Officers are of the opinion that sufficient evidence has been brought forward at this stage to show that a bridleway reasonably alleges to subsist on the route shown on the plan at Appendix A.

Andy Brown Strategic Asset Manager

December 2012

APPENDICES

Appendix A Plan showing claimed right of way Appendix B Analysis of user evidence

IMPLICATIONS

Staffing: Nil Financial: Nil Electoral Division: Distington and Moresby – Mr A C Ross

PREVIOUS RELEVANT COUNCIL OR EXECUTIVE DECISIONS [including Local Committees]

No previous relevant decisions.

CONSIDERATION BY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY

Not considered by Overview and Scrutiny.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

No background papers

Contact: Sandra Pattinson, Countryside Mapping Officer - Tel: (01228) 226328 E-mail: [email protected]

Page 28 APPENDIX A

Page 29

APPENDIX B

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 – Claimed right of way at Micklam in the parish of Lowca – Analysis of user evidence

Total Number Seen Been Date of Years Frequency Use Way Prohibitive Given No. Used Used Type of use of Use Challenged Obstructed Notice Permission Foot Horse Other 3 times a 1 1973- 39 week No No No No

2 1971- 41 No No No No 3-4 times a Unlocked 3 1964/5 - 46/7 week No fieldgate No No 4 times a Unlocked 4 1983 - 29 ? week No fieldgate No No Unlocked 5 1980- 32 Daily No Handgate No No 5 times a 6 1960’s - 52 week No No No No Unlocked 7 1970’s - 41 - No Gate No No

Page 30 Agenda Item 8

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL & REGULATION COMMITTEE

Meeting Date: 03 January 2013 From: Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability

REPORTS ON CONSULTATIONS BY DISTRICT COUNCILS, NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITIES, ADJOINING PLANNING AUTHORITIES, & GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS, ETC. NOTE: In accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Schedule 1, paragraph 7, the County Council is consulted on those applications which are considered to fall within the agreed Development Control Code of Practice for Cumbria. Case Officer Contact Details are provided in the Footnote, following the list of Applications/consultations which may be considered at future meetings, etc.

Authority Area/ Proposal / Date Ref. No. / Site Location / Received / Page - Applicant - (Case Officer) - Registered -

Carlisle

1/12/0793 Erection Of 295No. Dwellings (Including 59No. Affordable Validated Story Homes Dwellings), Associated Open Space and Infrastructure, Land 20.09.12 bounded by Hammonds Pond, Oaklands Drive and Durdar Road, Consultation Carlisle Received (GI) 03.10.12 Weblink: http://tinyurl.com/1-12-0793

1/12/0878 Erection Of 128No. Dwellings, Associated Open Space and Validated Story Homes Infrastructure, Land between Townhead Road and Station Road, 24.10.12 Dalston Consultation (MB) Received Weblink: http://tinyurl.com/1-12-0878 05.11.12

Allerdale

Nil

Eden

Nil

Copeland

Nil

South Lakeland

5/12/0845 Siting of 3 Wind Turbines (132 metres high to blade tip), control Validated Banks building, anemometer mast and access tracks, Land to the North 01.10.12 Renewables of Killington Reservoir, Consultation Ltd (RP) Weblink: http://tinyurl.com/5-12-0845 Received 11.10.12

5/12/0832 Hybrid application for full permission for demolition of existing Validated Sainsbury's buildings, erection of foodstore, petrol filling station, kiosk, car 21.09.12 Supermarkets wash, new vehicular and pedestrian access, creation of new Limited and internal roads, car parking including recycling area, landscaping Consultation Rawdon and boundary treatments and outline permission for the erection Received Property of business units for b1(business) or b2 (general industrial) with 11.10.12 vehicular access, Land South of the A590 and North of Railway Line, Ulverston (GH) Web-Link : http://tinyurl.com/5-12-0832

Page 31 Barrow

Nil

Others

Nil

Page 32 Agenda Item 8a

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE 03 January 2013 A Report by the Assistant Director Planning and Sustainability ______

Application No: 01/2012/0793

Applicant: Story Homes, Burgh Road Industrial Estate, Carlisle, CA2 7NA

District: Carlisle City Council ______

Proposal: Full Application for the Erection of 295No. Dwellings (Including 59 No. Affordable Dwellings), Associated Open Space and Infrastructure

Location: Land bounded by Hammonds Pond, Oaklands Drive and Durdar Road, Carlisle ______

Page 33 1.0 RECOMMENDATION

1.1 No objection is raised to the strategic principle of the development, provided that the Local Planning Authority:

i. is satisfied that that there are no preferable and deliverable brownfield sites elsewhere in Carlisle that could be used as an alternative development site as discussed in paragraph 3.9; ii. is satisfied that this site would not take them significantly in excess of their 5-year supply, taking account the distribution of development across Carlisle and whether it would meet local needs, and the other sites which are in the pipeline, either with planning permission or current planning applications, as discussed in paragraphs 3.19 – 3.30; iii. is satisfied with the type and level of affordable housing proposed, as discussed in paragraphs 3.31 – 3.33; iv. is satisfied that an appropriate level of ecological assessment has been carried out prior to determination, and adequate mitigation and compensation will be provided where necessary, as discussed in paragraphs 3.40 – 3.44; v. is satisfied that the development reflects and protects the character of the site and its surroundings; that the density and siting of any houses is appropriate to the location; and measures to mitigate any adverse visual and landscape impacts are put in place as discussed in paragraphs 3.45 – 3.52; vi. ensures that an archaeological evaluation and, where necessary, a scheme of archaeological recording of the site be undertaken in advance of development and advise that this work should be commissioned and undertaken at the expense of the developer. It is considered that this programme of work can be secured through the inclusion of two conditions in any planning consent that may be granted and suggest the following form of words noted in Annex C:

1.2 A financial contribution via a S106 agreement for a total contribution of (42 x £12,051 (DfE multiplier) = £506,142) + (28 x Transport cost = £171,000 + £8,500) = £685,692 will be sought to provide for additional school provision and transport as detailed in paragraphs 3.35 – 3.39.

1.3 To note the response of the Highway Authority in Annex A, which is currently recommending refusal.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Story Homes has submitted a full planning application for a residential development on 12.59ha (31 acres) of agricultural grazing land between Blackwell Road and Oaklands drive. The site is bounded to the west by Durdar Road and to the east by Scalegate Road. The site lies to the south of Hammonds Pond which is an urban park. Hammonds Pond is a former clay pit and as the pit became redundant it gradually filled with water to form a lake. Hammonds Pond has been open to the public since 1923 and existing facilities include a boating lake, children’s play areas, football pitches and a café. The site is located to the north of Carlisle racecourse and is approximately 1.7 miles south of Carlisle City Centre.

Page 34

2.2 The proposal is seeking detailed approval for the development of 295 dwelling units (Class C3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) delivering a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroomed properties. The mix will include apartments, terraces, semi-detached and detached dwellings. The development will include 59 affordable units (20%).

2.3 The site is not allocated for development in the Carlisle Local Plan (2001-2016), the site is however zoned in relation to landscape as an Urban Fringe site within the Carlisle Local Plan (2001-2016). The applicant proposes that the existing trees and vegetation to the eastern boundary of the site would be retained. The site would undergo significant new hard and soft landscaping to include new vehicular routes, footpaths and parking spaces. Soft landscaping would include tree planting, plus Public Open Space (POS). Currently the Wire Mire Beck runs through the centre of the site, the applicant is proposing to integrate the watercourse as a feature within the development.

2.4 The applicant proposes that vehicular and pedestrian / cyclist access to the site is taken from its western frontage on to Durdar Road, which is currently a farm track. There will be a further emergency vehicle access and pedestrian / cyclist access provided to the east of the site, connecting on to Scalegate Road.

2.5 The site is also included within Carlisle City Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) (2012) as land which is deliverable and developable within the first five years of the Local Plan.

3.0 PLANNING ISSUES

3.1 The proposal has been assessed as to whether or not it would materially conflict with or prejudice the implementation of the Cumbria Strategic Partnership’s Sub Regional Spatial Strategy (SRSpS) 2008-2028 and those policies of the Cumbria and Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (JSP) which were extended, but not replaced by the North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (September 2008).

3.2 The North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy is still currently part of the development plan and is a material planning consideration, although the Government has made clear their intentions that they may abolish at some point Regional Spatial Strategies and Saved Structure Plan Policies, following the enactment of the Localism Act 2012.

3.3 National planning policy has been condensed into the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which has distilled over 1,000 pages of policy into 50 pages. PPS3 now no longer exists, and although the NPPF does not specify a sequential test for new housing development, it does encourage the effective re-use of previously-developed land, provided it is not of high environmental value.

3.4 Cumbria County Council is the Highway Authority for Cumbria, the Highway Authorities response can be found in Annex A.

Page 35

3.5 It is considered that the main strategic policy aspects raised by the application are:

• to determine whether or not the scale, mix and type of development is appropriate to the location, and whether or not there is any significant adverse effect on strategic housing policies [Saved JSP Policies ST5, H19 and SRSpS Development Principles];

• to determine whether there are implications for local community infrastructure [SRSpS Development Principles];

• to determine whether it is sustainable in terms of transport and accessibility [Saved JSP Policies T30, T31, LTP Policies LD4, LD5, LD6, LD7, LD8, WS1, WS3; and SRSpS Development Principles];

• to determine whether there are any significant adverse effects on landscape, the historic environment, and ecology and measures to mitigate the impact [Saved JSP Policies E35, E37, E38, E39 and SRSpS Development Principles].

3.6 The following policies are considered relevant to this proposal:

Development Strategy and Locational Issues

JSP Policy ST5 New development and Key Service Centres outside the Lake District National Park SRSpS Development Principles SRSpS The Spatial Strategy SRSpS Areas within Cumbria

Housing Issues

JSP Policy H19 Affordable Housing outside the Lake District National Park SRSpS Development Principles SRSpS The Spatial Strategy SRSpS Areas within Cumbria

Local Community Infrastructure Issues

SRSpS Development Principles SRSpS Carlisle and North Cumbria Sub Area

Ecological Issues

JSP Policy E35 Areas and features of nature conservation interests other than those of national and international consideration importance SRSpS Development Principles

Landscape and Visual Impact Issues

JSP Policy E37 Landscape Character SRSpS Development Principles

Page 36

Historic Environment Issues

JSP Policy E38 Historic Environment SRSpS Development Principles

Development Strategy and Locational Issues

3.7 The Cumbria Community Strategy 2008–2028, prepared by the Cumbria Strategic Partnership aims to create: safe; strong and inclusive communities; health and well being throughout life; a sustainable and prosperous economy; effective connections between people and places; and a world class environmental quality. The Community Strategy seeks to energise the county’s communities, health, economy, connections and environment over the next 10-20 years. It brings together aspirations and ambitions from a range of thematic and geographic strategies.

3.8 The Cumbria Strategic Partnership Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy (SRSpS) sets out the spatial framework. This enables actions that affect specific areas and locations to serve the delivery of the Community Strategy, and it provides the sub- regional spatial framework for the preparation Local Plans in Cumbria. The Community Strategy and the SRSpS recognise that the challenge is to secure a sustainable level and pattern of development that creates balanced communities and meets need – including the need for jobs.

3.9 The SRSpS Development Principles require that most development is located in designated Key Service Centres and Local Service Centres to assist in reducing the need to travel and to give, in the following order of priority, a preference for: (a) the appropriate reuse of existing buildings worthy of retention; (b) the reuse of previously-developed land; and only then (c) the use of previously undeveloped land. It is acknowledged that the site falls within the lowest level category (criterion c) as it is a greenfield site. However, it is acknowledged that the site lies within reasonable proximity to Carlisle City Centre and is well related to the surrounding urban area. It is noted that although the development would lie outside of the Urban Boundary (DP1) as designated in the Carlisle Local Plan (2008). It would lie immediately adjacent and it is considered well related. It is however considered that Carlisle City Council must be satisfied that there are no sequentially preferable brownfield sites that could accommodate the proposed development.

3.10 The Development Principles of the Sub Regional Spatial Strategy state that sites should be sought that are, or will be made, accessible by public transport, walking and cycling, providing a realistic choice of access by means other than private car.

3.11 The SRSpS identifies Carlisle as a key focal point for development and that high quality mixed use schemes will support the expansion of the city centre to the south and west. The SRSpS also states that significant new housing development and associated social infrastructure will be required to support growth of the city.

Page 37

3.12 Saved JSP Policy ST5 identifies that the quantum of development should reflect the scale and function of the settlements, and that there should be a supply of new housing over the plan period. In relation to Carlisle Saved JSP Policy ST5 identifies major development to take place in Carlisle. It is considered that this development will assist in delivering the major development identified for Carlisle in the SRSpS and JSP ST5.

3.13 As mentioned in paragraph 2.5 the site is included in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) with potential to be delivered within the first 5 years of the Local Plan. The SHLAA does not allocate sites for housing and the sites identified will not automatically come forward for development and are not guaranteed planning permission. Nonetheless, the SHLAA states that the main constraint on the current site is the access, which is presently a farm track of restricted width, with limited potential to widen it. However the SHLAA also acknowledges that if this constraint can be overcome, it is likely that the site could reasonably accommodate some development.

3.14 It is considered reasonable to conclude that the application site area may be included as part of the allocations at some future stage as part of the Urban area of Carlisle, should a need be established. It is however important to note that it is likely to be over 12 months before any site allocations are adopted through the Local Plan.

3.15 The JSP and SRSpS give priority to development, which is well related to Key Service Centres, where this will help to sustain local services and meet community needs. In relation to the sequential test, the site is not currently allocated, and it falls into the lowest level category (criterion c of the SRSpS Development Principles) since it is a greenfield site. Notwithstanding this point, it is considered that the site could act as a suitable urban extension to the wider Carlisle area, and from this point of view it is considered to be a broadly sustainable location in terms of its accessibility to this Key Service Centre.

3.16 Carlisle City Council must now give full weight to the NPPF, which was published in March 2012. The NPPF contains the Government’s proposed wording for the presumption is favour of sustainable development. The NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities should:

‘where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, grant[ing] permission unless…..any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF….’ .

3.17 The NPPF does encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has previously been developed (brownfield). However, it should be noted that this is not as strong as the former PPS 3, which encouraged refusal of greenfield sites where brownfield targets were not being met.

Page 38

3.18 It is therefore considered that in the context of the SRSpS, the NPPF and the saved and extended JSP Policy ST5 and its location, the development of the site for residential purposes would be acceptable in principle from a strategic planning point of view. However, it is recommended that Carlisle City Council must satisfy itself that there are no preferable and deliverable brownfield sites identified in the SHLAA, which might come forward in the 0-5 period of their Local Plan.

Housing Issues

3.19 As noted in paragraph 3.11 and 3.12 the SRSpS and Saved JSP Policy ST5 have identified Carlisle as a focal point for significant new development. It is considered that the proposed housing development would assist in delivering the growth aspirations outlined in the SRSpS and the Saved JSP.

3.20 Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) Housing; has now been replaced by the NPPF. Reflecting the acknowledged shortage of housing across the county the NPPF states local authorities should to boost significantly the supply of housing to meet the needs the needs of present and future generations (paragraphs 7 and 47).

3.21 Saved JSP Policy ST5 identifies that the quantum of development should reflect the settlements scale and function of the settlement and that there should be a supply of new housing over the plan period. Saved JSP Policy H19 requires that the provision of affordable housing in the County should meet local need within residential or mixed-use development of sites of more than 0.4ha, or which would contain 10 or more dwellings.

3.22 Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) Housing; has now been replaced by the NPPF. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that:

‘Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites ’.

3.23 Paragraph 47 states that Local Planning Authorities should:

“identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land .”

3.24 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF goes on to state that:

‘Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land’.

Page 39

3.25 Paragraph 47 then adds that Local Planning Authorities should:

“identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15.”

3.26 The NPPF defines “deliverable” and “developable” as two different things. To be “deliverable” means that a site be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that the site is viable. To be considered “ developable ”, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged.

3.27 The availability of housing land supply is important to the consideration of this application and in particular when deciding whether the presumption in favour of sustainable development would apply. Carlisle City Council’s current published position in relation to having a 5-year supply of deliverable land is stated in their ‘Housing Land Supply Position Statement – As of 30 September 2012’. When considering the 5-year target, the starting point should be the annual housing requirement derived from the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). This means that for now the annual target for Carlisle is 450 new houses per year, which equates to 2,250 units over 5 years. The NPPF adds that there is a requirement for a further 5-20% buffer. It is explained within the ‘Housing Land Supply Position Statement’ that in the absence of formal Government guidance around this point, the City Council’s interpretation is that there has been persistent under delivery meaning the City is adding the buffer of 20%. This equates to an additional 450 dwellings, which in turn means that the total baseline requirement over 5 years is identified as being 2700 dwellings (2250 + 450 dwellings). When this is compared with the 2,765 homes considered deliverable within 5 years, the City Council as satisfied that they have a 5 year (+20%) supply of housing land across the authority area.

3.28 It is noted that when calculating their housing requirement the City Council has not taken into account the historic backlog of 593 homes since the beginning of the RSS planning period - the City Council being of the view that the buffer is to be used in place of the backlog. In seeking to interpret the NPPF, addressing the backlog when looking at housing land requirements may be considered equally important to the validity of the annual housing requirement.

Table 1 – Net Housing completions

Year Completions Annualised RSS Target Annual Shortfall 2003/04 462 450 +12 2004/05 493 450 +43 2005/06 481 450 +31 2006/07 359 450 -91 2007/08 374 450 -76 2008/09 366 450 -84 2009/10 233 450 -217 2010/11 260 450 -190 2011/12 429 450 -21 Total 3457 4050 -593

Page 40

3.29 Table 1 shows the net housing completions and backlog since the beginning of the RSS period. If the historic backlog were to be taken into account then it is estimated that the supply of available housing land would fall to 4.2 years:-

2250 (RSS Target) + 593 (shortfall) + 450 (20% buffer) = 3293 (5 year requirement)

2765 (total supply) / 3293 (5 year requirement) x 100 = 83.97% = 4.2 Year supply

However if the backlog were to be spread over the whole of the period, then the supply of available housing land would be greater (circa 4.6 year supply).

3.30 In light of these considerations, it is advised that the City Council should consider whether the current supply of housing land as identified in the ‘Land Supply Position Statement – As of 30 September 2012’ is sustainable and robust given that it just covers a five year supply and taking account of the lack of inclusion of a backlog. It is suggested that given the nature of the current supply, the proposed development may be needed to ensure housing requirements can be met on an ongoing basis. Through this consideration the City Council must resolve whether the provisions contained with paragraph 49 of the NPPF will come into force meaning this proposal needs to be considered within the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

3.31 Policy H5 of the Carlisle Local Plan states “ that all allocated housing sites and windfall sites of 10 or more dwellings in the urban area are expected to make a contribution of 30% of units on site towards affordable housing”. For a definition of the types of affordable housing please see Annex B. The applicant has stated that of the 295 dwellings 59 will be classed as affordable housing, and this equates to 20%. The total contribution of affordable housing will be split 50:50 between socially rented housing and intermediate dwellings (definition in Annex B).

3.32 It is stated within the applicants Planning Statement that the provision of affordable housing is in accordance with the City Council’s requirements for affordable housing. The justification the applicant appears to give for the provision of only 20% is that that the total value of the affordable housing contribution is £2.45 million. Therefore, it has to be assumed that in order to comply with Policy H5 of the Carlisle Local Plan that the £2.45 million is 30% of the total development value. However, this is not clear. It is also considered that a 30% contribution of the total development value is not how Policy H5 of the Carlisle Local Plan is intended to be interpreted, and that a contribution of 89 affordable units, which is 30% of the 295 dwellings, should realistically be sought. If the applicant considers that this requirement would make the development unviable then discussions in relation to an appropriate proportion should be held with the City Council and evidence provided from the developer to demonstrate lack of viability.

Page 41

3.33 The Carlisle City Council Housing Services Team have indicated that for the purposes of this application, the City Council are considering the site Urban. Therefore the site is considered to be in the Carlisle Urban housing market area. The 2011 Carlisle City Council Housing Needs and Demand Study identified an annual need for 597 affordable homes within the Carlisle Urban housing market area. This figure forms part of a total annual need of 708 across the entire authority area. It is therefore considered that this development could contribute to the identified affordable housing need, notwithstanding there is dispute over the total provision appropriate.

3.34 On the basis of the above considerations, it is recommended that Carlisle City Council should carefully consider its strategic housing land provision if they are so minded to approve this application. They will need to consider their actual 5-year supply position at the point of determination, and decide as to whether or not this site would take them significantly in excess of their 5-year supply; whether it would undermine their strategic policy framework for Carlisle and the distribution of new development across the Carlisle; and whether it would meet local needs. In doing so, they also need to take account of all of the other deliverable sites which are in the pipeline, either with planning permission or current planning applications.

Local Community Infrastructure Issues

3.35 A housing development of 295 dwellings, using a dwelling led model is projected to yield 70 primary aged pupils. This development lies within the catchment area of Stoneraise School, which has a Pupil Admission Number (PAN) of 16 for entry in September 2012 and a maximum net capacity of 90. It is projected that by September 2015 the school will be full in the junior section without any development. However, the infant section would have space and with this development the school will exceed their maximum net capacity.

3.36 It is normally preferential to provide places within the catchment school were this is possible. However, due to the distance between the development and the catchment school of Stoneraise other options must be considered, so that a sustainable option can ne found to accommodate all 70 pupils that the development will yield. While there are a number of closer schools within walking distance the majority of these schools are full or close to being full. Therefore for this development a strategic view needs to be taken looking at all options in a 3 mile radius surrounding the school to ensure that all options are looked at to best meet the needs of the children, the schools, the community and the County Council.

3.37 Therefore a contribution would be sought from this development to mitigate against its impact. Stoneraise School has capacity to accommodate 28 (out of the 70) pupils, therefore a transport contribution will be sought as the distance between the development is 2.8 miles along an unsafe walking route. A contribution will also be sought taking a strategic view to accommodate the remaining 42 (out of 70) pupils. The contribution would be based on the DfE multiplier (£12,051) per pupil that there is insufficient space for. Therefore 42

Page 42 pupils x DfE multiplier = £506,142. In addition to this as the distance between the development and Stoneraise School is approximately 2.8 miles, along an unsafe walking route a transport contribution would also be needed for those 28 pupils. This amounts to a total contribution of (42 x £12,051 (DfE multiplier) = £506,142) + (28 x Transport cost = £171,000 + Admin fee of £8,550) = £685,692 which will be sought.

3.38 The sum of £506,142 should be paid to the County Council by the Owner to be used by the County Council within its reasonable discretion towards improving primary school infrastructure in the vicinity of the site. This includes but is not limited to the provision of a new primary school within a 3 mile area of the development or investment in the existing Upperby, The Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Petteril Bank, Inglewood (Infant and Junior), Brook Street, Pennine Way and Stoneraise Schools; the need for which is generated by the development. If the County Council within its reasonable discretion decides that it is not possible to improve primary infrastructure in the vicinity of the site, then the sum will be used for school transport for the period of 7 years; the need for which is generated by the Development. The County Council discretion will be dependent on County Council Member approval process.

3.39 In the event that the education contribution or any part or parts thereof are not expended or committed to be expended within five years of the date of payment, then the sum or sums not expended will be repaid to the person who paid the sum (or sums or its nominee) together with interest from the date of payment to the date of return at the Public Works Loan Board New Maturity 1 Year Rate.

Ecological Issues

3.40 It is recommended that Carlisle City Council should carry out a detailed assessment, prior to determination of the application to ensure that where it is necessary adequate mitigation and compensation in relation to ecology are in place.

3.41 In relation to biodiversity there has been no information other than a plan detailing trees and very limited information on hedgerows. There is no detail on why some trees were assessed from an ecological perspective as immature, no detail of veteran trees and no identification of TPOs. If there are none within the development it is considered that within the site from an ecological point of view this should be stated. There is no consideration of existing trees by species, just by age. The structure and significance of the hedgerows is also not considered.

3.42 It is considered that a proper report on the trees and hedgerows is required with relevant mitigation contained in it to avoid animal/habitat disturbance and compensation for loss. There is currently no consideration of any other aspect of the natural environment. There are no natural environment designations on or near the site, but the area is likely to be a sensitive one for various birds species and there is the possibility of nesting disturbance if not taken into account.

Page 43

3.43 Amongst the species of significance within the area are warblers, golden plover, reed bunting and linnet. In addition it is understood the area is used by Noctule bats and account should be taken of this. It is also considered that an assessment of the areas significance for amphibians and reptiles, especially the former as there are a number of waterbodies close by, should be undertaken. There are also no details supplied on protected species such as Great Crested Newt or Badger. Yet on such a large development site in such a location the possibility for impacts on these species should be assessed and considered.

3.44 It is also recommended that Carlisle City Council should consider the Natural England Standing Advice on Protected Species and the linked Cumbria advice (linked on the Natural England local resources page). The link to the Natural England Standing Advice is: Naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/planningtransportlocalgov/spatialplanning/standing advice/default.aspx

Landscape and Visual Impact Issues

3.45 Saved Structure Plan Policy E37 ‘Landscape Character’ states that ‘Development and land use change should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types and sub types.’ The site lies within landscape sub-type 5d ‘Urban Fringe’ as defined by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCGT).

3.46 Extracts of the CLCGT of particular relevance to this proposal are as follows ‘ These agricultural landscapes have been subjected to urban and industrial influences for a long time and in many parts maintain a rural character. Field patterns remain distinct in the largely pastoral areas, often bounded by strong hedges and hedgerow trees… The more agricultural areas and parts where woodland and open green spaces remain are important green lungs close to the towns and cities which provide respite from the busy areas and a connection to the wider countryside… Wooded valleys, restored woodland, some semi urbanised woodland, and the intact field patterns of farmland reinforced by hedges and hedgerow trees are sensitive to changes in land management and settlement expansion. Open green spaces and fields close to settlement edges are sensitive to unsympathetic development’.

3.47 The CLCGT notes in regard to development that housing on sensitive ridges can often lack the soft landscaping needed to help integrate it into the wider landscape. It is noted that the site lies in an elevated location.

3.48 The applicant states in the Vision for the area that: ‘This changing landscape will be enhanced through restoration. Management practices will create a stronger definition between town and country areas integrating adjacent discordant land uses into the landscape. Woodland areas and traditional field boundaries will be managed and enhanced. New woodland planting will be used strategically to create a bold landscape structure unifying disparate uses in developing areas while the reinforcement of rural ‘green’ qualities will help maintain rural character

Page 44 and provide visual relief. Access through the public rights of way network from towns and cities into the countryside will be enhanced’.

3.49 The site reflects the characteristics highlighted above. It currently comprises of open, pastoral fields, demarcated by clearly defined field boundaries. A number of mature trees are situated in and around the site. The site lies adjacent to Hammonds Pond, a popular local recreational facility. A public footpath traverses the site. The site and its surrounding area can be regarded as one of the ‘green lungs’ characteristic of landscape sub-type 5d.

3.50 The applicant has assessed the existing character of the site, and responded with a scheme which reflects the principles of good urban design. It is noted that from a landscape point of view Key trees and boundary features are to be retained, and opportunities to enhance legibility within the site, linkages to and through the site and maximise green infrastructure benefits have been taken.

3.51 In terms of the wider landscape context, the majority of the site is broadly level, and well contained by existing mature vegetation, and clear, long established field boundaries. The south western section of the site will be more prominent however, since it is situated upon higher ground, and encroaches into the fields to the south, creating a new boundary. The impact of the development of this area could be exacerbated by the construction of a lit foot/cycleway along the boundary, and through the proposed use of estate railings as the preferred boundary treatment.

3.52 Extending the established hedgerow interspersed with native trees, which forms a clear and characteristic boundary to the green lane to the south east, would be more appropriate in terms of landscape character, and would also serve to further mitigate visual impact in the longer term. Also in this regard, it is noted that the south western portion of the site is scheduled as Phase One of the overall development. Landscape and visual impact would be mitigated further if the appropriate boundary planting could be carried out at an early stage in the development of the overall site, and if the south western portion were left to a later stage to develop.

Historic Environment Issues

3.53 It is acknowledged that an archaeological desk-based assessment and geophysical survey has been produced. The results of the survey have highlighted several clusters of features across the site that are likely to be of archaeological origin. These features are not considered to be of sufficient importance to warrant preservation. However, it is recommended that they are investigated further and, where appropriate, should be subject to a programme of archaeological recording.

3.54 It is therefore recommended that an archaeological evaluation and, where necessary, a scheme of archaeological recording of the site be undertaken in advance of development and advise that this work should be commissioned and undertaken at the expense of the developer. It is considered that this programme of work can be secured through the inclusion of two conditions in any planning

Page 45 consent that may be granted and suggest the following form of words noted in Annex C.

Local Member Comments

3.55 Following notification of the planning application, the Local and Adjoining Members requested that some drop in sessions were held where members of the public could learn more about the proposal and inform their County Councillor of any concerns that they may have. Officers from the Spatial Planning, Highway and Area support Teams attended to assist and explain the role of the County when responding to planning applications. The feedback from the sessions was collated and provided to the Local and Adjoining Members to inform their response. Due to the length of the Local Member’s comments these can be found in Annex D. These comments were made prior to the drop in events, after the drop in events the Local Member has submitted supplementary comments which are noted below. The two Adjoining Local Member comments can also be found below.

Supplementary Comments to Annex D, Local Member for Dalston & Cummersdale – Trevor Allison

3.56 ‘All agenda items at the Local Committee meeting of 12th December, were in the public domain.

3.57 Under item 7 Appendix 4 entitled The Impact of the CNDR---" Appendix A of Parsons Brinckerhoff's report on traffic calming assessment, Para 2.1.4 reads (my bold);

3.58 "The first site experiencing a significant increase in traffic is Durdar Road. Due to the remote location of Durdar Road in relationship to the CNDR and the absence of a direct link between the two roads, this increase in traffic is considered to be the result of an external factor and therefore outside the context of this assessment. Traffic calming /improvement measures on Durdar Road will not be considered in the assessment.

3.59 Although this was outside the consultant's remit, their conclusion is unequivocal. The CNDR has resulted in an increase in traffic on the Durdar Road.

3.60 The drop in session at the racecourse was well attended. The main concern expressed by residents is the proposed single access just round the bend of this stretch of Durdar Road .

3.61 It has a poor accident record and a long-standing issue of speeding. It was clear that a roundabout at the bend, as the access point for the developments on both sides of the road, has wide support from the community.

3.62 Residents clearly expect something better than that which is currently intended. A roundabout would slow the traffic down and just as important, it would be self regulating. Page 46

3.63 If technically this is considered to be the best option, then a roundabout should be incorporated into this scheme, with a review of the options to help finance it.

3.64 I believe that there are options which might make this possible and should be explored .’

Adjoining Local Member for Currock- Heather Bradley

3.65 ‘I wish to make the following comments about the above planning application. This application does not refer directly to my division but is adjacent to it.

3.66 I have concerns about the location of the single access to the development. This is located at a site which has seen a number of traffic accidents over recent years. I should like to see some effort made to slow traffic approaching this point.

3.67 As for my own division, I have concerns about the amount of traffic which will be generated by the development and which will use the existing road network i.e. Durdar Road/ Blackwell Road/Currock Road to access the city. The junctions at Crown Street and James Street are already very busy especially at peak times, frequently have long tailbacks of traffic and monitoring by the City Council has shown a deterioration in air quality. The mini roundabout at the junction of Blackwell Road and Boundary Road (Five Road Ends) is also extremely busy at peak times and it is difficult for pedestrians to cross the roads which do not have a pedestrian crossing (especially Beaconsfield Street and Boundary Road.’

Adjoining Local Member for Upperby – Stewart Young

3.68 ‘Following the public drop in sessions and representations made to me by a number of residents I would like to comment on this application in so far as it affects the Upperby electoral division.

3.69 Firstly, I agree there should be a second access point for a development of this size, and the only realistic place for that is from Scalegate Road. There is an existing problem with flooding from the fields behind the properties on Oaklands Drive and it is to be hoped that the creation of a vehicular access road would address that issue. In addition there are a number of trees very close to the boundaries of the Oakland's Drive properties which cause problems for residents in the form of fallen branches, and leaves blocking the drains. The building of a new road would be an opportunity to address these issues on a permanent basis.

Page 47

3.70 Secondly, there is an existing public footpath from the Scalegate Road/Lamb Street junction through to Blackwell. The proposal is that this should become the main pedestrian access to and from Upperby for the new development. I would strongly oppose this proposal. The existing footpath is extremely narrow with a fence on either side and is barely suitable for pedestrians, let alone bicylces or push chairs. There are existing issues affecting properties adjoining the footpath, both on Scalegate Road and the pensioners bungalows on Oaklands Drive. My preferred solution would be to divert this section of the footpath so that it runs through Hammonds Park, and from there reaches Scalegate Road via the existing park entrance.

3.71 Although the site of the proposed development currently sits in the catchment areas for Stoneraise Primary School and Caldew Secondary School, it is my opinion that many parents will choose to attend one or other of the neighbouring primary schools (Petteril Bank, Upperby, St Margaret Mary's and Bishop Harvey Goodwin), and also the Richard Rose Central Academy. Consideration should therefore be given to ensuring safe routes to those schools, either for those walking or for those using public transport.

3.72 There is a particular issue about the proximity of new housing to the property at 26 Oaklands Drive, but I believe with minor adjustments to the planned layout a more acceptable buffer zone could be created which would preserve the privacy and security of the residents.

3.73 Overall, many residents have welcomed the prospect of new housing, particularly affordable housing, and I would like consideration to be given to requiring that proportion to be 30% rather than 20%.’

3.74 In relation to concerns raised by the Local Adjoining Members in relation to single access and traffic generation, this is dealt within the detailed Highway Authority response where a second access is sought as it would have several benefits: it would provide a through link for buses; provide access during the inevitable closure of narrow estate roads during works in the carriageways; and distribute the trips to/from the estate on a wider road network, thus reducing traffic impact on Blackwell/Durdar Rds (the C1036) amongst others by providing more direct journeys.

3.75 In relation to comments raised about existing public footpath, these concerns are also raised in the detailed Highway Authority response, where it is recommended that A convenient, safe, direct and attractive route, suitable for both cyclists and pedestrians should be provided from the development to link to Scalegate Road and existing facilities such as shops and schools. Such a route already exists within Hammonds Park and thus it would be preferable for this to become the re- routed Footpath, running through Hammonds Park and to Scalegate Road.

3.76 In relation to concerns raised about the proximity of new housing to the property at 26 Oaklands drive, it is considered that Carlisle City Council will need to consider if the amenity of this property will be affected by the proposed development.

Page 48

3.77 In relation the concern raised about the proposed amount of affordable housing which will be provided this matter is dealt with in the main body of the report, where it is explains that the applicants approach is to provide a 30% contribution of the total development value which equates to less than 30% of the total units. It is considered that it is not how policy H5 of the Carlisle Local Plan in intended to be interpreted.

3.78 With regard to the comments from the Local and Adjoining Members we consider that the matter relating to school catchments are dealt with in the main body of the report. The matter raised relating to the scale of development has also been dealt with in the Development Strategy and Location Issues section of the report. In terms of the matters raised about speeding vehicles it is considered that the detailed comments from the Highway Authority address the issue. With regard to the comments made about changing the principle access to the site and the suggestion for a roundabout on to Durdar Road, these suggested changes are not considered necessary by the Highways Authority. The Highways Authority is more concerned about the adequacy of a secondary access which has been dealt with in detail in the Highway Authority response.

3.79 The issue relating to Scalegate Road has been dealt with in the Highway Authority response which is requiring a secondary access and a revised layout to enable buses to circulate within the site. The concerns relating to the likelihood of creating a rat run between Blackwell Road and Scalegate Road would be dealt with by the detailed design and layout.

3.80 With regard to the potential flooding issues, it is considered that the part which relates to the highway responsibilities has been addressed in the Highway Authority response. The proposal also includes a Sustainable Drainage System (SUDS) in the area currently identified as a higher flood risk. Notwithstanding these points the issue over flooding is principally a matter for the Environment Agency, United Utilities and Carlisle City Council to resolve.

Carlisle Local Area Committee Chairperson

3.81 No comments have been received from the Local Area Chair.

4.0 CONCLUSION

4.1 It is noted that the development site lies outside of the Urban Boundary (DP1) as designated in the Carlisle Local Plan (2008). However, the site does lie immediately adjacent to the Urban Boundary (DP1), and is considered to be well related to and will contribute to the ongoing sustainability of the Carlisle urban area.

4.2 It is considered that in the context of the SRSpS, the NPPF and the saved and extended JSP Policy ST5 and its location, the development of the site for residential purposes would be acceptable in principle from a strategic planning point of view. However, it is recommended that Carlisle Council must be satisfied that there are no preferable and deliverable brownfield sites identified in the SHLAA, which might come forward in the first 5 years of the Carlisle Local Plan. Page 49

4.3 It is recommended that Carlisle City Council should carefully consider its strategic housing land provision. As noted in paragraph 3.28 it appears that the City Council have not taken into account the historic backlog of under development. Therefore the City Council will need to consider their actual 5-year supply position at the point of determination, and decide; whether a planning permission now would undermine their strategic policy framework for Carlisle and the distribution of new development across the Carlisle; and whether it would meet local needs. In doing so, they also need to take account of all of the other deliverable sites which are in the pipeline, either with planning permission or current planning applications and any allocations which remain in the current Local Plan

4.4 In relation to primary school places, the development is within the catchment area of Stoneraise School, where there is a limited capacity to accommodate all of the pupils. It is normally preferential to provide places within the catchment school were this is possible. However, due to the distance between the development and the school, other options must be considered so that a sustainable option is found. Therefore for this development a strategic view needs to be taken looking at all options in a 3 mile radius surrounding the school to ensure that all options are looked at to best meet the needs of the children, the schools, the community and the County Council. Therefore as detailed in paragraphs 3.34 to 3.38 the County Council will seek a total contribution of (42 x £12,051 (DfE multiplier) = £506,142) + (28 x Transport cost = £171,000 + 8,500) = £685,692. To provide transport for 28 pupils to Stoneraise and to ensure the 42 remaining pupils are catered for within a 3 mile radius of the development.

4.5 It is recommended that Carlisle City Council should satisfy itslef that an appropriate level of ecological assessment has been carried out prior to determination, and adequate mitigation and compensation will be provided where necessary.

4.6 In relation to landscape and visual issues, it is recommended that the established hedgerow interspersed with native trees, which forms a clear and characteristic boundary to the green lane to the south east should be extended. This would be appropriate in terms of enhancing the landscape character of the site, and would also serve to further mitigate visual impact in the longer term. Also in this regard, it is noted that the south western portion of the site is scheduled as Phase One of the overall development. Landscape and visual impact would be mitigated further if the appropriate boundary planting could be carried out at an early stage in the development of the overall site, and if the south western portion were to be left to a later stage to develop.

4.7 It is recommended that an archaeological evaluation and, where necessary, a scheme of archaeological recording of the site be undertaken in advance of development and advise that this work should be commissioned and undertaken at the expense of the developer. It is considered that this programme of work can be secured through the inclusion of two conditions in any planning consent as detailed in Annex C.

Page 50

4.8 Members should note the Highway Authority response which is an objection to the proposal, as set out in Annex A.

4.9 The matters raised by the Local and Adjoining Members have been addressed in the main body of the report and the detailed response of the Highway Authority.

Paul Feehily Assistant Director – Planning and Sustainability

Contact

Graeme Innes 01228 226599

Background Papers

Planning Application File Reference 02/2012/0793

Electoral Division Identification

Local Member: Cllr. Trevor Allison, Dalston and Cummersdale ED

Adjoining Members: Cllr. Stewart Young, Upperby ED Cllr. Heather Margret Bradley, Currock ED Cllr. Hugh McDevitt, Denton Holme ED Cllr. John Bell, Morton ED

Page 51 ANNEX A – CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY RESPONSE

This Appendix has been prepared to take account of matters raised during the Member Site Visit on 16th October 2012, as well as being the Statutory response of the Highway Authority to the Planning Authority.

RECOMMENDATION

Refusal, for the following reason: The scale of the development is more than can be accommodated from one access onto the County highway network and would prejudice the comprehensive development of the area in terms of the connectivity with the surrounding highway network for vehicular, cycle and pedestrian usage and failure to provide through connectivity for local bus services.

Additionally, although promised on 21 st November 2012, the additional junction modelling, including flows for committed developments (referred to in 7 th Highways paragraph below) has not been undertaken. Thus the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the intensification of use arising from the additional traffic the development will produce can be satisfactorily accommodated at key junctions leading to the City Centre to the detriment of existing highway users.

Reason: to support Local Transport Plan Policies LD7 & LD8

TRANSPORT & HIGHWAY ISSUES

It is considered that the main Transport and Highway policy aspects raised by the application are to determine whether or not the proposal is sustainable in terms of transport, accessibility and layout.

It is considered that with revisions to layout as more particularly referred to below, a development on this site could be acceptable.

The following policies are considered relevant to this proposal:

JSP Policy T30 Transport Assessments JSP Policy T31 Travel Plans SRSpS Development Principles SRSpS Areas within Cumbria

1.1 LTP Policy LD4 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans 1.2 LTP Policy LD5 Access to new developments 1.3 LTP Policy LD6 Developer contributions 1.4 LTP Policy LD7 Design standards 1.5 LTP Policy LD8 Safety and security 1.6 LTP Policy WS3 Travel plan monitoring

Page 52 Highways

The application is for the development of grazing land, for 295 houses in 4 Phases, to the south of Hammonds Park, Carlisle between Blackwell (C1036) and Scalegate (C1037) Roads with access off Blackwell Rd. on the reverse bends near the Lowry St junction.

There is an extant planning consent for 42 dwellings on the west side of Blackwell Road, which provides for the introduction of a ‘3 lane right turn lane’ layout. This has been taken account of in Figure 2.1 of the Transport Assessment and an acceptable junction layout has been produced. However the ’3 lane’ alterations to Blackwell Rd will need to be carried out for this development, if it proceeds before the consented one.

Despite pre and post application advice that we only consider a single point of access for up to 100 dwellings, the developer has only offered an emergency access to the east (Scalegate Road). Given the scale of the development (295 dwellings and potential for further expansion) a proper secondary access to/from Scalegate Rd has been sought. This would have several benefits: it would provide a through link for buses; provide access during the inevitable closure of narrow estate roads during works in the carriageways; and distribute the trips to/from the estate on a wider road network, thus reducing traffic impact on Blackwell/Durdar Rds (the C1036) amongst others by providing more direct journeys.

However the developer is proposing this only as an emergency access, (Fig:2.3 in the TA). At the site visit most DC&R members felt this link essential for permeability, though the TA produced by the developer does not identify this as necessary from a traffic capacity perspective. It should also be noted that the developer has control of the land to the south of the site.

Several Members have expressed concerns about ‘accidents’ on the C1036 and the potential impacts of construction traffic. The development is to be constructed in 4 phases. Phase 1 nearest Blackwell Rd, followed by Phase 2 then 3 to the north-east & 4 to the south-east. Thus the ‘emergency link’ to C1037 (Scalegate Rd), will only be constructed as part of the final phase (unless otherwise Conditioned). Clearly this construction phasing has issues as the construction traffic will be passing through the built sections of the new estate. It follows what is currently a farm track over much of its route. The planned junction with Scalegate Rd is on the City Boundary and it is situated right on the 20mph/derestriction point where the footways/lighting ends and becomes a narrowed rural road commences. A 50mph design speed sightline is available to the south and ample to the north which in any case is 20mph restricted.

The proposed emergency access junction is unsuitable for even emergency use, as it needs to be laid out as a proper bellmouth suitable for two vehicles to pass; and the access would require at least passing places to pass two way traffic. For the avoidance of doubt the ‘emergency access’ should be constructed to adoptable standards and be taken over by the Highways Authority and be within a corridor that will allow for future widening. This cannot be achieved within the existing Red Line boundary of the Application. As a consequence the internal estate road layout that connects to the emergency access would require alteration, included changing house bloc positions. Therefore substantial revisions to the layout and design of the scheme are necessary and given the inadequacies of the current drawings it is recommended that the scheme should be refused permission.

Page 53

Some Members of DC&R expressed concerns about elements of the proposed road layout, which essentially follows the ‘Manual For Streets’ design guidance. To counter these concerns, there needs to be some form of hierarchy, including the ‘emergency access road’ and the means of access thereto (this will require some 5 and 4.8m roads to be 5.5m carriageways with at least one 1.8m footway).

Currently the land is outwith the City boundary and so falls within the Stoneraise/Caldew school catchment. Where children go to school has a significant impact on the TA, as this has been based on the nearest schools, Upperby Primary and the Secondarys in the City Centre. Stoneraise Primary School will be unable to accommodate all the primary pupils and currently it appears that Upperby will also be unable to accommodate new pupils from the development. However capacity does exist at Bishop Harvey Goodwin. Whilst this will involve school journeys along Blackwell Rd, via Millholme Ave/Ridley Rd this will not cause any junctions to go ‘over capacity’. Caldew Academy will be likely to accommodate the secondary pupils. Pupils from this area are already transported to this school. The impact on the Durdar crossroads is negligible.

Robust Gravity Modelling (based on the journeys undertaken by the Upperby Ward population, for employment/education (though the latter figure will be inaccurate given the schools pupils are likely to attend are not those in the Assessment) has been carried out and 8 junctions have been assessed for capacity.

1. Durdar staggered junction; 2. Blackwell Rd/Henderson Rd junction 3. Embleton Rd/Upperby Rd 4. Upperby Rd/St Ninians Rd/Lamb St 5. Blackwell Rd/Currock Rd mini-roundabout 6. Currock Rd/Crown St mini-roundabout 7. Nelson Bridge East jnct 8. Nelson Bridge West jnct.

On the basis of the modelling the applicant claims that no further assessment of junctions is needed. The Highways Authority disputes this and consider the Transport Assessment is inadequate. In particular, we have concerns that the only committed development taken into account is the one opposite the site and not those nearer the City Centre in respect of junctions and also sought 5 road ends mini-roundabout; Dalston Rd/Junction St/Shaddongate and St Nicholas St/Botchergate/London Rd. junctions to be included in the Transport Assessment. A major issue is the number of ‘committed developments’ (sites with planning consents) that exists and have done so in some cases for many years have not been considered in the junction assessments. Thus the modelling for Nelson Bridge West/East junctions in particular is inadequate.

Sites that should be included are:-

• 10/0506 Currock Rail Depot – outline for 90 dwellings, • 08/0333 & 04/0818, 48 dwellings off Currock Rd in former railway triangle, (these both impact on Currock Rd/Blackwell Rd and Currock Rd/Crown St) • 08/0051 98 dwellings, former Gasworks site off Rome St. • 07/0857 & 07/0415 Retail 3,715 sq.m. Lower Viaduct Estate. Page 54

• 09/0815 & 07/1362 development Collingwood St. DentonHolme: 286 sq.m Retail, 116sqm Café, 127sqm. Office, 7142sqm Student Residential, 456sqm Assembly/Leisure, 1525sqm Art/Craft work/display/retail, 445Sq.m servicing/ancilliary, 422sqm storage/distribution. • 11/0120 37 houses former Penguin Factory site; and 11/0814 & 04/1339 Outline for residential development, Nelson St.

These are mostly ‘brownfield’ sites, sequentially preferable for development to this site. All the above impact on the Currock St/Crown St and Nelson Bridge (West & East) junctions.

Discussions were held with the applicant’s planning consultant and Transport Assessment engineers on 21 st November. They have demonstrated that the impacts of the development on the Shaddongate/B5299 and St Nicholas St/A6 junctions are a minor percentage of existing traffic flows and so do not intend to model further. The planning consultant argues that of the above planning consents the only one likely to proceed is 11/0120, and then in reduced form. Whilst there may be some truth in this view, the fact is these remain developable sites that are likely to emerge in some form, and consideration should be given to their impacts.

The Public Footpath running east from Blackwell Rd to Scalegate Rd is to be diverted to form a main pedestrian/cycle corridor. However this is likely to be delivered during Phase 3. The section outwith the site, leading to the Scalegate Rd/Lamb St. junction, is narrow (6’ between palisade fencing) is prone to flooding and thus is incapable of pram, disabled conveyances and cyclist use. A convenient, safe, direct and attractive route, suitable for both cyclists and pedestrians should be provided from the development to link to Scalegate Road and existing facilities such as shops and schools. Such a route already exists within Hammonds Park and thus it would be preferable for this to become the re-routed Footpath, running through Hammonds Park and would be lit. It is recommended that segregation fencing remains available during the hours of darkness, when Hammonds Park is closed). Clearly the Footpath is unaffected by Phase1 but Phase 2 should deliver a ‘surfaced, drained and lit’ Cyclepath from Blackwell Rd through the Estate, to Hammond’s Park, through to Scalegate Rd.

Cyclepaths - We are minded to seek contributions to the new Currock cyclepath bridge and Currock/Upperby cyclepath link, which links from the new Bridge via Lund Crescent/Beaumont Rd through Hammonds Park to Scalegate Rd. This would provide a good (largely off road) cycle route into the City centre, including the employment areas in northern Denton Holme and west Castle Divisions, the Bitts Park/Sands Leisure Facilities and the Cumberland Infirmary. The applicant’s planning consultant argues that it is too far away to be of any practical benefit to future residents of the proposed estate.

There has been a call from Cycle Carlisle for the upgrade of the public footpath leading along Lowry St. towards Cummersdale, to link to the Caldew cycle route. Whilst there is merit in this suggestion the cost of such an upgrade would not be a reasonable charge on this development, and the likely use would almost certainly be less than the aforementioned one.

Page 55

(Surface Water) Drainage is to Hammonds Pond/Wire Mire beck, with a new balancing pond to the north of the site. This would be fed by an existing field ditch system, which is to be upgraded as a landscaped stream within the estate, with controlled discharge into Wire Mire Beck, as the ditch currently does.

Wire Mire Beck is ‘Main River’ and runs west through Hammonds Park thence north-west to discharge into the Caldew, below Holmehead Weir by the Denton St – Bousteads Grassing Bridge.

The DC&R site visit took place on a very wet day after the wettest summer on record, Members were concerned that the fields were discharging water onto the football fields, the site for the balancing pond was in a flooded field, with Wire Mire beck overflowing into Hammonds Pond over paths. Whilst this is rightly an issue for concern, the introduction of an engineered system should ameliorate matters, rather than exacerbate the situation. A number of the cul-de-sacs are to be ‘block paved’, and so could provide a degree of infiltration, though it is accepted the soils in this area are in the clay series.

A Member spoke of existing surface water drainage issues with properties in Oaklands Drive. These will be ameliorated by the construction of the ‘emergency link road’, which has to be drained. Given that the natural falls of the fields are towards the north, suitable interception drainage needs to be provided along the southern boundary of the proposed development. There are piped drainage systems that cross the site (phases 3&4) to the start of Wire Mire Beck, near where the Public Footpath enters the NE corner of the site from Scalegate Rd. These need to be identified and appropriately dealt with as part of the development, hence the Surface Water Drainage Condition.

Road Safety – at the site visit, Members brought up the number of accidents that have taken place on the C1036, (not picked up in the Transport Assessment) so further study has been undertaken. Over an 18 year period, on the section between Durdar and Mount Pleasant Rd junctions, there have been 56 incidents where persons have needed medical attention, (including 4 Fatal and 16 Serious Injury). It is evident various changes made to the road have had an impact in reducing either incident or the severity thereof and so consideration is whether not the increased traffic from the development would lead to significant increases. The reports have been analysed which is detailed below:-

DURDAR STAGGERED CROSS ROADS: improvement works were carried out in 2011, which eased the northern radius. Thus long vehicles no longer overrun the footway, but also by reducing the ‘stagger’ this appears from observation to have eliminated many of the spurious ‘indications’ formerly made by many motorists.

Of the 9 recorded incidents, 8 involved turning vehicle collisions due to apparent failure to ‘give way’, all are pre 2007. The 2 serious involved injured elderly drivers. The other serious incident occurred in 2003 and involved a person engaged in delivering newspapers on a dark wet autumn morning being struck by a passing vehicle. Thus there are no reported incidents within the usual 5 year time period, and the developer could not be expected to contribute to any mitigation measures. It is anticipated the development will add 5 N(orth) to E(ast)and 22 N to W and 8 W to N and 2E to N movements to the morning/evening weekday peak periods.

Page 56

DURDAR Rd (Durdar crossroads to proposed site access) – during 2005/6 the 30 mph speed restriction was moved south from near Hammonds Park to cover the bends through Blackwell. There is a 40mph restriction from Blackwell covering the Durdar crossroads. In 2006 (and again in 2012) the section through the bends has had surface treatments applied to provide at least the threshold ‘skid resistance value’. There have been 28 incidents on this section: 12 involved vehicles leaving the road of which 10 were at the bends (but again the most recent 2006, is outwith the usual 5 year period); 9 involved ‘driveway incidents’ (vehicles turning in/reversing out); 4 parked cars (including a pillion passenger, this year, who fell off the rear of a motor-cycle when the driver set off having had to give way due to a parked car); 2 pedestrian accidents occurred at the Racecourse and another serious involved the next vehicle, hitting the debris from the previous fatal accident, again near the Racecourse. The recorded incidents hereabouts are not representative of many ‘near misses’ due to the car parks being on the east side, so at Race events there are a large number of spectators crossing mingling with vehicles. Thus since summer 2012 larger events are covered by Road Closures (thus removing the through traffic) and internal measures to keep departing pedestrians and vehicles segregated.

The northern (Lowry St) bends will have a 3-lane system introduced either as planned by the consented ‘Racecourse’ development (not yet commenced) or as part of the access for this development, (if conditioned). By narrowing the lane width this will make the bend more conspicuous.

BLACKWELL Rd.(Lowry St to Henderson Rd) – has seen 9 incidents, only 1 (which involved a child running out of Hammonds Park) was serious; 4 involved private accesses/drives; involved 3 parked cars and 1 an incident where a vehicle stopped by the police, then reversed into the police car and drove off.

There are various similar incidents along Blackwell Rd up to the Currock Rd mini– roundabout, but the only area of note is around the Mount Pleasant Rd junction. Here a combination of shops, (with all the problems of delivering/parked vehicles and significant pedestrian movements as there is a path from Beaumont Rd.) and the usual road junction manoeuvres. Of the 9 incidents, 4x involved turning manoeuvres, 4x pedestrians, the 9 th a motorcyclist, ran into a parked vehicle. Parked vehicles figure in most of the other incidents, 3 of which are in the past 5 years. This would appear the only location where we could seek mitigation measures (78% of the traffic leaving/entering the site will be along Blackwell Rd on the city side, with typically c15-25% increase depending on time/day/direction. There is an improvement scheme, a plan of which is appended, scheduled for introduction later this year.

SCALEGATE Rd – in view of the suggestion that as the Estate increases in size, the proposed ‘emergency access from Scalegate Rd should (as already remarked) be a secondary ‘all purpose’ access. In addition the development can be expected to significantly increase pedestrian movements along this road and so reported ‘injury incidents’ between the Mount Pleasant Rd junction and City Boundary were also looked at.

Page 57

These appear to have similar trends to Blackwell Rd, but fewer (15 with only 4 in last 5 years) incidents {particularly around the Lamb St junction where most pedestrians to/from the new estate are likely to cross due to shops and the schools (assuming Upperby Primary and Central Academy are the ones used). Interestingly of the 4, a cluster of 3 are incidents around the Oaklands Drive junction in the past 3 years, near the proposed ‘emergency access point’. However investigation shows one was a slight rear end shunt between 2 cars leaving Oaklands Drive.

The second involved a bus where an elderly male passenger had left his seat to alight at the stop, as the bus braked, lost his balance and sustained serious head injuries. The third was a loss of control of a south bound car @ 23:10 due to hitting the nearside verge at the narrowing. This would be dealt with as part of the new junction arrangements.

Travel Plan Issues. The Interim Travel Plan submitted with the planning application is on the whole acceptable, with satisfactory aims and objectives. The measures proposed are reasonable, though it is considered the benefits of a car club be considered as an alternative to a car share scheme. Also, Travel Packs for households, would be more effective if discounted bus tickets were included.

The Interim Travel Plan states that the ‘first annual travel survey’ of residents will be undertaken a year after the first occupation of the site . This is acceptable, since at the outset of the development there are insufficient residents to survey. However, if the deposit the full Travel Plan is delayed until Phase2 of the development, data from the completed Phase1 can be used to inform/verify the trip generation estimates presented in the Transport Assessment.

The Interim Travel Plan states the intention to upgrade the document to a full Travel Plan three months prior to first occupation of the site. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed in the full Travel Plan to be acceptable:

- The full Travel Plan should identify the site Travel Plan Co-ordinator, and include sufficient budget provision to enable the delivery of all identified measures.

- No targets have been included in the Interim Travel Plan. The full Travel Plan should set out targets which will indicate the success or otherwise of the Travel Plan. It is suggested that a reasonable headline target would be a 10% reduction in peak hour car trips generated by the development (in line with CCC's 'Travel Plans and the Planning Process in Cumbria: Guidance for Developers' ).

- The full Travel Plan should be prepared following significant occupancy of Phase1 and before any occupancy of Phase2.

In order for the Travel Plan to be successful, the following needs to be secured through a Town & Country Planning Act 1990, Section106 Agreement:

- Appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator (with sufficient time, budget and management support available to successfully implement the Travel Plan).

Page 58

- Agreement on the target reduction of 10% in AM and PM peak hour trips (as provided in the Transport Assessment dated September 2012 submitted with the Application). - The site Travel Plan Co-ordinator to carry out interim annual monitoring and report results to Cumbria County Council.

- A Travel Plan Contribution of £77,175 (based on the cost of an annual ‘Carlisle Megarider’ bus ticket multiplied by the proposed reduction in the number of AM and PM peak hour car trips multiplied by 5 years) in favour of the County Council to be used in the event that the targets have not been achieved.

- A contribution of £6,600 should be secured in respect of County Council staff time relating to the ongoing monitoring and review of the development's travel plan through liaison with the site's Travel Plan Co-ordinator.

Public Transport Issues/Comments The location of this development on the southern edge of Carlisle is not within close proximity to the railway network. The nearest railway station is Carlisle Citadel station, approximately 2 miles away. Consequently the development is not anticipated to produce a significant impact upon the railway network.

Whilst there are frequent bus services to the Scalegate Road area, (the nearest bus stop being near the Lamb St junction) and a less frequent bus service to the Blackwell Road side of the site, walking distances to stops are not attractive. Beyond Phase 1 and any development of this site's size should be served by a service running through the site to encourage use of bus travel. In this regard, currently there is only one proposed entry/exit point from the site and this is off Blackwell Road, which only has an hourly service that would be insufficiently attractive to encourage bus use. Ideally a bus service should be able to run through the site, i.e. the proposed access off Scalegate Rd. Within the site the road layout should be made suitable for a single full size single-deck bus to run through, without the need for any reversing manoeuvres as already set out above. For this reason the design and layout of the scheme requires amendment.

Consideration should be given for provision of bus stops within the site, with poles, hardstanding and raised kerbs where required, as well as bus shelters with provision for long term maintenance as part of Phases 3&4 which are beyond the usual ‘walk distance’.

More direct walking links from the site to main roads with existing bus service should also be available to allow access to existing bus services at times when a service via the development site is not available (e.g. evenings and Sundays). The proposed link through Hammonds Park to Scalegate Rd would provide this.

There are two operators providing services to both Blackwell and Upperby, so care will have to be taken in any negotiations to fund the extension of a service into the site.

It should be noted that the Sunday summer Service 38 referred to in the table on page 11 of the Interim Travel Plan only runs to and from the bus station and does not serve this area.

Page 59 School Transport Comments The catchment primary School for this development is Stoneraise School, which does not have capacity to accommodate the eventual number of pupils anticipated from this development. The Schools Organisation Team have indicated they will be looking for a contribution in order to provide capacity to accommodate all the Primary pupils from this development. Since the full development is expected to yield 70 primary aged pupils, it is considered that providing transport for this number to Stoneraise School is not a sustainable option, therefore a strategic approach will be taken to provide sufficient capacity at closer schools.

Community Transport Comments If any of the dwellings are specifically aimed at elderly residents or those with poor mobility and the area will not be served by accessible scheduled bus services, then there may be a contribution required towards the "City Wheels" scheme.

Conclusion: The proposed development site, laying just south of the City boundary is well placed for the Hammonds Park leisure facility, but little else. The transport challenge is the distance from other facilities, including education/employment sites. The key issue is most of Currrock/Upperby is constrained between the River Caldew/Maryport railway to the west and River Petteril /Lancaster railway to the east, with crossings into the City, restricted essentially to 3 routes. Access to the south is relatively good via the C1014 to either the B5299 at Bridge End Dalston, or the M6/A6 Jnct 42, but a relatively low proportion of trips can be expected to be to the south.

Thus the importance of keeping traffic levels to those that can be expected from an ‘urban estate’ by ensuring there are real alternative ‘transport modes’ is crucial, and to this end a Robust Travel Plan is essential. The Cumbria Design Guide usually looks to restrict cul-de-sac developments to less than 100 properties. The Manual for Streets states that street networks should be connected or permeable as they encourage walking and cycling and makes places easier to navigate through. They also lead to a more even spread of motor traffic throughout the area. A development with poor links to the surrounding area creates an enclave which encourages movement to and from it by car rather than other more sustainable modes. Para 4.2.7 of the MfS states:-

"The number of external connections that a development provides depends on the nature of its surroundings. Residential areas adjacent to each other should be well connected."

It is therefore considered that a formal estate link road should be provided to connect to Scalegate Road instead of the 'emergency access road' shown on the submitted plans. In addition to the aforementioned points this will enable bus services to be provided that run through the site, thereby helping to ensure good access to public transport for the residents, but will also allow improved access to nearby facilities and services and encourage greater community integration and cohesion.

The application as submitted is considered unfit for this Authority to recommend Approval, and further work is needed on the Transport Assessment, the Estate Roads and Surface Water Drainage detail that will impact on the Estate Layout. This is of such magnitude that it should either be Not Determined pending revisions to the submission, or Refused on the grounds of “inadequacy of submitted information” as set out in detail, above. Page 60 If Carlisle City Council is minded to issue a planning permission, the following conditions should be applied:

Recommended Conditions.

1. The carriageways, footways, footpaths, cyclepaths etc shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit, to a standard suitable for adoption and in this respect full engineering details shall be submitted for approval by the Local Highways Authority as part of a Highways Act 1980 Section 38 Agreement, before roadworks commence on site. These details shall be in accordance with the standards laid down in the current Cumbria Design Guide, all works so approved, shall be constructed before the development (or relevant phase thereof) is considered complete.

Note: Condition used where Estate Roads are to become adopted highways under a Section 38 agreement with the Highways Authority.

Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD5, LD7, LD8

2. The driveways, footpaths, parking areas etc shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in this respect further details, including levels and material specifications, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved.

Note Condition used where access to properties is to remain private and not become Highway.

Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD5, LD7, LD8

3 Site Access arrangements: (i) The access from Blackwell Rd. on the Plan, shall be substantially met before any building work commences on site so that constructional traffic can safely access the site and park and turn clear of the highway. Note:- in the event the consented development on the opposite side of Blackwell Rd has not produced the three lane system through the bends, before any works commence on this site, then the development hereby consented shall deliver the necessary changes to Blackwell Rd through the bends.

(ii) Upon completion of the 108 th dwelling the ‘route’ to the C1037, Scalegate Rd shall have been constructed capable of use, and the use shall be at the sole discretion of the Local Highways Authority (for the avoidance of doubt this shall be not less than 5.5m wide carriageway and a 1.8m wide verge and shall include a connecting route of at least this standard to the main estate road network).

Reason : The carrying out of building works without the provision of these facilities is likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users. Retention of the facilities ensures an appropriate standard of parking and access for as long as the use continues. To support Local Transport Policies: LD5, 7 & 8.

(iii) Before site works commence on any phase of the development, plan(s) shall be submitted for the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority, indicating adequate land for the site offices, materials storage and parking for plant/vehicles engaged in the construction operations associated with the development hereby approved, and such land, including the vehicular access(es) thereto, shall be used for, or be kept available for these purposes at all times until completion of the said Phase of the construction works.

Reason: The carrying out of this development without the provision of these facilities during the construction work is likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users. To support Local Transport Policies: LD8.

Page 61 4. Travel Plan - The developer shall enter into a Section 106 Agreement with the Local Planning Authority for delivery of measures set out in the Travel Plan, to encourage the achievement of a modal shift away from the use of private cars to sustainable transport modes . The measures identified in the Travel Plan shall be implemented by the developer within 12 months of first occupancy of the first dwelling of Phase2 and be the subject of Annual Reviews thereafter until 5 years after completion of the last phase of the development.

Reason : To aid in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: WS1, LD4 and Structure Plan Policy T31.

5. Surface water Drainage: Full engineering details, including Discharge Consent and channel improvement measures to the Wire Mire Beck and the measures to intercept groundwater discharges that currently occur through the site (including the protection/improvement/replacement as necessary, of the piped watercourses that are known to pass through Phases 3&4 to the Beck/Hammonds Pond) for the surface water drainage system shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to any construction works commencing. All such approved works shall be implemented to an agreed programme in accordance with the constructional Phases and shall be maintained operational thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD7, LD8.

6. Phasing - The new access roads (including the emergency access road onto Scalegate Rd) shall be constructed as detailed on Barton Wilmore Drawing No: 20868 and brought into use as required by the various phases.

7. Public Right Of Way diversion/provision - The Linear Park along the existing field ditch between Phases 2 & 3-4 and associated Cyclepath and means of connections thereto, before the development proceeds beyond the 46 th dwelling (in Phase2). Note: for the avoidance of doubt, this shall include the securing the PROW diversion/conversion Order and the provision of a ‘surfaced drained and lit’ cyclepath from Blackwell Rd and Hammonds Park/Scalegate Rd.

8. Sufficiency of access prior to occupation - No dwelling shall 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.

Reasons: To ensure that the proposed new access roads are constructed within a reasonable timescale, commensurate with house construction and to ensure an adequate means of access and parking are available when houses are occupied, in the interests of highway safety and general amenity. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD5, LD7, LD8.

9. Sustainable Transport arrangements/funding - The development shall not proceed beyond Phase2 until agreement has been reached for the funding by the developer through a Section 106 Agreement (if a commercial operator does not otherwise provide) of a satisfactory bus service to serve the development, and for a contribution to school transport based on £150,000 for 5 years from a point where the number of pupils exceeds the capacity of the existing school bus.

9a The developer should be required to contribute to the Caldew Cyclepath link to Currock and Upperby so that it is operational from Denton Holme to Hammonds Park, by the time construction of the Estate is complete. (There are currently contributions from some of the Developments listed above, within Currock/Dentonholme and indeed the ‘Racecourse’ development on the opposite side of Blackwell Rd – to some extent the development which is the subject of this application, appears to threaten the viability of these others, as previously set out, which leaves a potential funding gap in the funding for the new railway bridge and associated extension of the Caldew cycle route).

Reasons: In the interests of highway safety, accessibility by sustainable transport modes and to minimise potential hazards. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: C2, LD5, LD6 LD7, LD8 and Structure Plan Policies: T25, T27, & L53. Page 62 Figure 1 - Mount Pleasant Road / Blackwell Road Safety Scheme

Page 63 ANNEX B

National Planning Policy Framework – Affordable Housing Definitions

Affordable housing: Social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, which are provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.

Social rented housing is owned by local authorities and private registered providers (as defined in section 80 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008), for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime. It may also be owned by other persons and provided under equivalent rental arrangements to the above, as agreed with the local authority or with the Homes and Communities Agency.

Affordable rented housing is let by local authorities or private registered providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social rented housing.

Affordable Rent is subject to rent controls that require a rent of no more than 80% of the local market rent (including service charges, where applicable).

Intermediate housing is homes for sale and rent provided at a cost above social rent, but below market levels subject to the criteria in the Affordable Housing definition above. These can include shared equity (shared ownership and equity loans), other low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent, but not affordable rented housing.

Homes that do not meet the above definition of affordable housing, such as “low cost market” housing, may not be considered as affordable housing for planning purposes.

Page 64

ANNEX C

Recommended Historic Environment Conditions

Condition 1:

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: i) An archaeological evaluation; ii) An archaeological recording programme the scope of which will be dependant upon the results of the evaluation.

Reason: To afford reasonable opportunity for an examination to be made to determine the existence of any remains of archaeological interest within the site and for the examination and recording of such remains

Condition 2:

Where the results of the programme of archaeological work referred to in the above condition make it appropriate, there shall be carried out within one year of the completion of that programme on site, or within such timescale as otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority: an archaeological post-excavation assessment and analysis, the preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store, the completion of an archive report, and the preparation and submission of a report of the results for publication in a suitable specialist journal.

Reason: To ensure that a permanent and accessible record by the public is made of the archaeological remains that have been disturbed by the development.

Page 65

Annex D – Local Member Comments

Councillor Trevor Allison § County Councillor for the Electoral Division of Dalston and Cummersdale 17 Gilbert Road Cummersdale Carlisle CA2 6BJ Tel: 01228 523923 E-mail: [email protected]

Mr Graeme Innes Planning Officer Cumbria County Council Lonsdale Building The Courts Carlisle

6th November 2012.

Dear Mr Innes,

Planning Application 12/0793 295 housing units on Durdar Road. (C1036)

I appreciate the opportunity of attending the forthcoming meeting which I understand was initiated by Councillor Young, to discuss the aspects of the above application where the County Council are statutory consultees.

The development is in the Cummersdale and Dalston Division which I represent, but will impact on the Currock and Upperby Divisions represented by Heather Bradley and Stewart Young. From an initial brief discussion, it does appear that we share the same concerns. However, I do not claim that the following reflects the views of my councillor colleagues in all respects.

There are two specific areas of concern that have been raised with me, traffic and flooding. I have taken advice from Richard Hayward as Development Manager (Carlisle) on these two issues. Also, based on current statistics, this initial development of 295 units will generate around 65 school places and could ultimately reach around 110 places. I am uncertain which catchment area for primary and secondary schools this will be in. This may become clear at the meeting. It would also be helpful if Richard Hayward could provide a map identifying all the other development sites with permissions or in the pipeline in this area.

This development is currently out for public consultation. I do not consider our considerations here as necessarily implying an endorsement of the overall scheme. Indeed, under policy H1, Blackwell and Durdar are designated in the Local Plan as suitable for small scale infill developments, evidenced by local need to be in that location. S106 agreement may be used to ensure local occupancy.

Since this is within the Parish of St Cuthbert’s Without, no doubt they will have a view as statutory consultees.

Page 66

Traffic and road infrastructure

As both a District Councillor and the County Councillor for this area, this submission follows my discussions with the residents who will be affected most by this development. I have also taken advice from the County Council Development Manager (Carlisle), but I offer a different view on some aspects.

It is acknowledged that this scheme has potential for further significant expansion beyond this initial 295 houses, to around 500 units. As I see it, it is also linked inexorably to the extant planning permission for the 42 houses on the opposite side of the road.

At the 1996 public inquiry into the Local Plan, Professor Whitelegg, consultant and traffic advisor to the government, reported that each new housing unit generates 7 additional car journeys a day. This has never been challenged. However, recent reports suggest that there has been a decline in car use of the order of 10%, reducing the figure to 6.3 movements per day. This initial development, together with the extant permission on the opposite side of the road, will then, generate in excess of 2,000 additional traffic movement per day. With further expansion on this site, this could potentially reach a figure of around 3,500 car movements per day, with the majority at the am and pm peak periods. Speeding and traffic generated by events at the racecourse are additional factors which impact on the design, but do not appear to be catered for.

Speeding and Access to Durdar Road. As expected, this has been a frequently raised issue. Blackwell Road is already a busy road and there have been a number of serious accidents at the bend, including fatalities, near where the access is planned. The County Development manager has provided detailed statistics on this. Speeding is a significant factor and is a long standing issue with residents, especially at night. The bend at the junction with Lowry Street is a particular concern. The current proposal to widen the road at this point to provide a holding lane for vehicles accessing Lowry Street, in my view, will result in increased speeds and exacerbate the problem, especially at night.

A roundabout located on the bend, for access and egress from the site, and from the extant development across the road, in my view would be a far better alternative than the proposed access beyond the bend. There is an opportunity to do this.

No. 95 Durdar Rd. is currently up for sale. It is one of a pair of semi-detached properties strategically located right on the corner, with their frontages straight onto the road. They back directly onto the development site. The owner of No, 97 has copied me and yourself as the case officer, into a letter that he wrote to Story Homes. He suggests that that if both 95 and 97 were purchased and demolished, this could provide the opportunity for a much improved and safer access to the development than is currently proposed, with a roundabout and straightening of the bend. I have spoken with the owner of No 95, who would be happy to co-operate with this proposal.

Page 67

Proposed roundabout with demolition of houses on right

The Development Manage (Carlisle) of the County Council, has advised that given the size of the development, a roundabout cannot be demanded. But surely given the scope for further development as detailed above, this should be seriously considered and promoted now. I see this as a safer alternative to the proposed exit onto Durdar Road, not only for this development, but also from Lowry Street and the new development on that side of the road. It would be reasonable to expect the developer there, to make a proportionate contribution to the cost of this, but given the comparative sizes of the two developments, Story Homes should provide the upgrade before any development takes place.

Efforts to control speeding on Durdar Road have been singularly ineffective. As well as a far safer access to the new estate, a roundabout would provide a self enforcing solution to the speeding issue.

Access to Scalegate Road Quite apart from the Horse racing calendar, the Racecourse is increasingly used commercially as a venue for pop events, and seminars etc. Local residents have seen significant increases in traffic on the C1036 Durdar Road from these events and it is a regular topic at the Parish Council and also exercises the police.

An amendment has been proposed that the emergency exit onto Scalegate Road be a made a proper adopted throughway of up to 5.5m width, effectively linking it with Durdar Road. I do not support that. Although this will offer an alternative access to the development, it is almost inevitable that this will routinely create extra traffic through the estate by non residents.

It will also provide an alternative access to the Racecourse from Junction 42/ Newbiggin Road. When there are events at the racecourse, it generates massive tailbacks and delays at Durdar Cross roads from the J42 direction. The turn off for Scalegate Road, at 0.4m distance, is strategically located to avoid this. Providing a connection between Scalegate Road and Durdar Road will create an alternative access to the racecourse down this narrow country lane (barely wide enough at 4.5m width for two way traffic), and then through the estate, exiting onto Durdar Road. A test run, driving normally from Newbiggin Road to the eastern boundary of the estate took exactly two minutes. Providing a throughway as part of the urban network would I believe create an instant rat run through the estate, with exit and entrance difficulties at both ends. This is not acceptable for a new sustainable urban development. Page 68

However, I acknowledge that there is logic in providing two accesses to the development, rather than just the proposed relatively narrow emergency exit. The likely outcomes described above would be addressed almost entirely, if it was to be retained at the narrow width proposed in the application, but built to an adoptable standard as a one-way, exit only, onto Scalegate Road. It would be less costly than creating a throughway. Any savings could be diverted to a new roundabout on Durdar Road.

Summarising;

• Scrap the existing access on Durdar Road. with no loss of housing plots. • Install a roundabout at the bend to provide safer access and control of the speeding . • Provide a one way narrow exit only at Scalegate Road for cars, buses and emergency vehicles. . I agree with the Development Manager, that given the number of vehicle journeys predicted, consideration of this application should have regard to the cumulative effect of all the other actual and potential development sites, with respect to traffic at various pints en route to the city centre.

Flooding Issues.

Flooding of properties during heavy local rainfall is a regular occurrence further up Durdar Road opposite the Race Course. I am advised that technically, this is a completely different situation, and does not apply to this development which will operate under a SUDS system with an attenuation pond..

As a past MD and now their County Councillor, I have been involved with the mill at Cummersdale twice this year following two serious flooding incidents. The Environment Agency’s reports on these show that these were quite extraordinary flood events, with the River Caldew reaching unprecedented levels due to abnormal rainfall in the catchment area. The development site here drains via Wire Mire Beck into the Caldew. There are several other development sites, such as the proposal for Dalston and the Morton development which also drain into the Caldew.

The fields just upstream of Holme Head Bay have been designated as a flood plain to hold back flood water. Although the EA are confident that the flood defences did not contribute to the flooding at Cummersdale, their graphs illustrate a remarkable rise in the level of the Caldew on these two events.

Against this background and with some flooding apparent in the area of Hammonds Pond,

• Have the attenuation ponds sufficient capacity to accommodate two such extraordinary events in quick succession? • Who will be responsible for maintaining Wire Mire Beck which takes the outfall? At present it is poorly maintained. Some stretches are not easily accessible and could benefit from being culverted. • With the number of developments planned which will drain into the Caldew, will this prejudice the flood defences protecting Denton Holme and Caldegate?

Page 69

Should this application be approved, could a proper maintenance programme be incorporated in the conditions? An alternative would be to culvert Wire Mire Beck in whole or in part..

Yours sincerely,

Cc Mr david Johnson Clerk to St Cuthbert’s Parish Council.

Page 70 Agenda Item 8b

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE 03 January 2013 A Report by the Assistant Director Planning and Sustainability ______

Application No: 01/2012/0878

Applicant: Story Homes, Burgh Road Industrial Estate, Carlisle, CA2 7NA

District: Carlisle City Council ______

Proposal: Erection of 128 no. dwellings, associated open space and infrastructure

Location: Land between Townhead Road and Station Road, Dalston

______

Page 71 1.0 RECOMMENDATION

1.1 No objection is raised to the strategic principles of the development, provided that the Local Planning Authority:

i. consider their actual 5-year supply position and decide as to whether or not this site would take them significantly in excess of their 5-year supply and whether it would undermine their strategic policy framework and the distribution of new development across Carlisle (paragraphs 3.20-3.35); ii. consider whether the type and level of affordable housing proposed is appropriate for a development of this scale in this location (paragraphs 3.32-3.35); iii. ensure that, if it is necessary, adequate mitigation and compensation in relation to ecology are in place (paragraphs 3.42-3.43); iv. is satisfied that the development reflects and protects the character of the site and its surroundings; that the density and siting of any houses is appropriate to the location; and measures to mitigate any adverse visual and landscape impacts are put in place (paragraphs 3.44-3.45); v. fully consider the safety implications of the site’s proximity to the fuel storage facility when determining the application (paragraph 3.16); vi. secure a financial contribution via a S106 agreement of £349,479 to provide additional education facilities at St. Michael’s CE Primary School , or for school transport if this is not achievable as set out between paragraphs 3.32-3.41.

1.2 To note the response of the Highway Authority, which makes no objection, subject to revised plans being submitted to deal with the issues raised and any consent incorporating proposed conditions and legal agreements as set out in Annex A to this report.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Story Homes have submitted a planning application for a 128 homes, open space and associated infrastructure on 5.40 ha site at Dalston. This is a full application meaning all relevant matters are subject to consideration.

2.2 The site comprises agricultural land to the west of Dalston town centre. The south east corner of the site contains agricultural buildings with the remainder of the site being open fields in arable use. Currently, vehicular access to the site can be gained by the farm buildings on Townhead Road and a field access to Station Road.

2.3 The north of the site is bounded by Station Road and those houses facing the road; the rear of houses facing Townhead Road form the site’s southern boundary; and to the east, the boundary is created by the rear of properties facing the Town Square. Open agricultural land forms the site’s western boundary. Further to the west is a fuel storage facility.

2.4 The proposal is seeking detailed approval for the development of 128 dwelling units (Class C3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended), delivering a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom properties. The mix would include apartments, terraced, semi-detached and detached dwellings. The Page 72 proposed development would include 19 affordable units (circa 15% of total mix). The westernmost part of the site would be free from development in order to provide a standoff to the oil facility, and would contain an open area of public open space. The applicant has proposed the provision of a pond here as part of the sites sustainable urban drainage.

2.5 The applicant proposes that vehicular and pedestrian / cyclist access to the site would be taken from its northern frontage on to Station Road and to the south, off Townhead Road. Within the site an internal road would connect both accesses. The internal road network would include a number of traffic calming features and shared spaces.

2.6 Along the sites Station Road Boundary the applicant states that a hedge would be removed to allow for an access and in its place the applicant proposes a replacement hedge and wall feature. The western boundary is formed by a substantial and well-managed mixed native hedge, and the applicant has stated that this hedge would be protected and retained. The applicant also proposes to remove a beech tree in north west corner of the site. The applicant has stated that the tree is subject to decay and would be replaced within a detailed landscape scheme. The applicant has stated that within the site new planting would be provided.

2.7 Within the Carlisle Local Plan (2001-2016) the south east corner of the site is located within the settlement boundary of Dalston (the range of farm buildings) but the vast majority of site is located outside of the settlement boundary. The site is also located within a Conservation Area identified within the current Carlisle Local Plan . The site is included within Carlisle City Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) (2012) as land which is deliverable and developable within the first five years of the new local plan period. It is anticipated that this new Local Plan would be adopted in 2014

3.0 PLANNING ISSUES

3.1 The proposal has been assessed as to whether or not it would materially conflict with or prejudice the implementation of the Cumbria Strategic Pa rtnership’s Sub Regional Spatial Strategy (SRSpS) 2008-2028 and those policies of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (JSP) which were extended, but not replaced by the North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (September 2008).

3.2 The North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy is still currently part of the development plan and is a material planning consideration, although the Government has made clear their intentions that they may abolish at some point Regional Spatial Strategies and Saved Structure Plan Policies, following the enactment of the Localism Act 2012.

3.3 National planning policy has been condensed into the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which has distilled over 1,000 pages of policy into circa 60 pages. PPS3 now no longer exists, and although the NPPF does not specify a sequential test for new housing development, it does encourage the effective re- use of previously-developed land, provided it is not of high environmental value. Page 73

3.4 Cumbria County Council is the Highway Authority for Cumbria, the Highway Authorities response can be found in Annex A.

3.5 It is considered that the main strategic policy aspects raised by the application are:

to determine whether or not the scale, mix and type of development is appropriate to the location, and whether or not there is any significant adverse effect on strategic housing policies [Saved JSP Policies ST5, H19 and SRSpS The Spatial Strategy, Development Principles and Areas Within Cumbria];

to determine whether there are implications for local community infrastructure [SRSpS Development Principles];

to determine whether it is sustainable in terms of transport and accessibility [Saved JSP Policies T30, T31, LTP Policies LD4, LD5, LD6, LD7, LD8, WS1, WS3; and SRSpS Development Principles];

to determine whether there are any significant adverse effects on landscape, the historic environment, and ecology and measures to mitigate the impact [Saved JSP Policies E35, E37, E38 and SRSpS Development Principles].

3.6 The following policies are considered relevant to this proposal:

Development Strategy and Locational Issues

JSP Policy ST5 New development and Key Service Centres outside the Lake District National Park SRSpS Development Principles SRSpS The Spatial Strategy SRSpS Areas within Cumbria

Housing Issues

JSP Policy H19 Affordable Housing outside the Lake District National Park SRSpS Development Principles SRSpS The Spatial Strategy SRSpS Areas within Cumbria

Local Community Infrastructure Issues

SRSpS Development Principles SRSpS Areas within Cumbria

Ecological Issues

JSP Policy E35 Areas and features of nature conservation interests other than those of national and international consideration importance SRSpS Development Principles

Landscape and Visual Impact Issues

JSP Policy E37 Landscape Character SRSpS Development Principles

Page 74

Historic Environment Issues

JSP Policy E38 Historic Environment SRSpS Development Principles

Development Strategy and Locational Issues

3.7 The English town planning system remains plan led (i.e. applications should be considered in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise). While respecting this principle, the NPPF contains a requirement, that where a plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, then the “presumption in favour of sustainable development comes into force, which means that local planning authorities should grant planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demon strably outweigh the benefits associated with it”.

3.8 In the current adopted Carlisle Local Plan (2008), it is important to recognise that the application site is not identified as a location for housing development. This means that the principle of this development needs to be considered fully with appropriate weight being given to the provisions of the NPPF which indicates that where there is an inadequate supply of housing land there would be a “presumption in favour of sustainable development” .

3.9 The Cumbria Strategic Partnership’s Sub Regional Spatial Strategy sets out the spatial framework for Cumbria. It identifies actions that affect specific areas and locations, and provides the sub-regional spatial framework for the preparation of development plans in Cumbria. It recognises that a key challenge is to secure a sustainable level and pattern of development that creates balanced communities and meets need.

3.10 The Development Principles of the Sub Regional Spatial Strategy require that the majority of development occurs within the identified Key Service Centres and Local Service Centres. When considering sites, the Development Principles state that sites should be considered in the following order of priority: (a) the appropriate reuse of existing buildings worthy of retention; (b) the reuse of previously development land and (c) the use of previously undeveloped land. Whilst the application site falls within the lowest level category (criterion c) as it is a greenfield site, it is considered that the site lies in a sustainable location owing to its proximity to the village centre and local transport links. It is considered unlikely that there are any sequentially preferable sites.

3.11 The Development Principles of the Sub Regional Spatial Strategy states that sites should be sought that are, or will be made, accessible by public transport, walking and cycling, providing a realistic choice of access by means other than private car. Dalston Railway station is approximately 500m north west of the site. The applicant has also indicated that all houses on the proposed site are within 400m of a bus stop.

Page 75

3.12 Saved policy ST5 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan (2001- 2016) state that the quantum of development should reflect the scale and function of the settlement and that provision should be made for a supply of housing over the whole plan period. Whilst Policy ST5 relates to development within Key Service Centres, the Local Service Centre of Dalston is in good proximity to the Key Service Centre of Carlisle.

3.13 Paragraph 3.6 of the Sub Regional Spatial Strategy states that “small scale development [should] take place in local service centres…to help sustain local services, meet local needs, including the centre’s rural hinterlands . New small scale balanced housing…will be encouraged where it supports the sustainability of the centre ”.

3.14 Specific to Carlisle and in addition to the above referred paragraph 3.6, paragraph 4.9 of the SRSpS states that; ‘the role of key and local s ervice centres within Carlisle’s rural hinterlands will be sustained by making them the focus of an appropriate scale of housing, local employment, retailing and community facilities’ .

3.15 The site has been identified in the recently updated Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (September 2012) as having the potential to contribute to meeting the district’s housing need. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment does not allocate sites for housing, and sites identified in it will not automatically come forward for development and will not be guaranteed planning permission within 5 years of the Local Plan’s adoption . The description of the site in the updated Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment acknowledges that the site is well related to existing housing and the range of services in the village. Nonetheless, the assessment also points out that it may not be appropriate in design terms to develop the whole site.

3.16 It is noted that the site is located relatively close to a fuel facility to the west of the site. It will be important for the City Council to engage with the HSE and fully consider the safety implications to the proposed development when determining whether or not to grant planning permission given the potential hazard it might create.

3.17 The JSP and SRSpS give priority to development that is well related to Key Service Centres, where this will help to sustain local services and meet community needs. The Carlisle Local Plan (adopted in 2008) identifies Dalston as a Local Service Centre distinct to Carlisle City itself. As a Local Service Centre, there will be a requirement for development to meet the needs of the settlement and its surrounding area, and for it to reflect the scale and function of the settlement.

3.18 Considering the facilities, scale, role and sustainability of Dalston, together with its relationship to Carlisle which contains a wide range of services and facilities, the scale of development proposed here is considered proportional, and the development of the site would be capable of contributing to the ongoing sustainability of the area south west of Carlisle.

Page 76

3.19 Given these conclusions, it is considered that in the context of the SRSpS, the NPPF and the saved and extended JSP Policy ST5, the principle of the residential development on this site would be acceptable from a strategic planning perspective. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, subject to need, and other detailed considerations, the application site area could, at a future stage, be included as part of the Local Service Centre of Dalston. However for this site to emerge in advance of the Local Plan and the allocation of new housing sites within it, there will need to be a demonstrable need for it to do so as discussed below.

Housing Issues

3.20 The SRSpS supports the delivery of significant new housing development and associated social infrastructure to support the growth of Carlisle. With respect to Local Service Centres within Carlisle’s hinterland, their role needs to be sustained by making them the focus of an appropriate scale of housing, local employment, retailing and community development.

3.21 Saved JSP Policy ST5 identifies that the quantum of development should reflect the settlements scale and function of the settlement, and that there should be a supply of new housing over the plan period. Saved JSP Policy H19 requires that the provision of affordable housing in the County should meet local need within residential or mixed-use development of sites of more than 0.4ha, or which would contain 10 or more dwellings.

3.22 Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) Housing; has now been replaced by the NPPF. Reflecting the acknowledged shortage of housing across the county the NPPF states local authorities should to boost significantly the supply of housing to meet the needs the needs of present and future generations (paragraphs 7 and 47).

3.23 Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that:

‘Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites ’.

3.24 Paragraph 47 states that Local Planning Authorities should:

“identify a nd update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land .”

3.25 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF goes on to state that:

‘Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land ’. Page 77

3.26 Paragraph 47 then adds that Local Planning Authorities should:

“identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15.”

3.27 The NPPF defines “deliverable” and “developable” as two different things. To be “deliverable” means that a site be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that the site is viable. To be considered “ developable ”, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged.

3.28 The availability of housing land supply is important to the consideration of this application and in particular when deciding whether the presumption in favour of sustainable development would apply . Carlisle City Council’s current published position in relation to having a 5-year supply of deliverable land is stated in the ‘Housing Land Supply Position Statement – As of 30 September 2012’. When considering the 5-year target, the starting point should be the annual housing requirement derived from the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). This identifies an annual target of 450 dwellings in Carlisle, which equates to 2,250 units over 5 years. The NPPF adds that there is a requirement for a further 5-20% buffer. It is explained within the ‘Housing Land Supply Position Statement’ that in the absence of formal Government guidance around this point, the City Council’s interpretation is that there has been persistent under delivery meaning the City is adding the buffer of 20%. This equates to an additional 450 dwellings, which in turn means that the total baseline requirement over 5 years is identified as being 2700 dwellings (2250 + 450 dwellings). When this is considered against the 2,765 homes considered deliverable within 5 years, the City Council is satisfied that they have a 5 year (+20%) supply of housing land across the authority area.

3.29 It is noted that when calculating their housing requirement the City Council has not taken into account the historic backlog of 593 homes since the beginning of the RSS plan period (in 2003). The City Council is of the view that the buffer is to be used in place of the backlog. In interpreting the NPPF and when looking at housing land requirements, it is felt that addressing the backlog as well may be considered equally important to the validity of the annual housing requirement.

Table 1 – Net Housing completions Year Completions Annualised RSS Target Annual S hortfall 2003/04 462 450 +12 2004/05 493 450 +43 2005/06 481 450 +31 2006/07 359 450 -91 2007/08 374 450 -76 2008/09 366 450 -84 2009/10 233 450 -217 2010/11 260 450 -190 2011/12 429 450 -21 Total 3457 4050 -593 Page 78

3.30 Table 1 above shows the net housing completions and backlog since the beginning of the RSS period. If the historic backlog were to be taken into account, it is estimated that the supply of available housing land would fall to 4.2 years:-

2250 (RSS Target) + 593 (shortfall) + 450 (20% buffer) = 3293 (5 year requirement)

2765 (total supply) / 3293 (5 year requirement) x 100 = 83.97% = 4.2 Year supply

However if the backlog were to be spread over the whole of the period then the supply of available housing land would be greater (circa 4.6 year supply).

3.31 In light of these considerations it is advised that the City Council consider whether the current supply of housing land as identified in the ‘ Land Supply Position Statement – As of 30 September 2012’ is sustainable and robust given that it just covers five years, and excludes the backlog. It is suggested that given the nature of the current supply, the proposed development may be needed to ensure housing requirements can be met on an ongoing basis. Through this consideration the City Council must resolve whether the provisions contained within paragraph 49 of the NPPF will come into force, meaning this proposal would need to be considered within the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. When assessing the scheme it should also be recognised that boosting housing supply is a key objective of the coalition Government.

3.32 Policy H5 of the Carlisle Local Plan states that in the rural area the contribution to affordable housing would be 25% of housing on large sites (defined as over 0.8ha or 25 dwellings) . The November 2011 Housing Needs and Demand Study Identify an annual requirement for 11 affordable homes in the Carlisle Rural West Housing Market Area. While not appearing a very significant figure annually over a 15 year plan period, it would equate to 165 affordable homes. Moreover, the Rural West ward is not considered a location likely to accommodate very significant levels of housing development over the forthcoming plan period; therefore it will be important for a development of this scale to provide an appropriate affordable housing contribution.

3.33 The applicant has stated that of the 128 dwellings, 19 will be classed as affordable housing. This equates to 14.8%. The total contribution of affordable housing will be split 8:11 between socially rented housing and intermediate affordable dwellings (definition in Annex B). It is stated within the applicants Planning Statement that the provision of affordable housing is in accordance with the City Council’s r equirements. The justification the applicant appears to give for the provision of only 14.8% on site is that the total value of the affordable housing contribution is £658,500. Therefore, it has to be assumed that in order to comply with Policy H5 of the Carlisle Local Plan that £658,500 is 25% of the total development value. However, this is not clear given the applicants submissions.

Page 79

3.34 It is considered that a 25% contribution of the total development value is not how Policy H5 of the Carlisle Local Plan is intended to be interpreted, and that a contribution of 32 affordable units, which is 25% of the 128 dwellings, should be sought. If the applicant considers that this requirement would make the development unviable, then discussions with respect to what would represent an appropriate proportion should be held with the City Council and evidence provided by the application to demonstrate a lack of viability.

3.35 On the basis of the above considerations, it is therefore recommended that Carlisle City Council carefully consider its strategic housing land provision. They will need to consider their actual 5-year supply position, and decide as to whether or not this site would take them significantly in excess of their 5-year supply; and whether it would undermine their strategic policy framework and the distribution of new development across Carlisle. Consideration will also need to be given as to whether it would meet local affordable housing needs.

Local Community Infrastructure Issues

3.36 The SRSpS Carlisle and North Cumbria Sub-Area states that with new housing social infrastructure will be required. It is the County Council’s responsibility to ensure that the Education infrastructure is in place to deliver the aspirations of the SRSpS.

3.37 The development si te is located within the catchment of St. Michael’s CE Primary School. St Michael's is full and is projected to be full for the foreseeable future. The next nearest schools are Cummerdale and Raughton Head, both of which are over 3 miles to the site. This means there are no other schools that can sustainably accommodate the education impact of this development.

3.38 Based on the dwelling led model, this development is expected to generate 29 children. Given the absence of school places to mitigate the effects of this development, there will be a requirement for a contribution of £349,479 to be provided by the developer. This contribution is calculated on the basis of 29 pupils x £12,051 (DfE based multiplier).

3.39 The education contribution should be paid directly to the County Council. This would be used by the County Council provide additional school places at St Michael's CE School. If the provision of additional school places at St Michael's CE School is not possible, the contribution will be used in school transport of children from the catchment of St. Michael's CE School to the nearest alternative school with available capacity.

3.40 If the Contribution is being used to provide additional school places any part or parts thereof that are not expended or committed to be expanded within five years of the date of payment (and ten years where the contribution is to be used to provide transport) will be repaid.

Page 80

3.41 As the school is already full, it will be necessary for the contribution to be provided as early as possible into its delivery, this means the County Council will require the contribution to be provided no later than the occupancy of the 25 th dwelling.

Ecological Issues

3.42 It is recommended that Carlisle City Council should carry out a detailed assessment, prior to determination of the application to ensure that where it is necessary adequate mitigation and compensation in relation to ecology are in place.

3.43 It is also recommended that Carlisle City Council should consider the Natural England Standing Advice on Protected Species and the linked Cumbria advice (linked on the Natural England local resources page). The link to the Natural England Standing Advice is http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/planningtransportlocalgov/spatialplannin g/standingadvice/default.aspx

Landscape and Visual Impact Issues

3.44 The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (March 2011) prepared jointly for Local Planning Authorities in Cumbria, describes the site as lying within the Cumbria Landscape Character Sub-Type 5a – ‘Lowland - Ridge and Valley’. The toolkit advises that key characteristic of this landscape include a series of ridges and valleys that rise gently toward the limestone fringes of the Lakeland Fells, well managed regular shaped medium to large pasture fields, hedge bound pasture fields, interspersed with native woodland, tree clumps and plantations, scattered farms and linear villages found along ridges and a scarcity of large scale structures.

3.45 We note that the applicant has provided a landscape assessment and it is recommended that Carlisle City Council be satisfied that the development reflects and protects the character of the site and its surroundings, that the density and siting of any new houses would be appropriate to the location, and measures to mitigate any adverse visual and landscape impacts are put in place.

Historic Environment Issues

3.46 The SRSpS seeks to encourage development which supports quality historic environments. The Development Principles require new development to avoid the loss of or damage to, and wherever possible enhance important or distinctive conservation features including landscapes, buildings, archaeological sites, historic parks and garden and visually important public and private open spaces.

3.47 Saved and extended JSP Policy E38 is relevant to the proposal. Policy E38 requires measures to be taken to identify record, protect, conserve or enhance area, sites, buildings and settings of archaeological, historic and architectural importance. Where harm occurs, an exception is made where the harm is outweighed by the need for the development.

Page 81

3.48 Records indicate that the site lies in an area of archaeological potential. It is located on the edge of the medieval village of Dalston, with the 12 th century Church of St Michael and All Angels in the centre and medieval field systems and earthwork remains surrounding it. The Caldew Valley was a focus for prehistoric activity and sites and finds from this period are recorded in the vicinity.

3.49 Supporting the application, the applicant had commissioned a heritage statement which includes the results of an archaeological desk-based assessment and an assessment on the impact on Dalston’s conservation area. I t was noted however, that neither of these assessments cover the whole application area; the area of the proposed development that lies adjacent to Townhead Road. This omission also meant that the consideration of the impact of the development on the conservation area by the demolition the existing 19 th century building and boundary wall and the erection new dwellings in this area, has not been undertaken. This point has been raised with the applicant.

3.50 In response the applicant undertook a further archaeological desk-based assessment and geophysical survey. The results of the survey have highlighted several clusters of features across the site that are likely to be of archaeological origin. These features are not considered to be of sufficient importance to warrant preservation, but we do recommend they are investigated further and, where appropriate, should be subject to a programme of archaeological recording.

3.51 It is therefore recommended that an archaeological evaluation and, where necessary, a scheme of archaeological recording of the site be undertaken in advance of development, and advise that this work should be commissioned and undertaken at the expense of the developer. This programme of work can be secured through the inclusion of two conditions in any planning consent that may be granted, these set out in Annex C.

Local Member Comments

3.52 Cllr Trevor Allison, the local division member, has raised issues about the traffic impact and scale of development at this location. His comments are set out in Annex D.

3.53 It is considered that the appropriateness of the scale of the development has been addressed within this report. It is also considered that relevant highway considerations have been addressed within Highway Authority response contained within Annex A to this report.

3.54 Cllr Duncan Fairbairn, County Cllr for the neighbouring division of Bowness, Thursby and Caldbeck ED queried the potential impact of this development on the Barras Brow A595 Junction. He stated that should there be a reasonable increase in traffic flow, he would expect that efforts be made to improve this junction. Alternatively he suggested changes to the access priority to the A595 roundabout and close off the Barras Brow – A595 Junction. Cllr Fairbairn also expressed surprise at the site proximity to the fuel depot at Dalston, given the potential effects of an accident upon housing.

Page 82

3.55 Cllr Fairbairn’s comments with respect to the Barras Brow – A595 Junction have been addressed within the Highway Authority response contained in Annex A to this report. With respect to the site’s proximity to the fuel depot, as per the recommendation it has been recommended that the City Council work with the HSE and fully consider the safety implications of the site’s proximity to the fuel storage facility when determining the application.

Carlisle Local Area Committee Chairperson

3.56 No comments have been received from the Local Area Committee Chair.

4.0 CONCLUSION

4.17 It is recognised that the application site lies outside of the development boundary of Dalston, as defined in the Carlisle District Local Plan 2001-2016. However it is well related to Dalston town centre and has good transport links to Carlisle.

4.18 It is considered that in the context of the SRSpS, the NPPF and the saved and extended JSP Policy ST5, the principle of the residential development on this site would be acceptable from a strategic planning perspective. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, subject to need and other detailed considerations, the application site area could, at a future stage, be included as part of the Local Service Centre of Dalston. However for this site to emerge in advance of the Local Plan and the allocation of new housing sites within it, there will need to be a demonstrable need for it to do so.

4.19 It is therefore recommended that Carlisle City Council carefully consider its strategic housing land provision. They will need to consider their actual 5-year supply position and decide as to whether or not this site would take them significantly in excess of their 5-year supply and whether it would undermine their strategic policy framework and the distribution of new development across Carlisle.

4.20 Given the levels of affordable housing need, it will be important that Carlisle City Council secure the provision of an appropriate quantum of affordable housing from the development.

4.21 It is considered that Carlisle City Council should ensure that full consideration of ecological issues is undertaken during consideration of this proposal.

4.22 Carlisle City Council must satisfy itself that the development reflects and protects the character of the site and its surroundings; that the density and siting of any new houses would be appropriate to the location; and measures to mitigate any adverse landscape and visual impacts are put in place.

4.23 In relation to school places a financial contribution should be sought via a S106 agreement of £349,479 to provide additional education facilities at St. Michael’s CE Primary School or for school transport if this is not achievable, as set out between paragraphs 3.32-3.41. Page 83

4.24 In relation to the historic environment, it is recommended that the requested conditions are utilised to ensure the proposed development is not detrimental to the historic environment.

4.25 Members should note the Highway Authority response which makes no objection to the proposal subject to appropriate conditions and a planning legal agreement, as set out in Annex A.

Paul Feehily Assistant Director - Planning and Sustainability

Contact

Michael Barry, Carlisle 01228 226729

Background Papers

Planning Application File Reference 01/2012/0878

Electoral Division Identification

Local Member: Cllr. Trevor Allison, Dalston and Cummersdale ED

Adjoining Members: Cllr. Duncan Fairbairn, Bowness, Thursby and Caldbeck ED

Carlisle Local Committee Chair: Cllr Cyril Frederick Weber, Harraby ED

Page 84 Annex A – CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY RESPONSE

12/0878 - Erection of 128 no. dwellings, associated open space and infrastructure , Land between Townhead Road and Station Road, Dalston

This Appendix has been prepared to take account of matters raised during the Member Site Visit on 28th November 2012, as well as being the Statutory response of the Highway Authority to the Planning Authority.

RECOMMENDATION

No objection, subject to revised plans being submitted to deal with the issues raised and any consent incorporating proposed conditions and legal agreements.

TRANSPORT & HIGHWAY ISSUES

It is considered that the main Transport and Highway policy aspects raised by the application are to determine whether or not the proposal is sustainable in terms of transport and accessibility;

The following policies are considered relevant to this proposal:

JSP Policy T30 Transport Assessments JSP Policy T31 Travel Plans SRSpS Development Principles SRSpS Areas within Cumbria LTP Policy LD4 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans LTP Policy LD5 Access to new developments LTP Policy LD6 Developer contributions LTP Policy LD7 Design standards LTP Policy LD8 Safety and security LTP Policy WS3 Travel plan monitoring

Highways The application is for the development of 128 dwellings on market garden land, to the west of The Square and between Townhead and Station Roads with accesses off each. There are not considered to be major issues with these proposals, though the area does have some surface water drainage issues and there are various locally perceived traffic issues. Other than the Carlisle Rd/Station Rd junction where the problems are related to the shop; and the usual problems with parents/guardians vehicles around schools muster times, these are not of consequence to the development, and have been ameliorated by various measures undertaken in the past 5 years.

The land falls within the St Michael’s Primary/Caldew Secondary school catchments – the site is within easy walking distance of both; and well positioned for all other local facilities (shops, Health Centre, pub, playing fields/area, church, vets and other professional services, with the rail station and bus stops all close by). There is local employment in the Barras Lane Industrial Estate (accessed via a path through the rail station), Nestle Dairy products and The Square, within walking distance.

Page 85

There are good bus/train linkages to Carlisle and by train to the north Allerdale Towns. There is good linkage to the M6/A69/A595 corridors via the C1014 to Jnct42 and via B5299/A689 to Jnct 44. The Caldew cyclepath is a surfaced link to Central Carlisle via Cummersdale (Pirrelli factory) and Dentonholme.

The estate layout has been designed with a conventional junction off Station Rd and a ‘Raised Table’ crossroads on Townhead Road, with through linkage via the estate; this is particularly welcome as it will not lead to significant additional traffic through The Square. Importantly it can provide a relief route when road works take place in the narrow section north of The Square, which otherwise necessitates lengthy diversion due to there only being vehicular crossing points of the river Caldew at Nelson Bridge, Carlisle and Hawksdale Bridge, Dalston. Concerns have been raised with the proposed design of the ‘Squares’ in the development, but it is considered that these can dealt with as part of the Section 38 Agreement by requiring the ‘main route’ to be defined by flush kerbs and bitumen macadam surfacing, thus discouraging parking/obstructions to through traffic.

Transport Assessment A Transport Assessment has been carried out and 2 junctions have been assessed for capacity in addition to the proposed new estate road junctions:

1. Townhead Rd/The Square/The Green; 2. Station Rd/Carlisle Rd

Both are shown to operate well within capacity; a 50:50 percentage split to each access has been assumed for traffic leaving the estate. Given the relatively minor traffic generated by this estate and spare capacity on the wider surrounding road network, the approach taken in the Transport Assessment that no further junction modelling is required is considered acceptable.

An issue has been raised of discrepancies between the Traffic figures in the Transport Assessment and those figures obtained by the Parish Council as part of their ongoing monitoring of traffic around Dalston. This has been ongoing for some years, in connection with the CNDR and Morton Developments. The developer’s count took place on 12 th July 2012 to provide turning figures at the Station Rd/B5299 junction. It should be noted at this time the GCSE ‘O&A’ level students would not be at school and the relocation of staff from the County Council Dalston complex to enable it to be refurbished, would both have contributed to the reduced figure. Again, given the Flow to Capacity Ratio for the junction is projected as less than 0.5 (junction full capacity Ratio being 1) even taking account of the traffic levels using the Dalston Parish’s (latest obtained in the 3rd week of March 2012) figures, with those generated by the proposed estate added, the results are still well within the capacity of this junction.

{It should be noted the Parish figures are obtained from sites near the rail bridge on Barras Lane; south of Nestle on Carlisle Rd and near the Victory Hall on the Green, which differ in position from the Station Rd/Carlisle Rd junction}.

Page 86

Drainage – A new balancing pond to the north west of the site is proposed, fed by a piped system within the estate, leading to the pond, with controlled discharge, some of the shared access ways and parking areas are block paved which will provide for some infiltration, however water table levels are known to be high in this area. Traditionally the land drains towards Bluebank Lane and then to the Wampool system via Caldewmires. There are known drainage problems with this system in the vicinity of Townhead and Bluebank Lanes, which we would look to the development ameliorating rather than exacerbating; though they are also exploring outfalling into the Caldew system to the east. Thus a Surface Water Drainage Condition is proposed, pending the submission of further detailed assessments/designs.

Road Safety – Cllr Allison, local member, has raised the issue of road safety at the Station Rd -Carlisle Rd junction, this has long been a local issue, though is largely an indiscriminate parking issue. Whilst there is a perception of restricted visibility to the south, this meets the nationally accepted criteria for 30mph. The DC&R site visit coincided with the Caldew School lunch break and so Members were able to witness first hand both these issues, and secondary schoolchildren crossing and walking in the roads, due to inadequate width of footways. Although there are no KSIs to date, it is accepted there are numerous recorded ‘near misses and minor damage incidents’ so much so, that this junction has been considered by the East Cumbria CRASH Group. This led to the commissioning of a Report, which has been considered by the Carlisle Local Committee and the proposal for a mini-roundabout layout as indicated on the plan at the end of this report (figure 1), has been put forwards for potential delivery in future years, Transport Capital Programmes. Given the additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic (and likely increased use of the Newsagent/Pharmacy/Post Office business) due to the development, it is considered reasonable that the Developer be required to deliver this through a section 278 Agreement with this Authority.

Some DC&R members had suggested that traffic signals be installed at this junction, with pedestrian phases. With any traffic signals there are the issues of drivers increasing speed to ‘beat the green’. Given the ongoing annual running costs and the ineffective enforcement of existing park ing restrictions, it must be assumed the ‘abandoning of vehicles’ in and around the junction will continue. Thus a ‘mini roundabout’ (which requires all approaching vehicles to Give Way) would be the better solution.

The footway along the B5299, into The Square, is on the western side only. This could not be widened to any realistic degree. There is a footpath on the eastern side through the Churchyard and these are more than adequate apart from at Caldew school lunch times, where the attractions of the aforementioned shop are the main driver for schoolchildren crossing the roads at this junction.

The Developer’s Transport Assessment proposes Traffic Calming to Station Rd by use of speed cushions. Some years ago there was a 20 Zone scheme earmarked for Dalston, which included Traffic Calming features on Station Rd, Carlisle Rd (south of Nestle access) through The Square to The Green, and Townhead Rd to include the housing estates within a 20 Zone. There was much opposition to this, largely due to concerns about noise and vibrations that would arise from lorries and agricultural vehicles traversing the speed cushions/tables. There is no guarantee that similar opposition will Page 87 not again occur, and it is suggested the cost the developer has allocated to this would be better directed to other known issues such as the Station Rd/Carlisle Rd junction and the widening of footways on Station Rd and Townhead Lane.

The outcome from the consultations over the 20 zone were to put in 2 speed triggered VAS sign sites on e on The Green and the other on Carlisle Rd.; a 7.5T “Except For Access”, weight restriction through the Village was introduced; and a proposal was accepted to extend the 30 mph restriction on Carlisle Rd at the north end (done) and Barras Lane (continuation of Station Rd) to the top of Barras Brae: and a 20 mph restriction through The Square (both still to be done). A pedestrian refuge was installed at the south end of The Square and changes made to waiting restrictions along Carlisle Rd..

Cllr Fairbairn, Member for the Division to the west, has suggested improvements to the Caldewmires junction, where Barras Lane meets the A595. This again is a longstanding issue, but the increased levels of traffic this development creates at this junction are insufficie nt for it to be considered reasonable to require the Developer to deliver a ‘right turn lane’ scheme on the A595. However, it is felt that it would be reasonable to require the developer to fund the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and consequent signage, to require all vehicles to Turn Left out of this junction and to route all east (Carlisle) bound traffic through the Orton Grange roundabout. This would go someway to reducing conflicting vehicle movements and hence improve road safety. However the developer can only be required to ‘use best endeavours as the TRO process is a separate one and the local Highways Authority can only make such an Order where they have taken into consideration any representations that may be received during a statutory consultation period.

The developer’s junction onto Station Rd proposes two pedestrian ‘drop crossings’ either side of the bellmouth. These are considered dangerous because of the restricted visibility due to the bend. A site meeting has been held with the developer ’s transport consultants and they are to produce an amended junction layout, which moves the bellmouth slightly to the east, and so a single pedestrian crossing point would be located on the apex of the bend with the footway widened at this location. The details of this must be received and agreed with this Council as part of the Highways Act 1980, Section 38 Agreement process before works on the site access can commence.

Usually for a development exceeding 50 dwellings, the County Council would seek 1.8m width footways on both sides of the roads; neither Station nor Townhead Rds currently have a footway on one side only, leading to the proposed access points. By widening the ‘pinch points’ to 1.8m (entirely feasible within the existing Highway corridor), this situation is considered acceptable, given the distances along Townhead and Station Rds to the Square (B5299) are relatively short (provision of footways on the other sides is not achievable without land acquisition and buildings/walls demolition/rebuilding, which is outwith the control of the developer).

Therefore subject to the Carlisle Local Committee approving the proposed TROs; the developer should be asked to fund the following measures within the existing Highway network through Highways Act 1980, Section 38/278 Agreements:

Localised footway widening to 1.8m along Station Rd and Townhead Rd with appropriate pedestrian drop crossing points. Page 88 Pursue the mini-roundabout scheme at Station Rd/Carlisle Rd junction (see figure 1) Pursue Traffic Regulation Orders for 20mph through The Square and extending the 30mph speed limit along Barras Lane. Pursue a left turn only Order at Barras Lane/A595 Cardewlees junction, with right turning traffic being signed to Carlisle through the Orton Grange roundabout.

Travel Plan Issues. The Interim Travel Plan submitted with the application documents will need to be converted to a full one and should be secured through a Town & country Planning Act 1991, Section 106 agreement by Carlisle City as local Planning Authority.

- The full Travel Plan must identify the Travel Plan Co-ordinator, and include sufficient budgetary provision to enable the delivery of intervention measures that may be identified.

No targets are set in the Interim Travel Plan. The full Travel Plan needs to set clear targets, which provide mechanisms to determine the success or otherwise of the Travel Plan. A10% reduction in peak hour car trips generated by the development (in line with CCC's 'Travel Plans and the Planning Process in Cumbria: Guidance for Developers' ) is considered a realistic target . The full Travel Plan should be prepared following occupancy of 30 dwellings, so as to provide a representative sample.

The full Travel Plan must provide:

A proposed Travel Plan Co-ordinator (with sufficient time, budget and management support available to successfully implement the Travel Plan), with Annual reports for at least 5 years following the occupation of the 30 th dwelling.

A target reduction of 10% in AM and PM peak hour trips (as provided in the Transport Assessment dated September 2012 submitted with the Application).

A Travel Plan Contribution of £73,626 (based on the cost of an annual Carlisle Megarider bus ticket multiplied by the proposed reduction in the number of AM and PM peak hour car trips multiplied by 5 years) within the Section 106 Agreement, in favour of the County Council to be used for intervention measures, in the event that the targets are not achieved. An administration contribution of £6,600 in respect of County Council staff time relating to the ongoing monitoring and review of the development's travel plan through liaison with the site's Travel Plan Co-ordinator for the 5 year period, as referred to above.

Public Transport Issues/Comments. The development lies within 400m of existing bus stops (served by the Bridge End Dalston to Cotehill via Carlisle City centre, services) and is all within 500m of the railway station with services to/from Carlisle – Whitehaven (hourly)/Barrow (6 services daily) on the Cumbrian Coast line. It is felt the existing services are sufficient to serve this development, previous attempts to re-locate bus stops and provide shelters in Dalston have been stymied by public opposition. Page 89

Conclusion: The proposed development site is situated in the centre of a Local Service Centre with all key facilities close by. Despite local perceptions, the local Highways and Transport Networks are well able to accommodate the additional traffic arising from this development, subject to the propoed improvement measures as aforementioned and the proosed Conditons set out hereafter:

Recommended Conditions.

1.The carriageway, footways, etc shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to a standard suitable for adoption and in this respect full engineering details shall be submitted for approval by the Local Highways Authority as part of a Highways Act 1980 Section 38 Agreement, before roadworks commence on site. These details shall be in accordance with the standards laid down in the current Cumbria Design Guide; all works so approved, shall be constructed before the development (or relevant phase thereof) is considered complete.

Note: Condition used where Estate Roads are to become adopted highways under a Section 38 agreement with the Highways Authority.

Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD5, LD7, LD8

2. The private driveways, footpaths, parking areas etc shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in this respect further details, including levels and material specifications, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No such works shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved.

Note Condition used where access to properties is to remain private and not become Highway.

Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of road safety. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD5, LD7, LD8

3 Site Access arrangements: (i) The access from Station Rd. shall be substantially met before any building work commences on site, so that constructional traffic can safely access the site and park and turn clear of the highway. Note:- the Station Rd access shall be the sole means of access for construction traffic (other than during the construction of the Townhead Rd access). Construction of the Estate must be programmed so the Estate road, main Utility services and drainage are completed through the site, with house occupancy commencing from the southern end, so insofar as practicable the occupied dwellings are segregated from the ongoing construction operations. The raised table crossroads and footway improvements on Townhead Lane shall be completed before first occupancy. Page 90 (ii) Before completion of the dwellings fronting Station Rd, the pedestrian improvements along Station Rd shall be completed, including the works to improve the Station Rd/B5299 junction. (for the avoidance of doubt no pedestrian linkage will be completed between Plots 75/85 and Station Rd. until these improvements are complete.

Reason : The carrying out of building works without the provision of these facilities is likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users. Retention of the facilities ensures an appropriate standard of parking and access for as long as the use continues. To support Local Transport Policies: LD5, 7 & 8.

(iii) Before site works commence, plan(s) shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority, indicating adequate land for the site offices, materials storage and parking for plant/vehicles engaged in the construction operations and such land, including the vehicular access(es) thereto, shall be used for, or be kept available for these purposes at all times until completion of the construction works.

Reason: The carrying out of this development without the provision of these facilities during the construction work is likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users. To support Local Transport Policies: LD8

4. Travel Plan - The developer shall enter into a Section 106 Agreement with the Local Planning Authority for delivery of measures set out in the Travel Plan, to encourage the achievement of a modal shift away from the use of private cars to sustainable transport modes . The measures identified in the Travel Plan shall be implemented by the developer within 12 months of first occupancy of the 30th dwelling and be the subject of Annual Reviews thereafter for a period of 5 years .

Reason : To aid in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: WS1, LD4 & Structure Plan Policy T31

5. Surface Water Drainage - Full engineering details, (including Discharge Consent(s)) for the surface water drainage system shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to any construction works commencing. All such approved works shall be implemented to an agreed programme in accordance with the constructional programme and shall be maintained operational thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of sufficiency of infrastructure and environmental management. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD5 & LD7

6. Sufficiency of access to dwellings, prior to occupation - No dwelling shall be occupied until the vehicular access and parking requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans 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.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed new access roads etc: are constructed within a reasonable timescale, commensurate with house construction and to ensure an adequate means of access and parking are available when houses are Page 91 occupied, in the interests of highway safety and general amenity. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD5, LD7, LD8 .

7. Traffic Regulation Orders – The developer shall promote traffic regulation (speed restriction and proscribed left turn as outlined above) orders and use best endeavours to implement them during the estate construction period through a Section 278 Agreement with the Local Highways Authority

Reason: In the interests of highway safety To support Local Transport Plan LD7, LD8

Page 92 Figure 1 – Proposed Mini Roundabout layout at Station Road Carlisle Road Junction (not to scale)

Page 93 Annex B – Affordable Housing Definitions

Affordable housing: Social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, which are provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.

Social rented housing is owned by local authorities and private registered providers (as defined in section 80 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008), for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime. It may also be owned by other persons and provided under equivalent rental arrangements to the above, as agreed with the local authority or with the Homes and Communities Agency.

Affordable rented housing is let by local authorities or private registered providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social rented housing.

Affordable Rent is subject to rent controls that require a rent of no more than 80% of the local market rent (including service charges, where applicable).

Intermediate housing is homes for sale and rent provided at a cost above social rent, but below market levels subject to the criteria in the Affordable Housing definition above. These can include shared equity (shared ownership and equity loans), other low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent, but not affordable rented housing.

Homes that do not meet the above definition of affordable housing, such as “low cost market” housing, may not be considered as affordable housing for planning purposes .

Page 94 Annex C – Historic Environment Conditions

Condition 1:

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: i) An archaeological evaluation; ii) An archaeological recording programme the scope of which will be dependant upon the results of the evaluation.

Reason: To afford reasonable opportunity for an examination to be made to determine the existence of any remains of archaeological interest within the site and for the examination and recording of such remains

Condition 2:

Where the results of the programme of archaeological work referred to in the above condition make it appropriate, there shall be carried out within one year of the completion of that programme on site, or within such timescale as otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority: an archaeological post-excavation assessment and analysis, the preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store, the completion of an archive report, and the preparation and submission of a report of the results for publication in a suitable specialist journal.

Reason: To ensure that a permanent and accessible record by the public is made of the archaeological remains that have been disturbed by the development.

Page 95 Annex D – Local Member Comments

Page 96

Page 97

Page 98

Page 99 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 100 Agenda Item 8c

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 3rd January 2013 A Report by the Assistant Director – Planning and Sustainability ______

District South Lakeland District Council

Application No SL/2012/0845

Applicant Banks Renewables Ltd ______

PROPOSAL: Siting Of 3 Wind Turbines (With A Maximum Blade Tip Height Of 132 Metres), Control Building, Anemometer Mast And Access Tracks

LOCATION: Land To The North Of Killington Reservoir, Cumbria

Page 101 1 RECOMMENDATION

1.1 That an objection be raised due to adverse landscape and visual effects which are not outweighed by the environmental benefits associated with the renewable energy generation and carbon savings which would arise from this scheme. The scheme does not accord with saved policies R44 and E37 of the Cumbria Joint Structure Plan and the development principles of the Cumbria Sub Regional Spatial Strategy.

2 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The development site is located directly adjacent to Junction 37 of the M6 motorway. The southern boundary of the site abuts Killington Reservoir. The existing boundary of the Yorkshire Dales National Park lies approximately 3km to the east. Part of the area to the east, between the site and existing National Park boundary, is currently the subject of a proposed Variation Order, which would extend the boundary of the Yorkshire Dales National Park to within 800m of the site at its closest point. The Lake District National Park lies to the north and west of the site, at its closet point, at a distance of approximately 10km. The Lake District is also currently the subject of a Variation Order, which would bring the boundary of the National Park to within approximately 5.5kms of the site, to the north.

2.2 The operational Lambrigg wind farm lies approximately 1.2km to the north of the site. The five Lambrigg turbines are each 70m to blade tip. The Armistead wind farm, which is currently under construction, lies approximately 4.7km to the south. The Armistead development will ultimately consist of six turbines, each 100m to blade tip.

2.3 The site area is 75.5 hectares in size, of which 3.6 hectares will be occupied by the wind turbines and their associated infrastructure when the wind farm is operational.

2.4 The scheme proposes the construction of three wind turbines, with a maximum height of 132m to blade tip. The turbines would be painted in a non-reflective semi matt pale grey colour.

2.5 The application also proposes the construction of an 80m steel lattice anemometer mast, a control building, and approximately 1.135km of new access tracks to link the turbines to the public road network. The tracks will be typically five metres wide. The main access route to the site will be from the A684, although additional access points will also be located on the Old Scotch Road and Fairhorns Road.

2.6 The preferred point for national grid linkage lies approximately 100m from the northern site boundary, connecting into the Kendal/Sedbergh 33kv line. The precise method of connection is yet to be determined, and will ultimately be subject to a separate grid consenting process.

2.7 The developer states that the turbines will generate a total output of up to 10.2 MW operating at maximum capacity – enough to power approximately 8100 homes.

2.8 The proposed life span of the site is 25 years, plus two years construction and decommissioning. The developer has stated that a community benefits fund of £27000 per operational year will be available, equating to £675000 over a 25 year period. Page 102

3 REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 At the time of writing this report, South Lakeland District Council had received over 1000 letters of representation. Of these, only 11 are in support of the proposal. The Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority have raised an objection to the proposal.

3.2 South Lakeland District Council consults the County Council with regard to seeking a strategic planning response. The County Council is not the decision making body for this proposal. As a result we do not consult with other bodies or individuals. South Lakeland District Council does this as it is the decision making body. Its officers will take account of all the comments received from consultees when determining the application.

4 STRATEGIC ISSUES

4.1 The application has been assessed as to whether it would conflict with or prejudice the implementation of those policies that are contained within the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan (JSP) 2001 – 2016, which have been saved by the Secretary of State to the North West Regional Spatial Strategy (adopted 30 September 2008). The application has also been assessed against the Cumbria Strategic Partnership’s Sub Regional Spatial Strategy (SRSpS).

4.2 The key issues raised by this application are:

Whether the development creates a significant detrimental effect on the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage [saved policies E35, E37, E38 and R44 of the JSP and SRSpS Development Principles].

Whether there is an unacceptable level of cumulative impact due to its proximity to other operational and consented wind energy developments [saved JSP policy R44].

Whether the development creates significant adverse effects on local amenity, the local economy, highways, aircraft operations or telecommunications [saved JSP policy R44].

Whether the renewable energy contribution and other social, environmental and economic benefits of the proposal outweigh any adverse effects [saved JSP policy R44].

4.3 Additional guidance on the provision of wind energy developments in Cumbria is contained in the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which was adopted by South Lakeland District Council in December 2007. The SPD includes a detailed Landscape Capacity Assessment which indicates the potential capacity of different landscape areas to support wind energy development. This has been developed to enable a consistent and holistic approach to be taken when considering the effects of wind energy development on the distinctive and often high quality landscape character of Cumbria.

Page 103

4.4 Despite the Government’s intention to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies, until the requisite secondary legislation to the Localism Bill is passed, the adopted North West RSS remains part of the Development Plan, and as such constitutes a valid strategic policy consideration. Policy EM17 covers renewable energy and includes indicative capacity targets for renewable energy generation in the region. In addition to this, the Government has clear targets to encourage greater deployment of renewable energy by 2020, which includes onshore wind. When considering applications, decisions should be taken which encourage acceptable development that would contribute towards these targets and which help to mitigate the causes of climate change and reduce the consumption of finite natural resources.

4.5 The Environmental Statement submitted with the application covers a wide range of potential impacts, including those which relate to the main policy issues outlined above. The information contained within the Statement has been used to inform the assessment below.

Landscape, Visual & Cumulative Effects

Landscape Effects

4.6 The site lies across the boundary of two landscape sub-types, 11b and 9b, as defined by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit, and exhibits characteristics of both. The topography of the site undulates, reaching 252 AOD at its highest point, sloping downwards to approximately 210 AOD towards Killington Reservoir. Land use is currently agriculture, comprising areas of rough and improved pasture across irregularly shaped medium scale fields, which are bounded by dry stone walls and fences.

4.7 The site lies in an open countryside location, albeit the immediate area within 1- 2kms of the site shows the influence of modern development, including the existing Lambrigg wind farm, the M6, Killington Lake motorway service area, and Roan Edge Quarry to the north and west. The conifer plantations to the east add to this utilitarian influence. The characteristic undulating landform of the area serves to contain the development site to a degree to the north, west and north east. To the south and south west, views are more open, across the reservoir.

4.8 Within 2km of a site, good practice guidance recognises that wind farms will be a dominant focus in the wider landscape. The applicant concludes that, in the context described above, this will result in a substantial/moderate effect on the immediate landscape character of the site and its surroundings up to 1km, and a moderate effect beyond this up to a distance of approximately 2km. These effects on the immediate character of the site are therefore significant in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. It is considered that the assessment is correct in this respect.

4.9 The Wind Energy SPD highlights the linkages which exist between individual landscape character types, and notes that a number often exist in close proximity to one another within relatively small geographical areas. Given the wide ranging zones of visibility typically associated with wind turbine development, it is therefore appropriate to consider the impact of such development upon adjacent landscape types. Several landscape types lie within middle range (2.4 – 12km as defined by the SPD) of the Killington site . The applicant’s submitted Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) assessment would indicate that the turbines may be visible across a wide area ofPage the landscape 104 within this range, particularly towards the north, south and east. It is therefore appropriate to consider the effects upon the landscape types affected within this range, wherein the SPD advises that turbines are likely to appear ‘prominent’ (2.4 -6kms) or ‘conspicuous’ (6 -12kms).

4.10 To the north of the site, much of the landscape falls into landscape type 11’Upland Fringes’, as defined by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. This includes sub-types 11a ‘Foothills’ and 11b ‘Low Fells’ . The site itself falls within sub-type 11b. The Wind Energy SPD adjudges landscape type 11 to have ‘low/moderate ’ capacity to accommodate a small group (3-5), and exceptionally a large group (6-9) of turbines. Within 2km of the site, as noted above, the effects of the turbines are likely to be significant. It is key to note in this regard, that the Wind Energy SPD highlights views towards the from the A684 and M6 as a particular sensitivity of this landscape type. Both of these roads lie within 2km of the site. Beyond this, the ZTV assessment indicates relatively little visibility of the turbines. The wider landscape impacts upon landscape type 11 are therefore likely to be limited.

4.11 To the south of the site, much of the landscape is designated 9b ‘Rolling Farmland and Heat h’. T he Wind Energy SPD advises that this landscape type has ‘moderate’ capacity to accommodate up to a small group of turbines. Much of 9b retains a moorland character, typified by elevated, windswept and largely empty land covered by rough grass and heather. The landscape is medium to large scale in character, and is sparsely developed, with settlements often located in hollows in the undulating topography. The influence of modern development is evident in commercial forestry plantations, electricity pylons and the M6.

4.12 The ZTV assessment would indicate that the turbines may be visible across much of this landscape type. Part of the eastern area of 9b falls within the area subject to Variation Order for extension of the boundary of the Yorkshire Dales National Park, although the ZTV assessment suggests that visibility would be limited within this area.

4.13 Beyond 2km of the site, the characteristics described above suggest scope to accommodate wind energy development. It is relevant to note however, that the SPD advises that constraints on the development of wind energy in 9b include the potential for intrusion on adjacent major valleys and views from the western Howgill Fells.

4.14 The valleys and fells alluded to lie to the east of the site. The Lune Valley runs in a north-south direction between the site and the Howgill, Barbon and Middleton Fells . This area is designated 8b ‘Broad Valleys’ by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. The great majority of 8b falls within the area subject to Variation Order. The valley extends into the current boundary of the Yorkshire Dales National Park. The YDNPA Landscape Assessment designates the area 2d ‘Lune Valley’. The YDNPA assessment brigades 2d with a further two valley landscape types – 2a ‘Dentdale and Deepdale’ and 2c ‘Rawthey Valley’, under the broad ‘Cumbrian Dales’ classification.

4.15 The Wind Energy SPD states that landscape type 8 has a ‘low/moderate’ capacity to accommodate turbine development. Valley landscapes are typically sensitive to turbine development due to their scenic richness, variety of natural and historic features, complex and irregular land use patterns, settlement pattern, and concentration of tourist routes and facilities. Turbines can often appear dominant in such contexts, particularly where valleys are tightly enclosed. Page 105

4.16 The ZTV assessment indicates that the turbines will be visible across a notable area of the valley landscape to the east. The turbines would often appear as a prominent skyline feature when viewed from this area. The Rawthey Valley in particular is tightly enclosed by the Howgill fells to the north and Frostrow, Middleton and Barbon Fells to the south. Views are channelled west, directly towards the proposed development site. In this context, it is considered that the turbines would have a dominant effect upon the valley landscape, and detract from its inherent character. The impact is compounded due to the relative sensitivity of this area, as either National Park, or National Park quality landscape.

4.17 Further to the east, and to the north of the site, lie the high fells. These include areas currently within the Yorkshire Dales National Park (southern Howgills, Frostrow and Baugh Fells), areas subject to Variation Order, for inclusion in the Yorkshire Dales National Park (Middleton and Barbon Fells and northern Howgills) and areas subject to Variation Order for inclusion in the Lake District National Park (Whinfell).

4.18 High fell areas are generally regarded as being highly sensitive to wind energy development, due to their characteristic lack of development, strong sense of wildness and remoteness, and openness. The National Park quality of the fells affected compounds this sensitivity.

4.19 The fells which currently fall within the remit of the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit are designated 13c ‘Fells and Scarps’ . The Wind Energy SPD adjudges these areas to have a low capacity to accommodate wind energy development . The YDNP fells are designated as ‘Upland Character Areas’ by the YDNPA Landscape Assessment. Both landscape character assessments identify similar key characteristics, including extensive views.

4.20 The ZTV assessment indicates that the turbines would be visible across a relatively large proportion of the fells described above. From the upper reaches of the fells, where view s are panoramic, the applicant’s view is that the turbines would form part of the wider panorama, occupying only a relatively small proportion of the overall view, thereby limiting their impact. This is considered to be an appropriate assessment. From the lower reaches of the fells however, views become more restricted, and the turbines become more prominent as a skyline feature. The turbines would be seen in the context of the sensitive valley landscape described above, detracting from its inherent character. It is considered that this impact has been underestimated by the applicant.

Visual Effects

4.21 Thirteen individual properties or clusters have been identified within 2km of the site. The impacts upon these receptors have been assessed by the applicant as being no more than moderate. Whilst this assessment is robust for the main part, it is considered that the impact upon Moorcock Hall, which directly faces the site at a distance of 1.2km, has been underestimated. It is also considered that the impact upon the Killington Lake Motorway Service area has been underestimated. In his Appeal Decision for the Armistead proposal in 2009, the Inspector noted that ‘the most attractive views from the services are to the north east and east, over the lake towards the higher fells’. The proposed turbines would dominate this view, adversely affecting the amenity of visitors to the area.

Page 106

4.22 A number of settlements lie within 6.4km of the site, wherein the Wind Energy SPD states that turbines are likely to be a ‘prominent’ element in the landscape. The majority of these settlements are screened by topography and/or vegetation. The most significant effects are likely to be experienced by residents of parts of Sedbergh, from where the turbines will be visible as a skyline feature, at a distance of approximately 6km. The ZTV diagram indicates that the turbines will be visible across the town, although in actuality this is likely to be restricted by buildings and vegetation. The clearest views of the site are likely to be from the north of the settlement.

4.23 The applicants have considered the likely effects upon public rights of way within the ZTV, concluding that views from those routes within the immediate vicinity of the site will be seen in the context of a local landscape which already includes major infrastructure and development. This is considered to be an appropriate assessment.

4.24 The turbines will be visible from the footpath network to the east, which provides access to the fells, and the slopes of the Lune Valley. The lower lying routes may be screened to a degree by vegetation, although the higher level routes will afford clear views across intervening valley landscape towards the site. The applicant has assessed sections of upland paths from where the turbines will be clearly visible, concluding that the turbines will be visible as elements within an extensive landscape.

4.25 Whilst noting the latter point, it is considered that the turbines will become increasingly dominant upon the character of the valley landscape when viewed from the lower slopes of the fells, as views become more channelled.

4.26 The applicant’s assessment does not appear to have taken into account potential views from the extensive areas of Access Land to the east of the site, or from the minor road network in the valley landscape.

4.27 Given the above therefore, it is therefore considered that the visual impact upon the fell/valley landscape to the east has been underestimated.

4.28 The ZTV assessment indicates that the turbines will be visible for approximately a 10km stretch of the M6, although in actuality, views are likely to be intermittent, restricted by vegetation and buildings. The impact of the turbines will be most substantial in close proximity to Junction 37. The northernmost turbine will be sited on a hill overlooking the motorway, at a distance of approximately 300m from Junction 37. It is considered that the turbines will have a dominant effect upon motorists at this point. This Junction is the exit taken by many visitors to Lake District and Yorkshire Dales. As such, the sensitivity of these motorists as visual receptors should be regarded as higher than would typically be the case.

Cumulative Effects

4.29 Two wind farm lie within 12km of the Killington site. The operational Lambrigg development, which consists of five turbines at a height of 70m to blade tip, lies 1.2km to the north. The Armistead wind farm is currently under construction. The development lies 4.7km to the south, and consists of six turbines, 100m to blade tip.

Page 107

4.30 The cumulative impact of these developments is likely to be most significant in close proximity to the Killington site. Both the Killington and Lambrigg developments would be visible to motorists travelling in both directions on the M6 between Killington services and Lambrigg Moor. Whilst this relates to only a relatively short section of the motorway, the impact of both schemes will be highly dominant upon motorists in this location, particularly those exiting at Junction 37.

4.31 In terms of the impact upon the wider landscape, all three developments will be visible simultaneously from the high fells to the east. This will increase the overall proportion of the panoramic views from these fells which is occupied by wind turbine development. The Wind Energy SPD advises that older developments, comprising smaller turbines, can exacerbate the impact of newer schemes, through emphasising their relative height. The Killington turbines are significantly (88%) taller than the Lambrigg turbines. This may therefore serve to exacerbate the cumulative impact of the Killington proposal. It is considered that the applicant’s view - that from where simultaneous cumulative effects are apparent, the impact is likely to be moderate - is an appropriate assessment.

4.32 In summation, it is considered that the overall landscape and visual impacts arising from this development would raise conflict with saved Structure Plan policies E37 and R44, criteria 1, 2 and 3, and General Development Principle 6 of the and Sub-Regional Strategy.

Highways

4.33 A site meeting has taken place between the developers, Highways Authority and the Council’s Highways Officers. A legal agreement will be required for the temporary highway works and for the accesses. Two of the accesses have below standard visibility splays, although the potential hazard can be resolved with Chapter 8 type signing when necessary. The Highway Officer responsible does not intend to raise objections on highways grounds.

Archaeology

4.34 The Historic Environment Officer states that records indicate that the proposed development lies in an area of some archaeological potential. The EIA has identified a number of earthwork remains of possible archaeological interest surviving within the proposed development area. However, the development has been designed to avoid any impact to these remains. The results of the EIA also show that the nature of the topography suggests the likelihood of unknown buried remains being disturbed by much of the proposed development is low. The exception to this is in the location of turbine 2 and the related infrastructure around it. Here, the EIA reveals that there is peat and that this has the potential to contain palaeo-environmental deposits with information on historic environmental and climatic conditions.

4.35 The Historic Environment officer therefore supports the mitigation recommended in the Environmental Statement, that the peat disturbed by the proposed construction of turbine 2 and the infrastructure around it, be subject to a programme of archaeological borehole assessment and, if appropriate, analysis and reporting in advance of development. It is advised that this programme of work should be commissioned and undertaken at the expense of the developer and can be secured through the inclusion of a condition in any planning consent that may be granted. Page 108

Energy contribution

4.36 National policy strongly encourages the use of renewable energy sources to help offset greenhouse gas emissions and the increasing reliance on imported energy supplies. They form part of a mix of energy resources being supported by Government. The Climate Change Act requires a 26% cut in carbon emissions by 2020, rising to 80% by 2050 (based on 1990 levels). The Renewable Energy Strategy, 2009, seeks to deliver European set targets that will increase renewable energy generation to cover 15% of the UK’s energy needs. To achieve the 10 fold increase, substantial additional renewable electricity production will be required. The Government sees an expansion of wind energy capacity, both on and off shore, as key to meeting these targets.

4.37 According to the Sustainable Development Commission and other studies it is likely that the carbon emissions related to the manufacturing and construction of the turbines and their concrete bases would be offset by the carbon saved from renewable electricity production within the first 10-12 months of operation.

4.38 National and regional planning policies support the development of renewable energy projects. The National Planning Policy Framework contains national guidance on the need for local authorities to support and encourage low carbon energy proposals that do not cause unacceptable harm to the local environment.

4.39 The Regional Spatial Strategy contains a target for onshore wind development in Cumbria to provide, in conjunction with existing schemes, 210MW of ‘installed capacity’ by 2010. Renewable Energy Policy EM17 also encourages schemes to be supported that are acceptable to the location and scale of the landscape character and sensitivity of the area. It states that stringent requirements for minimising impact on landscape would be inappropriate except for the most exceptional circumstances, such as within national landscape designations. To assist with taking decisions on issues such as landscape character, the Wind Energy SPD was jointly produced and adopted in 2007. The capacity assessment findings of the SPD have been taken into account when considering this scheme.

4.40 The importance of supporting renewable energy proposals is reflected in saved Structure Plan Policy R44 of the Joint Structure Plan. Schemes will be considered favourably where no significant adverse effects arise with regard to a number of criteria, including landscape character and local amenity. However, when considering whether any such effects arise, significant weight also needs to be given to the environmental, economic and energy benefits that might arise from a scheme.

4.41 Cumbria’s re gional target for renewable energy from on shore wind schemes was 210MW by 2010, which rises to 247.5MW by 2015. There are currently 18 operational schemes in Cumbria, and 5 more with consent (these figures do not include single turbine schemes). Together these will have an installed capacity of around 140MW – a shortfall of 70MW to 2010. This scheme would contribute an additional 10.2MW, which would account for 14.6% of the outstanding target to 2010.

Page 109

5 CONCLUSION

5.1 National planning policy promotes targets for renewable energy and looks to Local Planning Authorities to support proposals for renewable energy developments which do not have unacceptable impacts.

5.2 Saved Policy R44 of the Joint Structure Plan relates to renewable energy schemes outside national landscape designations and supports favourable consideration if there are no significant adverse effects on landscape character, built heritage, local amenity, highways and a range of other issues. Saved Policy E37 refers to landscape character, saved Policy E38 to the historic environment and saved policy E35 to nature conservation interests.

5.3 It is considered that this application raises conflict with identified saved Joint Structure Plan Policies E37 and R44. This report has demonstrated that the proposed development would create adverse landscape and visual impacts – notably upon the sensitive high fell and valley landscapes to the east of the proposed development site, which either lie within a National Park, or which, as areas subject to Variation Order, have been adjudged to be of National Park quality. It is considered that these effects outweigh the wider benefits associated with the generation of renewable energy.

5.4 It is therefore consider that an objection should be raised against this scheme as it is contrary to saved policies of the Cumbria Joint Structure Plan and the general development principles of the Cumbria Sub Regional Strategy.

5.5 Should South Lakeland District Council take an alternative view and grant consent, conditions should be attached which reflect the comments of the County Council’s Highways and Historic Environment Officers, and which secure the satisfactory remediation of the land following cessation of operation of the installation, in accordance with Policy R44, criteria 4.

Paul Feehily Assistant Director - Planning and Sustainability

Contact

Richard Pearse, Kendal 01539 713427

Background Papers

Planning Application File Reference SL/2012/0845

Electoral Division Identification

Local Member: Cllr. Stan Collins, Upper Kent ED

Adjoining Members: Cllr. Kevin Lancaster, Sedbergh and Kirkby Lonsdale ED Cllr. Tom Clare, Kendal Castle ED Cllr. Brenda Gray, Kendal South ED Cllr. Roger Bingham, Lower Kentdale ED

Page 110 Agenda Item 8d DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE 03 January 2013 A Report by the Assistant Director Planning and Sustainability ______

Application No: 05/2012/0832

Applicant: Sainsbury’s Su permarkets Limited and Rawdon Property – c/o How Planning, 40 Peter Street, Manchester, M2 5GP

District: South Lakeland District Council ______

Proposal: Hybrid application for full permission for demolition of existing buildings, erection of foodstore, petrol filling station, kiosk, car wash, new vehicular and pedestrian access, creation of new internal roads, car parking including recycling area, landscaping and boundary treatments and outline permission for the erection of business units for B1 (Business) or B2 (General Industrial) with vehicular access

Location: Land south of the A590 (Lightburn Road) and north of railway line, Ulverston ______

Page 111

1.0 RECOMMENDATION

1.1 A strategic objection is raised to the development for full permission for demolition of existing buildings, erection of foodstore, petrol filling station, kiosk, car wash, new vehicular and pedestrian access, creation of new internal roads, car parking including recycling area, landscaping and boundary treatments on the following grounds:

There are sequentially preferable sites in proximity to Ulverston Town Centre, one of which is subject to a current planning application at Brewery Street, which should be given preference first, before favourable consideration could be given to the application site at Lightburn Road;

The proposed retail development would use a substantial portion of a site identified in the SLDC Land Allocations DPD Submission Edition (May 2012) for B1 employment use, and its use for retail purposes may undermine the Local Planning Authority’s ability to supply sufficient employment land capacity in an area recognised as having insufficient employment sites, and hence would be contrary to Saved JSP Policies EM13 and EM14 and the terms of the Cumbria Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy 2008 2028.

1.2 It is recommended that South Lakeland District Council should carry out an independent assessment of the likely retail impacts of the proposed Sainsbury’s Foodstore development, having regard also to the proposed site at Brewery Street, before a conclusive view on the impact of the development upon the vitality and viability of Ulverston can be taken.

1.3 The outline application for 3x stand alone business park employment units to provide 2,555sqm (27,500sqft) gross external area over 2x floors, would be in accordance with the principles of the Saved JSP Policies (EM13 & EM14) and the SRSpS, and hence this part of the application is supported.

1.4 Should South Lakeland District Council wish to grant planning permission for any part of the hybrid application, it is recommended that it should:

carry out a detailed assessment of the ecological impacts of the development, prior to determination of the application, and should consider the Natural England Standing Advice on Protected Species and the linked Cumbria advice;

seek further detail on the ground levelling works in order to ascertain the landscape and visual impact of the proposed car parking area when viewed from the A590;

ensure suitable planning controls are placed on night time lighting;

consider at the reserved matters stage the overall height of the proposed business units to ensure that they are consistent with the local character and protect local amenities.

seek information on the presence/absence of any heritage assets located at the site and how their significance will be affected by the development proposals, prior to the determination of the application.

Page 112

ensure that the principles of “Secured by Design” as advocated by Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) are considered as part of this development

1.5 To note the response of the Highway Authority, which makes no objection to the proposal subject to appropriate conditions and a planning legal agreement, as set out in Annex A.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited and Rawdon Property have submitted a hybrid planning application that seeks full planning permission for:

Demolition of all existing buildings and site preparation;

Erection of a foodstore (Use Class A1) and associated biomass boiler;

Petrol filling station, associated kiosk building and car wash;

Creation of new vehicular and pedestrian site access arrangements to the A590 and creation of new internal roads;

Car parking including customer recycling area, cycle and motorcycle spaces, servicing arrangements and ancillary plant equipment; and

Landscaping and boundary treatments.

2.2 In addition, outline planning permission with all matters reserved except for means of access is sought for:

Erection of business units (up to 2 storeys) for business (Use Class B1) or general industrial (Use Class B2).

2.3 The proposed Sainsbury’s foodstore building would have a gross internal floor area of 3,613sqm (38,890sqft), providing a net retail sales area of 1,894sqm (20,386sqft), and will incorporate a customer café and toilet facilities. Of this net floorspace, 85%; i.e. 1,610sqm would be given over to convenience goods retailing, and the remaining 15%; i.e. 284sqm would be given over to non-food comparison goods retailing.

2.4 The store would provide a predominantly convenience goods offer with a limited range of comparison lines. The foodstore building would present a modern contemporary yet functional design incorporating a combination of stone, metal cladding ad glazing. It would be located at the western end of the site. A total of 276 car spaces would be provided. The petrol filling kiosk would be 86sqm (935sqft) to be located on the north east corner of the site.

2.5 Outline consent is also sought for 3x business (employment) units to be located to the south east of the proposed foodstore fronting the main customer car parking area. The 3x units could provide 2,555sqm (27,500sqft) gross external area over 2x floors. Page 113 2.6 The application site is currently a 3.1ha greenfield site located on the western edge of Ulverston on Lightburn Road, with a small domestic property at its centre. The proposed retail element of the application would take up a substantial proportion of the development site.

2.7 The site is approximately 525m walking distance from the nearest part of the site boundary to the A590 and the edge of the Town Centre. Ulverston railway station lies approximately 300m east along the railway lines to the rear of the site, and is approximately 700m away by road. There are bus stops opposite to the site on the A590, providing public transport travel east bound and west bound.

2.8 Both supermarket and the proposed business units would be set at levels within the wider landform so as to reduce their visual prominence, and views into the site will be filtered by proposed new boundary planting, landform modifications and in the case of the service yard, an acoustic barrier to shield existing housing from noise and visual intrusion.

2.9 The existing larger trees within or bordering the site, including those with tree preservation orders would be retained within the proposals. Extensive boundary planting and buffer landscaping is proposed to the north of the foodstore and boundary planting will enclose the proposed car park and service yard, separating them from the distributor road and the A590. The planting would consist of trees and shrubs including native and deciduous species, and will provide year round screening and stabilise steeper banks where these occur as part of the modified topography.

2.10 The application indicates a new signalised highways junction for the site to be provided on to the existing junction of the A590 Lightburn Road and Daltongate, and a new entrance road into the site. It is worth pointing out that the Highways Agency has jurisdiction over the Trunk Road network. Pedestrian walkways through and around the car park would provide links to the store and petrol filling station from the A590 and the adjacent bus stops, thereby promoting sustainable transport. The new junction onto the A590 would incorporate pedestrian crossing facilities which would assist with pedestrian and cyclist movements to the site, including Ulverston Town Centre.

3.0 PLANNING ISSUES

3.1 The proposal has been assessed as to whether or not it would materially conflict with or prejudice the implementation of the Cumbria Strategic Partnership’s Sub Regional Spatial Strategy (SRSpS) 2008-2028 and those policies of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (JSP) which were extended, but not replaced by the North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (September 2008).

3.2 The North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy is still currently part of the development plan and is a material planning consideration, although the Government has made clear their intentions that they may abolish at some point Regional Spatial Strategies and Saved Structure Plan Policies, following the enactment of the Localism Act 2012.

Page 114

3.3 National planning policy has been condensed into the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which has distilled over 1,000 pages of policy into 50 pages. Planning Policy Statement PPS6 – Planning for Town Centres - now no longer exists, although the NPPF does dictate that where an application fails to satisfy the sequential tests or is likely to have a significant adverse effect on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a town centre or centres in the catchment of the proposal or impact on the town centre viability and viability, then it should be refused.

3.4 Cumbria County Council is the Highway Authority for Cumbria, and the Highway Authorities response can be found in Annex A.

3.5 It is considered that the main strategic policy aspects raised by the application are:

to determine whether or not the scale, mix and type of development is appropriate to the location, and whether or not there is any significant adverse effect on strategic retail policies [Saved JSP Policies ST5, EM13, EM14, and SRSpS Development Principles];

to determine whether it is sustainable in terms of transport and accessibility [Saved JSP Policies T30, T31, LTP Policies LD4, LD5, LD6, LD7, LD8, WS1, WS3; and SRSpS Development Principles];

to determine whether there are any significant adverse effects on landscape, the historic environment, and ecology and measures to mitigate the impact [Saved JSP Policies E35, E37, E38, and SRSpS Development Principles].

3.6 The following policies are considered relevant to this proposal:

Development Strategy and Locational Issues

JSP Policy ST5 New Development and Key Service Centres outside the Lake District National Park SRSpS Development Principles SRSpS The Spatial Strategy SRSpS Areas within Cumbria

Retail and Employment Issues

JSP Policy EM13 Employment Land Provision JSP Policy EM14 Development Of Employment Land For Other Purposes SRSpS Development Principles SRSpS The Spatial Strategy SRSpS Areas within Cumbria

Ecological Issues

JSP Policy E35 Areas and features of nature conservation interests other than those of national and international consideration importance SRSpS Development Principles

Page 115

Landscape and Visual Impact Issues

JSP Policy E37 Landscape Character SRSpS Development Principles

Historic Environment Issues

JSP Policy E38 Historic Environment SRSpS Development Principles

Development Strategy and Locational Issues

3.7 The Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which was published in March 2012 reaffirms that planning law requires applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF states that it is highly desirable that Local Planning Authorities should therefore have an up-to-date plan in place.

3.8 At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through plan making and decision-taking. It states that: “for decision taking this means:

Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay;

Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out- of-date, granting permission unless:

- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

- specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”.

3.9 The Cumbria Community Strategy 2008 –2028, prepared by the Cumbria Strategic Partnership aims to create: safe; strong and inclusive communities; health and well being throughout life; a sustainable and prosperous economy; effective connections between people and places; and a world class environmental quality. The Community Strategy seeks to energise the county’s communities, health, economy, connections and environment over the next 10-20 years. It brings together aspirations and ambitions from a range of thematic and geographic strategies.

3.10 The Cumbria Strategic Partnership Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy (SRSpS) sets out the spatial framework. This enables actions that affect specific areas and locations to serve the delivery of the Community Strategy, and it provides the sub- regional spatial framework for the preparation of Local Development Frameworks/Local Plans in Cumbria. The Community Strategy and the SRSpS Page 116 recognise that the challenge is to secure a sustainable level and pattern of development that creates balanced communities and meets need – including the need for jobs.

3.11 The SRSpS Development Principles require that most development is located in designated Key Service Centres and Local Service Centres to assist in reducing the need to travel and to give, in the following order of priority, a preference for: (a) the appropriate reuse of existing buildings worthy of retention; (b) the reuse of previously-developed land; and only then (c) the use of previously undeveloped land. It will be the exception for new development to be located in the open countryside. It also seeks sites that are or will be made accessible by public transport, walking and cycling, providing a realistic choice of access by means other than the private car. It also seeks to focus development appropriate to the size and role of each Key Service Centre.

3.12 The SRSpS identifies that significant development is to take place in the Key Service Centre of Ulverston (similar in scale to Kendal, Penrith and Maryport), and with greater consideration as to the scale and the capacity for development. Development in Ulverston should assist in sustaining the regeneration of Barrow by supporting an increa se in its catchment’s population. The SRSpS recognises that generally South Lakeland has had high levels of employment. However this masks a dependence upon low paid and part-time work particularly in the rural areas.

3.13 The shortage of readily available employment sites has been a key problem in South Lakeland, and the SRSpS seeks to encourage an increased supply of employment land for a variety of businesses users. The SRSpS states that the complementary development of Ulverston and Barrow should be further promoted by the encouragement of sites for high value businesses and inward investment being made available in Ulverston.

3.14 Saved JSP Policy ST5 identifies that the quantum of development should reflect the scale and function of the settlements, and that there should be an appropriate supply of readily available land in the Local Employment Site market sector and a high level of transport accessibility.

3.15 A number of Policies in the South Lakeland District Council Local Plan and Alterations (Final Composite Plan) (Adopted March 2006) remain extant and are saved policies. In this regard, the site currently lies within the designated “Green Gap” between Ulverston and Swarthmoor under Policy C2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and Alterations (Final Composite Plan) (Adopted March 2006).

3.16 However, it is proposed to be allocated in the South Lakeland Land Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) Submission Edition (May 2012) for B1 employment use (allocated as a business park) and referred to as the Lightburn Business Park (ref: M11M-Mod). This DPD sets out SLDC’s proposed development locations to cater for the needs of the District over the plan (Core Strategy) period of 2010-2025. This DPD is currently being “examined” for its soundness by the Planning Inspectorate through the normal Local Plan Examination process. There are a number of other relevant SLDC planning policies, which are not considered here for the purposes of this strategic planning response. Page 117

3.17 The JSP and SRSpS give priority to development, which is well related to Key Service Centres, where this will help to sustain local services and meet community needs. In relation to the sequential test, whilst the site currently lies in the designated ‘Green Gap’ it is nonetheless also being proposed for emplo yment development in the Submission Land Allocations DPD, but it falls into the lowest level category (criterion c of the SRSpS Development Principles) since it is a greenfield site.

3.18 Notwithstanding th e ‘Green Gap’ point, it is considered that SLDC have nevertheless accepted that, as a matter of principle, the site could act as a suitable urban extension to the wider Ulverston area, to support much needed employment land for the plan period up to 2025, and that it is situated in a sustainable location (see paragraph 5.39 of the SLDC Land Allocations DPD – Submission Edition). From this point of view it must logically be considered to be a broadly sustainable location for new development in terms of its accessibility to surrounding residential areas in this Key Service Centre. It is for this reason that the County Council did not raise any strategic objection to the proposed allocation of the site for employment purposes.

3.19 Consequently, in terms of the outline part of this hybrid planning application involving the three business units for employment uses (Class B1 or Class B2), it is considered that these should be broadly compatible with the principles of the proposed allocation (M11M-Mod) of the site in the South Lakeland Land Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) Submission Edition (May 2012) for employment purposes, and hence no strategic concern is raised by the provision of these proposed units.

3.20 With regard to the retail element of the proposal, as described above, the SRSpS gives priority to the re-use of previously developed land first, before consideration is given to previously undeveloped land (i.e. greenfield sites). The SRSpS does not give policy guidance on specific retail uses. However, the NPPF also requires Local Planning Authorities to apply the sequential approach to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. The NPPF states that applications for main town centre uses should be considered for locations in town centres first, then in edge-of-centre locations, and only if suitable sites are not available should out-of-centre sites be considered. When considering edge-of- centre and out-of-centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre.

3.21 The applicant’s agent has accepted that the application site on Lightburn Road comprises an out-of-centre location, and therefore a search needs to be undertaken of suitable, viable and available in-centre and edge-of-centre sites.

3.22 In terms of the sequential test, a separate application was submitted in 2011 for a separate site on Brewery Street in Ulverston (application reference 05/2011/0564) for a proposed supermarket development of 2,875sqm (gross) with a net retail sales area of 1,900sqm with car parking and servicing, which has yet to be determined by SLDC. This alternative, unallocated site, which lies within the Page 118 Ulverston Conservation Area, and in an edge-of-centre location, is understood to involve complex issues around the significant demolition of buildings and substantial ground works to provide undercroft car parking and changed ground levels within the Conservation Area. It is understood that objections have been lodged with SLDC on heritage grounds from English Heritage, the Victorian Society, SAVE and the Local Authority’s Conservation Officer to this proposal. It is understood that SLDC are seeking to resolve these matters with that particular applicant.

3.23 The South Lakeland District Council Retail Study Update 2012 (February 2012), which has been prepared as evidence to support SLDC’s Land Allocations DPD Submission document identifies a number of alternative potential retail sites, which include the Brewery Street site. The Study concludes that the Brewery Street site has:

“good potential for redevelopment for retail uses, subject to site constraints being overcome. As an edge-of-centre site any proposal on this site must demonstrate that redevelopment for retail use is in accordance wi th PPS4 test of the sequential approach and impact.”

3.24 In contrast, the South Lakeland District Council Retail Study Update 2012 concluded that the Lightburn Road application site is:

“a greenfield site with poor visual links to the Town Centre. The size of the site could potentially accommodate a food superstore but there [are] previously developed sites that should be favoured sequentially over this greenfield option. ”

3.25 A number of other sites are identified in the South Lakeland District Council Retail Study Update 2012, which could offer varying degrees of potential retail development opportunity. These include: Canal Head, Ulverston; Cumbria English Crystal factory shop and Lighthouse Restaurant; and Croftlands Residential Extension, Ulverston.

3.26 The agent s acting on behalf of Sainsbury’s for the Lightburn Road site have also identified sites for potential retail development, but these have been dismissed by them for a variety of reasons; being either too small to accommodate a food superstore development; or in the wrong location; or the lack of availability. They consider that aside from the historic environment constraints, the Brewery Street site is not suitable and too small to accommodate the Sainsbury’s format.

3.27 On balance, given there is a current live planning application being considered by SLDC for a sequentially preferable site at Brewery Street for a similarly sized supermarket development, and taking account of the aforementioned national (i.e. NPPF) and local planning policies, which support employment use on the Lightburn Road site exclusively, it is considered that a food superstore could not be considered appropriate on the Lightburn Road site based on current information available.

Page 119

3.28 However, this viewpoint is expressed on the proviso that the alternative sequentially preferable sites identified above, and in particular the Brewery Street site, are not found to be unsuitable, unviable or unavailable and fail the tests in the NPPF. If they are found to fail the tests in the NPPF, then it is considered that the proposed Sainsbury’s Foodstore development on Lightburn Road may have some planning merit, and the reasons for this qualifying statement are elaborated upon in the sections below.

Retail Issues

3.29 The NPPF states that when assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to- date Local Plan, Local Planning Authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a default threshold of 2,500sqm.

3.30 The applicants have provided their own assessment of the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment and the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability in accordance with the NPPF. This assessment claims that the impact of the proposed Sainsbury’s food superstore would result in relatively modest convenience goods trading impacts across the catchment area’s centres and the vast majority of foodstores in the test year of 2017. The applicant states that this impact would be further reduced by 2022, as a consequence of natural convenience goods expenditure growth.

3.31 In terms of defined centres, the applicant considers that the highest convenience goods trading impact would fall upon Ulverston Town Centre at -8.0%, but the majority of trade diverted from this Centre would be likely to come from the Tesco and Co-operative convenience stores, which they observe to be trading strongly. The applicant’s health check evidence indicates that Ulverston is a healthy centre with a particularly low vacancy rate, and is underpinned by a strong ‘top up’ convenience shopping role and retail service offer that is partly tourist oriented, and would be largely unaffected by the introduction of a new bulk food shopping destination. Ulverston Town Centre has strong pedestrian footfall and good environmental quality. It also has a good mix of independent/ specialist traders and national multiples. The applicant concludes that the modest level of trade loss identified from Ulverston Town Centre would not lead to a significant adverse impact upon its vitality and viability.

3.32 The Government’s Guidance: “Planning for Town Centres - Practice Guidance on Need, Impact and the Sequential Approach ” (December 2009) indicates that there is no defined threshold for ‘significant adverse’ impact, as the threshold will vary according to the health of the Town Centre being considered. However, it is generally recognised that impacts of less than -20% are not considered significant.

3.33 In terms of trading effects on stand alone convenience retail facilities, the applicant’s assessment shows that the existing Booths store at Oubas Hill, Ulverston is trading at +55% above benchmark levels in the test year 2017. It is predicted that the proposed Sain sbury’s development would result in a trade reduction of £4.93million at the Booths Store, thus resulting in a -24.16% trading impact on the store in 2017. However, the applicant’s analysis shows that this Page 120 store would still be trading at some £2.4m or +19% above benchmark, such is the current order of its overtrading. It has to be pointed out of course that the site of this store is an out-of-centre location and therefore is afforded no direct protection in retail planning policy terms.

3.34 The applicants consider that the Asda, Tesco and Morrisons stores in Barrow-in- Furness would suffer a convenience goods impact of between -5.8 and -9.9% in the test year of 2017. However, as with the Booths Store all these stores are trading above benchmark, and the applicant ’s state that there is no evidence that their long-term viability would be significantly affected by the new Sainsbury’s foodstore in Ulverston. These stores also occupy out-of-centre locations and consequently do not benefit from any protection under planning policy.

3.35 The applicant s also point out that there will be some ‘claw -back’ of some of the expenditure currently lost to competing stores elsewhere. They claim that some £18.6m of the convenience goods expenditure currently generated by the Ulverston ar ea’s population is lost to facilities elsewhere (and particularly to Barrow), increasing to £20.4m by 2022. However, the proposed Sainsbury’s Store would ‘claw -back’ some £7.6m of this leaking expenditure, which is considered to be a significant benefit to Ulverston’s retail economy . Following the introduction of the Sainsbury’s Foodstore through ‘claw -back’ of leaking expenditure, Ulverston’s overall convenience expenditure retention rate is predicted to increase by approximately 11 percentage points to 42.5% (£39.8m). On this basis, 57% or £53m convenience goods expenditure will still be flowing to other centres outside of Ulverston, even after the Sainsbury’s Foodstore.

3.36 At just 284sqm, the applicants consider that the comparisons good element of the prop osed Sainsbury’s Foodstore would be ancillary to its convenience goods offer. In terms of comparison goods trading impact, the Sainsbury’s Foodstore would have a -1.67% impact upon Ulverston Town Centre, given the centres total comparisons goods turnover of £28.37m in 2017 (rising to £37.78m in 2022). The applicants also claim that the proposal would also have less than 1% impact on comparison goods retailing in Barrow-in-Furness. Hence it would seem that based on the applicant’s assessment, there would be no significant adverse effect on the viability and vitality of Ulvertson Town centre in terms of comparison goods trading.

3.37 In terms of the combined trading impacts upon Ulverston Town Centre, the applicants claim that the proposed Sainsbury’s Foodstore wou ld have a trading impact of -2.7% in 2017 reducing to -2.2% in 2022, which is not considered to be significant adverse.

3.38 The applicants claim that on the basis of predicted growth in convenience and comparison goods expenditure, it is anticipated that any lost trade would be recovered within one to two years. In addition, they state that existing retail facilities within the Town Centre will continue to trade strongly even after allowing for the anticipated trading effects of the Sainsbury’s Foodstore, given their contrasting role and offer. Overall, the applicants state that the anticipated trade diversions of the Sainsbury’s Foodstore will not result in a significantly adverse trading impact on any surrounding centres, and as such vitality and viability will remain largely unaffected. Page 121

3.39 The applicants go onto claim that there is sufficient surplus convenience and comparison goods expenditure available within the catchment area to support two foodstores in the test year of 2017, and they consider that the Sains bury’s scheme will not have any implications for the deliverability of an appropriately sized foodstore on the Brewery Street site, in terms of forecast consumer expenditure.

3.40 Whilst much of the applicant’s retail impact assessment utilises existing data from the South Lakeland Retail Study 2012 (SLRS February 2012), including the Household Telephone Shopping Survey and defined catchment areas, they have nevertheless applied their own expenditure and turnover forecasts, and growth assumptions. This has resulted in some differences in expected convenience retail expenditure and growth figures, where the applicant’s figures appear somewhat inflated above the South Lakeland Retail Study 2012. For example, the SLRS 2012 calculates that total available convenience goods expenditure for Ulverston in 2012 is projected to be £31.93m (£32.65m in 2017), whereas the applicant’s figures are £44.12m (£45.98m in 2017). Likewise, the SLRS 2012 indicates higher turnover figures for the Ulverston area compared to the applicants own figures.

3.41 Most importantly, the amount of surplus convenience retail capacity identified in an updated version of the SLRS 2012 published in November 2012 is significantly less than the applicants calculate, before taking account of provision of an additional foodstore with a turnover of £16.63m in 2017. In this regard, the updated SLRS (November 2012 edition) assumes less growth in expenditure due to the return to recession. It uses more up-to-date Experian Business Solutions data, and the revised SLRS shows that there would be surplus expenditure of only £2.4m in 2012 (£10.6m previously), £3.1m in 2017 (£11.4m previously), and £4.6m in 2022 (£12.9m previously). This compares to the applicants figures showing surplus capacity figures ranging from: £10.97m in 2012; £12.03m - £22.36m in 2017; and £13.36m - £24.18m in 2022.

3.42 If the turnover of the proposed Sainsbury’s Foodstore is then taken into account (i.e. for the test year of 2017 – £16.63m), it would seem that by using the SLRS updated November 2012 figures there would effectively be insufficient retail convenience expenditure capacity in the area to absorb the proposed Sainsbury’s Foodstore in Ulverston.

3.43 A separate retail assessment carried out for the proposed Brewery Street site application (application reference: 05/2011/0564) indicates that for 2016 there would be surplus capacity of £14.6m, not taking into account any additional foodstore. Assuming a convenience turnover of £15.4m from the proposed development of the Brewery Street development (with a net convenience sales area of 1,71 0sqm), those applicants consider that “there is almost sufficient capacity to support the convenience floorspace of the store from growth of expenditure in the catchment area”. It is noted that the net convenience sales area of both the proposed Brewery Street proposal and the Sainsbury’s Foodstore are very similar.

Page 122

3.44 On a more minor point, it is also considered that there appear to be some inconsistencies in the Sainsbury’s own figures, where if calculated through seem to indicate slightly greater trading impacts of the proposed Sainsbury’s Foodstore on Ulverston Town Centre than shown in the applicant’s own assessment tables; i.e. the tables show a trade diversion of -8.33% in 2017 on Ulverston Town Centre, whereas this is more likely to be -10.04%.

3.45 In light of these differing and updated sets of expenditure and turnover assumptions and trade diversion calculations, it is recommended that South Lakeland District Council should carry out an independent assessment of the likely impacts of the proposed Sainsbury’s Foodstore development, having regard also to the proposed site at Brewery Street before a conclusive view can be taken on the impacts of the development on Ulverston Town Centre.

Employment Issues

3.46 Saved Policy EM13 states that Local development Frameworks/Local Plans will need to ensure that there is a readily available supply of employment land including Local Employment Sites and Business/ Science Park. Saved Policy EM14 states that outside the Lake District National Park, the development of existing employment sites, premises and land allocations for non-employment or mixed uses will be considered where it can be demonstrated that over the Structure Plan period either the site or premises is likely to remain unsuitable for employment purposes; or the retention of the site or premises in employment use is not needed to meet the requirements of Policy EM13 including the requirements that each Key service Centre retains an appropriate supply of land within the Local Employment site market sector.

3.47 As referred to above the SRSpS identifies a deficiency of employment land in the South Lakeland area, including Ulverston, and the proposed allocation of the site in the SLDC Land Allocations DPD for a Business Park would accord with the objectives of JSP Policy EM13 and the SRSpS. The proposed retail element of the application would take up a substantial proportion of the development site. Consequently, any development that might reduce the capability of the District to support delivery of much needed employment uses would be seen as contrary to the terms of both the saved Policies EM13 and EM14, but also the terms of the SRSpS.

3.48 However, it is worth pointing out that the current application includes the provision of 3x business (employment) units to be located to the south east of the proposed foodstore fronting the main customer car parking area. The 3x units could provide 2,555sqm (27,500sqft) gross external area over 2x floors. This part of the proposal, being effectively a separate outline application, would be in accordance with the principles of the Saved JSP Policies (EM13 & EM14) and the SRSpS, and hence could be supported in principle.

3.49 Furthermore, it could be considered that the proposed foodstore could act as an enabler to provide the development of the business units. The applicants consider that the proposed allocation of the site for exclusively employment uses would not be financially viable on their own, and the potential for cross subsidy with the proposed Sainsbury’s Foodstore would then make the whole scheme viable. Page 123

3.50 It is considered that this argument has some planning merit. Hence, should the alternative sequentially preferable sites referred to in the sections above be found to be unsuitable, unviable or unavailable and fail the tests in the NPPF for retail purposes, and provided that the retail capacity and impacts matters identified above are resolved, then arguably the Lightburn Road site may have planning merit in becoming a mixed retail/business park site.

3.51 However, as discussed above these matters have not been played out for any strong recommendations to be made at this stage. Therefore as it stands, an objection must be raised to the use of the site for retail purposes, given that it may undermine the ability of the Local Planning Authority to provide a sufficient supply of employment land capacity in an area recognised as having insufficient employment sites, and hence would be contrary to Saved and Extended JSP Policies EM13, EM14 and the terms of the SRSpS. In addition, there appears to be doubt over the apparent convenience retail expenditure capacity in the area to absorb the proposed Sainsbury’s Foodstore and the potential effects upon trade diversion on Ulverston Town Centre, as set out in the retail section above.

Ecological Issues

3.52 The natural environmental assets appear to have been appropriately assessed and adequate documentation has been provided. The mitigation proposals are appropriate and the key interests will be the hedgerows and mature trees on the site. In addition to the six trees with TPOs along the eastern site boundary, attention should be given to the retention of as many mature trees as possible. Appropriate replacement habitat should be created to compensate for the loss of hedgerows. Precautions will need to be taken to avoid the disturbance of nesting birds during the development programme.

3.53 It is recommended that South Lakeland District Council should carry out a detailed assessment, prior to determination of the application.

3.54 It is also recommended that South Lakeland District Borough Council should consider the Natural England Standing Advice on Protected Species and the linked Cumbria advice (linked on the Natural England local resources page). The link to the Natural England Standing Advice is http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/planningtransportlocalgov/spatialplannin g/standingadvice/default.aspx

Landscape and Visual Impact Issues

3.55 Saved Structure Plan Policy E37 ‘Landscape Character’ states that ‘Devel opment and land use change should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types and sub types.’ The site lies within landscape sub-type 2d ‘Coastal Urban Fringe’ , as defined by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCGT). The applicant has undertaken a landscape and visual assessment of the site, although direct reference to existing landscape character assessments is limited to the more strategic level Countryside Character maps, produced by Natural England. Page 124

3.56 The CLCGT notes that 2d is:

‘generally flat or gently undulating land… characterised by urban, industrial and leisure related development, derelict and unused buildings and transportation routes… Fields are small and patterns are weak. Field division is often by hedges or fences.’

3.57 In terms of Perceptual Character, the CLCGT states that ‘this landscape is busy with many uses and a variety of land cover. It can have an air of neglect where buildings and land have become run down. It has a strong association with the urban character of nearby villages, towns and cities and the open and undeveloped adjacent landscapes.’ The Vision for the sub -type states that ‘The rural and natural qualities of these areas will be reinforced and there will be the development of a bold landscape structure to unify disparate uses. This will be achieved through the conservation of rural green areas and a reduction in the impact of development in prominent locations.’

3.58 The site lies within a ‘Green Gap ’, as designated by Policy C2 of the saved South Lakeland Local Plan 2006. The Green Gap designation aims to ‘prevent the coalescence of settlements and retain their distinct and separate characters.’ The CLCGT Guidelines for Development include ‘Support the retenti on and development of ‘green gaps’, green infrastructure and ecosystem services approaches in Local Development Frameworks where they would help maintain distinctive, undeveloped characteristics.’

3.59 South Lakeland District Council has allocated the site for employment use in their emerging Allocations DPD. As part of their evidence base, SLDC have assessed the landscape character of this site, and its overall function as part of the Green Gap. The Council have concluded that ‘the identity of Ulverston and Sw arthmoor would not be lost if the land north of the railway line… (is) not retained as part of the Green Gap’.

3.60 The area within which the site lies is transitional in character, reflecting the CLCGT assessment of close association with both the urban area to the east, and the wider, undeveloped countryside. The site itself is partly developed, and is surrounded by the Dalton Conference Centre, a recently built housing estate, a terrace of older housing, and hotel and garden centre buildings. It is bounded to the south by a railway line, and to the north by the A590. Whilst urban influences are therefore clearly apparent, the site and the area surrounding retain a rural character, due in part to the existence of extensive mature vegetation.

3.61 The site is clearly visible in its immediate vicinity, notably to users of the A590. As such, it can be regarded as a key ‘gateway’ site to Ulverston. More distant views are restricted by local topography and existing tree cover.

3.62 Whilst the SLDC landscape assessment would indicate that the development of this site will not impact upon the overall function of the green gap, the CLCGT aims to reinforce the rural and natural qualities of this landscape sub-type, and reduce the impact of development in prominent locations are key to the appropriate development of this site. Page 125

3.63 The proposal aims to retain much of the existing mature vegetation on site, most notably to the eastern and western boundaries, which include trees protected by TPOs. Although two sections of hedgerow within the site will be removed, it is not considered that the loss of these will result in significant damage to local landscape character. Additional planting, of appropriate local species, is proposed in order to screen the development in the longer term, which is welcomed. The proposed superstore is to be stone faced. Again, this will help to integrate the building in its wider landscape context.

3.64 The topography of the site itself is complex. The ground undulates. It is clear from the submitted plans that the land upon which the superstore building will be sited is to be raised by 2 – 2.5 metres where it fronts the road. It is unclear however, whether additional ground levelling works will be undertaken elsewhere within the site. The visualisations included in the Design and Access Statement would indicate a relatively level topography, although this is not the case currently. Further detail on this would be welcome, particularly since this is key to determining as to whether or not the proposed car parking area would be visible from the A590.

3.65 Particularly given the semi-rural nature of the site, opportunities to minimise any light pollution emanating from the development should be taken through the application and control of a suitable lighting scheme, consistent with Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy Development Principle 10.

3.66 The proposed business units will be located on the most elevated section of the site. The overall height and general design of these units will need close consideration at reserved matters stage, in order to ensure an approach which is consistent with local character is taken, and in order to protect the amenity of residents to the south.

Historic Environment Issues

3.67 The SRSpS seeks to encourage development which supports quality historic environments. The Development Principles require new development to avoid the loss of or damage to, and wherever possible enhance important or distinctive conservation features including landscapes, buildings, archaeological sites, historic parks and garden and visually important public and private open spaces.

3.68 Saved and extended JSP Policy E38 is relevant to the proposal. Policy E38 requires measures to be taken to identify record, protect, conserve or enhance area, sites, buildings and setting of archaeological, historic and architectural importance. Where harm occurs, an exception is made where the harm is outweighed by the need for the development.

3.69 Our records indicate that the site is located within an area of archaeological potential. A large number of Bronze Age stone implements were discovered when the railway cutting on the southern border of the site was excavated. Further Bronze Age remains comprising a human cremation burial and pottery were found 300 metres to the west. This suggests that the area around the site was a focus Page 126 for prehistoric activity and burial and any such remains that survive on the site would be disturbed by the proposed development. The attribution of the fields as former common pasture is incorrect as they are former common arable as consultation of the Cumbria Historic Landscape Assessment would confirm.

3.70 No information has been supplied with the application as to the significance of any heritage assets that may survive within the site, nor how any such remains would be impacted upon by the proposed development. It is therefore recommended that, in line with Policy C19 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, information is provided on the presence/absence of any heritage assets located at the site and how their significance will be affected by the development proposals, prior to the determination of the application.

3.71 As outlined in the NPPF, it is considered that this information should be obtained by an archaeological evaluation. An informed judgement can then be made as to whether any forthcoming planning consent will need to include provisions for the recording and, more importantly, the preservation of very significant heritage assets in situ .

Safer Communities

3.72 No reference can be found in the documentation relating to community safety issues associated with such a development. It is recommended that the principles of “Secured by Design” as advocated by Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) should therefore be considered as part of such a development.

Local Member Comments

3.73 The Local Member for Low Furness has concerns relating to the access to and from the A590. The Member considers that this is a particularly busy stretch of road along which she travels regularly. Access at the proposed new signalised highways junction for the site to be provided on to the existing junction of the A590 Lightburn Road and Daltongate is likely to create more accidents, or measures will have to be introduced to slow down the traffic significantly.

3.74 The Local Member has been involved in many discussions with regards to safety on the A590, and always had to give consideration to the flow of traffic to and from Barrow-in-Furness. The Local Member believes that to ensure safety at this junction, if this is possible, the measures would have to be as such to have a significant detrimental effect on the traffic flow.

South Lakeland Local Area Committee Chairperson

3.75 No comments have been received from the Local Area Chair.

Page 127

4.0 CONCLUSIONS

4.1 There is a current planning application (reference 05/2011/0564) for a similarly sized supermarket with car parking, which is being considered by SLDC and is proposed for a sequentially preferable edge-of-centre location on Brewery Street, Ulverston. It is considered that this sequentially preferable site is more likely to satisfy the tests in the NPPF outlined above compared to the proposal for Lightburn Road - the subject of this consultation. Hence, based on current information available, a strategic objection is raised to the proposed development of Lightburn Road for retail purposes on the ground that there seems to be a sequentially preferable edge-of-centre site available closer to the Town Centre, which should be given preferential consideration first before alternative out-of- centre sites are considered.

4.2 The retail assessments are not conclusive given the differing and updated sets of expenditure and turnover assumptions and trade diversion calculations. It is therefore recommended that South Lakeland District Council should carry out an independent assessment of the likely impacts of the proposed Sainsbury’s Foodstore development, having regard also to the proposed site at Brewery Street (and if appropriate any other sequentially preferable sites) before a conclusive view can be taken on the impacts of the development on Ulverston Town Centre.

4.3 In terms of the employment uses, it could be considered that the proposed foodstore could act as an enabler to support the development of the business units. The applicants consider that the proposed allocation of the site for exclusively employment uses would not be financially viable on their own, and the potential for cross subsidy with the proposed Sainsbury’s Foodstore would then make the whole scheme viable. It is considered that this argument has planning merit, although the viability case should be first tested by SLDC. Should the alternative sequentially preferable site/s referred to in the retail sections above be found to be unsuitable, unviable or unavailable and fail the tests in the NPPF, and provided that the retail capacity and impacts matters identified above are resolved, then arguably the Lightburn Road site may then have planning merit in becoming a mixed retail/business park site.

4.4 However, as it stands a strategic objection must be raised to the proposed retail element of the proposal as it would use a substantial portion of a site currently identified in the SLDC Land Allocations DPD Submission Edition (May 2012) for B1 employment use. Although this document has not yet completed its Examination process and has yet to be adopted by SLDC, it nonetheless carries some material weight in the determination process. The use of the Lightburn Road site principally for retail purposes may therefore undermine the Local Planning Authority’s ability to supply sufficient employment land capacity in an area recognised as having insufficient employment sites, and hence would be contrary to Saved JSP Policies EM13, EM14 and the terms of the Cumbria Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy 2008 - 2028.

4.5 Notwithstanding this point, the outline application for 3x stand alone business park employment units would provide 2,555sqm (27,500sqft) gross external area over 2x floors, would be in accordance with the principles of the Saved JSP Policies Page 128 (EM13 & EM14) and the SRSpS, and hence this part of the application is supported.

4.6 In terms of ecology on the site, it is recommended that South Lakeland District Council should carry out a detailed assessment, prior to determination of the application. It is also recommended that South Lakeland District Borough Council should consider the Natural England Standing Advice on Protected Species and the linked Cumbria advice.

4.7 In terms of landscape, it is recommended that further detail is provided on the ground levelling works in order to ascertain the landscape and visual impact of the proposed car parking area when viewed from the A590. In addition, should the Local Planning Authority wish to grant planning permission, it is recommended that suitable planning controls are placed on night time lighting, and consideration be given at the reserved matters stage to the overall height of the proposed business units to ensure that they are consistent with the local character and protect local amenities.

4.8 In terms of historic environment, it is recommended that information must be provided on the presence/absence of any heritage assets located at the site and how their significance will be affected by the development proposals, prior to the determination of the application.

4.9 In relation to safer communities matters, it is recommended that the principles of “Secured by Design” as advocated by Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) should therefore be considered as part of such a development.

4.10 The views of the County Council Highways Authority are set out in Annex A.

Paul Feehily Assistant Director – Planning and Sustainability

Contact

Graham Hale 01228 226716

Background Papers

Planning Application File Reference 05/2012/0832

Electoral Division Identification

Cllr J Airey Ulverston West ED Cllr J Willis Low Furness ED Cllr P Hornby Ulverston East ED Cllr G Cook South Lakeland Local Committee Chair

Page 129 ANNEX A – CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY RESPONSE

1.0 RECOMMENDATION

1.1 No highway objection to the proposal subject to:

(a) Details of the site access junction design and associated highway improvements being agreed with the Highways Agency as the highway authority for the A590 trunk road; and

(b) The County Council’s Travel Plan and Public Transport requirements set out in sections 3 and 4 below secured by a Section 106 Agreement.

2.0 TRANSPORT & HIGHWAY ISSUES

2.1 It is considered that the main Transport and Highway policy aspects raised by the application are:

i. to determine whether or not the proposal is sustainable in terms of transport and accessibility;

2.2 The following policies are considered relevant to this proposal:

JSP Policy T30 Transport Assessments JSP Policy T31 Travel Plans SRSpS Development Principles SRSpS Areas within Cumbria LTP Policy LD4 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans LTP Policy LD5 Access to new developments LTP Policy LD6 Developer contributions LTP Policy LD7 Design standards LTP Policy LD8 Safety and security LTP Policy WS3 Travel plan monitoring

3.0 TRANSPORT/ACCESSIBILITY & HIGHWAYS ASSESSMENT

Travel Plan:

3.1 The Interim Travel Plan submitted with the planning application is on the whole acceptable, with satisfactory aims and objectives. The proposed measures are reasonable, however the number of cycle parking spaces provided should be 5% of the overall car parking, which is 14 spaces rather than the 8 proposed. Also, it is suggested that the proposed staff welcome packs would be more effective if they included discounted bus tickets.

3.2 The Interim Travel Plan does not set out specific targets, although it does set out the indicators for which targets will be set, which are aimed at reducing the number of staff car trips and increasing the number of staff trips by sustainable modes. These are reasonable and it is accepted that specific targets will be agreed in the full Travel Plan once staff travel surveys have been undertaken. The Page 130 full Travel Plan should be secured by Section 106 Agreement, and should be produced no later than 6 months after the store opening date.

3.3 The Interim TP does not cover the outline application for the proposed business units. A Travel Plan covering these units should be provided as part of any Reserved Matters Application for the units, and should take in to account any measures included in the foodstore Travel Plan.

3.4 The Interim Travel Plan states the intention to upgrade the document to a full travel plan within 6 months of the store opening. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed in the full Travel Plan for that to be acceptable:

- The full Travel Plan should identify the site Travel Plan Co-ordinator, and include sufficient budget provision to enable the delivery of all identified measures.

- No targets have been included in the Interim Travel Plan. The full Travel Plan should set out targets which will indicate the success or otherwise of the Travel Plan. It is suggested that a reasonable headline target would be a 10% reduction in single occupancy staff car trips generated by the development (in line with CCC's 'Travel Plans and the Planning Process in Cumbria: Guidance for Developers' ).

3.5 The planning application includes an S106 Proforma which sets out the applicant's proposed contributions. This includes a mechanism for providing a Travel Plan Contribution at the end of the monitoring period in the event that the Travel Plan has not met its intended targets. Although this approach was used at the recent Sainsbury's store in Penrith, it is considered that this was a one-off case outside the Highway Authority's normal preferred approach of securing a specific contribution amount in the s106.

3.6 Therefore it is recommended that the s106 secures a Travel Plan Contribution of £145,510 (based on the cost of an annual Barrow Megarider Plus bus ticket multiplied by a suggested minimum 10% reduction in the number staff single occupancy car trips, assuming 338 FTE staff as set out in the Application Form, multiplied by 5 years) in favour of the County Council to be used in the event that the actual targets set out in the Travel Plan have not been achieved.

3.7 However, if the Planning Authority is minded to accept the suggested Proforma set out by the Applicant, the mechanism for calculating the required Travel Plan Contribution should take the following suggested form:

- ((A x B x C) x 1.05) x D

- Where:

A = the cost of an annual Barrow Megarider Plus bus ticket (or equivalent as appropriate) at the end of the Travel Plan monitoring period

B = the target reduction in staff single occupancy car trips

Page 131 C = The Travel Plan monitoring period

1.05 = A 5% fee intended to cover the County Council's costs incurred in identifying, developing and implementing any measures to be paid for by the Travel Plan Contribution.

D = The percentage by which the reduction in staff single occupancy car trips at the end of the monitoring period falls short of the target set out in B (e.g. if B = 34 trips, and the Travel Plan actually achieves a reduction of 30 trips, D would be (34-30)/34 = 11%)

3.8 The suggested s106 Proforma includes a contribution of £6,600 in respect of County Council staff time relating to the ongoing monitoring and review of the development's travel plan through liaison with the site's Travel Plan Co-ordinator. This is acceptable. The s106 should also secure annual Travel Plan Reviews to be undertaken by the store Travel Plan Co-ordinator, with copies of the review to be provided to the County Council.

4.0 Public Transport Comments

4.1 The development is located on the western fringe of Ulverston, with Ulverston railway station located approximately 800 metres east of the development site. Due to the close proximity of the development site to the railway station, there exists the opportunity to improve pedestrian linkages between the two and enhance facilities at the railway station, hence promoting the use of the railway as a sustainable travel option. These improved linkages could be made through the provision of clear and effective signage as part of a designated walking/cycling route between the station and the development. Additional 'soft' measures to encourage rail use could include the sponsoring of artwork and planters for the station, to enhance the appearance of the railway station.

4.2 The Applicant has been involved in pre-application discussions with the County Council's Scheduled Bus Services team with the aim of providing an improved town bus service for Ulverston, to improve accessibility between the store and the town centre. These improvements essentially take the form of combining and enhancing the existing 60 and 70 services. The details of the improved service as set out in section 4.3 and Appendix C of the Transport Assessment have been drawn up in consultation with the County Council and are acceptable.

4.3 However, it should be noted that in the s106 Proforma it is suggested that a contribution to cover the operation of the improved service for a period of 3 years will be provided. This is not acceptable, and in order to reduce uncertainty regarding the service and provide a longer period in which to give the service time to build up a commercially viable patronage, it is recommended that a contribution is secured to cover the provision of the improved service for a period of 5 year, a sum of £167,010 ."

5.0 Transport Assessment

5.1 The access to this development will form a signalised junction with the A590 Trunk Road and the County road known as Daltongate. The Highways Agency (as Trunk Page 132 Road Authority) is in the process of approving the junction design and assessing the impact of development related traffic on the A590. In liaison with the Highways Agency, the design will be assessed to ensure no adverse effects on Daltongate.

5.2 As part of the County Councils highway assessment of the development, the following issues were considered:

(a) The A590 between the junction with Lightburn Road (County road) and the site entrance is the responsibility of the Highways Agency who, together with the developers, have been asked to consider improvements to the route to better assist cyclists. These improvements, if practical, will form part of the assessment of the detailed junction design.

(b) The Highways Agency has assessed the road traffic collision records at the Queen Street and Victoria Road junctions with the A590 and has raised no concerns. There is considered to be no requirement for mitigation measures at these junctions.

(c) The physical constraints at the Soutergate mini-roundabout junction limit the possibilities for improvement. Also, the constraints make a detailed assessment of this junction difficult. The traffic impact assessment predicts an increase of 1 vehicle every 4 minutes in the weekday am peak, an increase of 1 vehicle every 3 minutes in the weekday pm peak and an increase of 1 vehicle every 2 minutes in the Saturday peak and it is considered these traffic changes will not have a significant impact on the operational effectiveness of the junction.

(d) The proposed entrance to the petrol filling station is close to the signalised junction and the Highways Agency will assess the operation of the filling station access as part of the detailed design of the signalised junction.

(e) The appropriateness of the stated potential reduction in trips and its effect on changes to emissions was reviewed, and it is concluded that in overall terms there would be a negligible impact in emission changes in Ulverston.

6.0 Rights of Way

6.1 There are no Public Rights of Way within the development site, and it is unlikely that any which exist outside of it would be affected by the proposed development.

7.0 Conclusions

7.1 The Highways Agency, as Trunk Road Authority, is in the process of approving the access junction design. When the design is approved and if there are no adverse issues with Daltongate, then it is recommended that there should be no highways objection from the County Council.

7.2 The developers and the Highways Agency have been asked to consider improvements to the route between the Lightburn Road junction (with the A590T) and the site access to better assist cyclists.

Page 133 B – Conditions

1 Prior to the occupation of the foodstore, the developer shall prepare and submit to the Local Planning Authority for approval (on behalf of the County Council) a Travel Plan which shall identify the measures that will be undertaken by the developer to encourage the achievement of a modal shift away from the use of private cars to visit the development to sustainable transport modes including targets and the appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator. The Travel Plan shall be subject of Annual review for a period of five years following the occupation of the foodstore.

Reason: To aid in the delivery of sustainable transport directives. To support Local Transport Plan Policies WS1, LD4 and Structure Plan Policy T31

Notes –

1 The access is directly onto the A590 Trunk Road and will form a signalised crossroad with Daltongate. The Highways Agency, as Trunk Road Authority, is in the process of approving the design. When the design is approved and if there are no adverse issues with Daltongate, then it is recommended that there should be no highways objection from the County Council.

2 The Travel Plan and Public Transport requirements should be subject to a s106 Agreement.

Development Management Officer – South Lakeland and Barrow

Page 134 Agenda Item 9

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL & REGULATION COMMITTEE

Meeting Date: 03 January 2013 From: Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability

REPORTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION NOTE: These are applications which are determined by the County Council after taking into account the views of consultees and relevant representations. Applications in this category are prescribed by legislation. Private applications principally relate to minerals and waste management activities and associated development. County applications are developments which are to be carried out by the County Council itself or jointly with any other person.

Case Officer Contact Details are provided in the Footnote at the end/rear of the Agenda Authority Area/ Proposal Description / Date Ref. No. / Site Location / Received / Applicant (Case Officer) - Registered Page

Carlisle Nil

Allerdale Nil

Eden 3/11/9009 Variation of Planning Permission 3/91/0571 to extend the period of 28.07.11 Tarmac Ltd operation at Low Plains Quarry for 22 years, Low Plains Quarry, Armathwaite, Penrith, CA4 9TR (MM)

3/11/9010 Variation of Planning Permission 3/04/9015 to extend the period of 28.07.11 Tarmac Ltd time for the soil storage bund for 22 years, Low Plains Quarry, Armathwaite, Penrith, CA4 9TR (MM)

Copeland 4/12/9005 Retention of temporary aggregate loading facility and access track 04.10.12 Aggregate Land at Castle Farm, Off A5093, Millom, LA18 5EY Industries (JP)

South Lakeland 5/12/9009 Erection and operation of wash plant and associated infrastructure 30.07.12 L & W Wilson and increased height of screening mound. Roan Edge Landfill and (Endmoor) Ltd Recycling Facility Site, New Hutton, Killington, Kendal, LA8 0AP (RB)

Barrow 6/12/9014 Proposed Conservatory, Newbarns Primary School, Rising Side, 29.10.12 Cumbria Barrow-in-Furness, LA13 9ET County Council (EP)

Page 135 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 136 Agenda Item 9a DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 3 January 2013 A Report by the Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability ______

Application Nos: 3/11/9009 & 3/11/9010 District: Eden

Applicant: Tarmac Ltd Parish: Lazonby

Received: 28 July 2011

PROPOSAL Variation of Planning Permissions 3/91/0571 and 3/04/9015 to extend the period of operation and the soil storage bund, at Low Plains Quarry for 22 years

Low Plains Quarry, Armathwaite, Penrith, CA4 9TR ______

Page 137

1. RECOMMENDATION

1.1 That planning permission for both applications is refused for the reasons stated in Appendix 1.

2. THE PROPOSAL

2.1. Planning application (3/11/9009) seeks to amend the planning consent extant at the time of the application (3/91/0571 as amended by 3/95/9013 and 3/96/9015) to extend the period of operation of the development for a maximum period of 22 years. The project description also requests some modifications to the working scheme and final restoration which are defined in new plans to replace the previously approved drawings. The planning application is a request for a change of condition under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, specifically for a change to condition 2 of the consent that requires the operations to have ceased and restoration to be completed by 30 September 2011, and also by implication a request to change condition 54 which defines the drawings and documents within the approved scheme.

2.2. Planning application (3/11/9010) seeks to amend planning consent 3/04/9015 to extend the period of time for a soil storage bund for 22 years, and thus a request for a change of condition 2 of the previous consent under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which requires the bund to be removed and restoration to be completed by 30 September 2011.

Amended Proposals

2.3. The proposal submitted for the quarry operation (3/11/9009) is not the same as the one presented for EIA scoping in November 2010, which requested a 30 year time extension and recovery of all 2.2 million tonnes of reserves. The key elements of the submitted working scheme and restoration plan, and the differences from the scheme that was considered at EIA scoping (and therefore also the approved and currently operational scheme), are highlighted in the following paragraphs, and the details of the time extension and phasing in paragraphs 2.9 and following.

2.4. The previously consented (1991) application site covers 86.5 hectares with 25 ha currently in use for quarrying. The site consists of three distinct areas: a western operational area currently in Phase 1 and 2, an eastern operational area currently containing silt settlement ponds, and a processing area which lies between the two extraction areas immediately adjacent to the entrance, site office and weighbridge area. The application states that there were 2.2 million tonnes of reserves remaining in the consented area, but that it is now proposed to extract only 1.7 million tonnes of mineral.

2.5. The previously approved scheme would have remained essentially unchanged under the 2010 (scoped) proposals but the submitted scheme would leave 2 phases consisting of 49 ha of agricultural land within the eastern area undisturbed. It also proposes that only two phases in the western area would be worked below the water table and these would be used as silt settlement ponds following extraction. As a result of the change there would be no water body in the western valley and phases 3A and 4A would be restored to agriculture once the silt ponds had dried and been capped.

Page 138

2.6. The revised plan also means that Blackrack Beck which runs through the site would not be diverted, but left in place with suitable offset between the beck and the extraction areas, and a new bridge over the beck to enable plant and machinery to cross. The revised plan would also enable the retention of existing trees associated with Blackrack Beck.

2.7. There would be no changes to the basic method of working and processing mineral, in which sand and gravel is extracted by front end loader which feeds the material into a hopper and then conveyed to the mobile washing and processing plant in the southern processing area via a conveyor. This runs under bridges over a lane and public footpath that is the sole access to a number of residential properties including Low Plains Farm and Low Plains Court. Mineral extraction below the water table in the western area would be worked wet using a back-actor machine as already approved, without active dewatering of the lagoon. The field conveyor, currently 500m long, would be extended further into the site as extraction progressed along the valley.

2.8. No changes are proposed to the processing plant, which consists of the generator, two screens, a screen conveyor, and a washer which washes the sand and gravel to remove any finer particles including clay. A crusher was included in the original plant but is listed in the ES as used occasionally. The washed material is separated into sand and gravel and material is passed through a dewatering wheel to remove wash water. The dirty water from the washing plant containing silt is piped to silt settlement ponds, currently in the eastern area. Water is recovered from the ponds to use in the washing process following settlement of the fine silt, and the quarries own borehole used to supplement this when required.

Time Extension and Phasing of Extraction

2.9. The time extension requested is based on the following table in the application submissions which gives the tonnages in each phase, the duration of that phase, and the year in which the phase would end.

TOTAL Phase life (years) cumulative Completion Phase 1 60,800 0.8 0.8 2012 Phase 2 228,000 3.1 3.9 2015 Phase 3 A 190,400 2.5 6.4 2017 Phase 3 B 43,200 0.6 7.0 2018 Phase 4 A 352,000 4.7 11.7 2022 Phase 4 B 102,400 1.4 13.1 2024 Phase 5 363,200 4.8 17.9 2028 Phase 6 352,000 4.7 22.6 2033 1,692,000 22.6

2.10. The previously consented proposal allowed for an annual production rate of 275,000 tonnes and the application states that production levels have reduced for various commercial and economic reasons to 50,000 to 100,000 tonnes per year (tpa). The time extension requested is on the basis that production will continue within this range in the future, and in fact the table above, and the 22 year time extension requested, is based on an average annual extraction of just under 75,000 tpa. Actual sales figures have not been presented in the submission but further information offered by the applicant is considered in the planning assessment sections below.

Page 139

2.11. A Major Hazard Pipeline (as defined by the National Grid) high pressure gas pipeline and the Shell Ethylene Pipeline run through the western operational area, whilst a High Voltage Overhead line (as defined by the National Grid) runs along the boundary of the eastern operational area and bisects the plant processing area. The previously consented approval included the land below the pipelines and the reserves included the mineral to be extracted from underneath. This implied the diversion of the pipelines and the application to extend the life of the site for 22 years maintains that position. Tarmac however includes a phasing plan that would work around the infrastructure if it were to be left in place. They estimate that operations could then finish within 19 years.

Restoration Phasing

2.12. The submitted proposals are contained in Figures 2.3 -2.9, and consist of plans for Phase 2, Phase 4 and Phase 6, for the end of Phase 6, and final restoration. The drawings are annotated with descriptions of actions within, and by the end of the phases. Alternative plans and site sections have been submitted for the phases and final restoration dependent on whether the pipelines and other infrastructure were to be retained or removed. The plans include positions of soil storage bunds in the period represented. The submitted scheme incorporates previously approved tree and hedgerow planting, including the advance planting that has already been implemented, and some hedge planting to the north of the access lane to Low Plains Court mentioned above. This was planted, but not as part of any condition or previously approved scheme. Additional mitigation planting is also proposed at this point.

2.13. These documents would supercede the detailed restoration plans and “Method of Working ” chapters in the Written Statement for 3/91/0571 previously approved, and as referred to above, the most significant changes are: the reduced area worked in the eastern area; the reduced area worked (Phases 3A and 4A only) under the water table in the western area; the use of these as silt settlement ponds following extraction below the water table; and their subsequent restoration to agriculture in the final restoration scheme.

2.14. The site access would remain the same. It is proposed to retain the current operating hours which are limited to 0700 to 1900 hours on Monday to Fridays (excluding Bank Holidays) and 0700 to 1300 hours on Saturdays.

2.15. The applicant states that the operation of Low Plains Quarry over the extended period would allow continued supply of sand and gravel to local markets in East and South Cumbria for concrete production and other construction uses, which cannot be supplied easily by other suppliers. In their view continuation is more sustainable than proposing to open a new quarry.

2.16. Several residential properties are located in the immediate vicinity of the site including Castlerigg View (6 dwellings), Low Plains Court (10 dwellings), Thiefside Cottages, Lodge Cottages, the Milk Marketing Board Cottages, Tarnflat Plantation, Castlerigg Farm, Low Plains Farm, Riverside Cottage and Westington Lodge. The Eden Valley Mineral Water Company bottling plant is located to the immediate east of the site on the C3016 minor road.

Page 140

3. CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

3.1. Eden District Council has been consulted and they state that they believe CCC is the most appropriate authority to take a view on this long standing matter.

3.2. Eden District Council Environmental Health consider that there will be no significant deterioration in air quality providing that a Dust Management Plan is submitted and reviewed every three years or more frequently if complaints are received. The initial response recommended a number of noise conditions, with specific noise levels set at identified receptors related to the background noise. These levels were amended in the light of the NPPF to include a 5dB penalty to account of the potential for tonal noise. Noise levels during soil stripping could be at a higher level but the period of time for these operations should be restricted to up to 8 weeks per year. A Noise Management Plan Monitoring should be submitted to include noise monitoring and suitable mitigation measures. A further response was received on 9 November 2012 and referred to the Low Plains Court private borehole, and requested further information from the Environment Agency on this issue.

3.3. Lazonby Parish Council submitted responses to the original application, a paper at the Members site visit, and a further response to a consultation on subsequent submissions with respect to hydrogeology and groundwater management. The first response expressed concerns about water runoff, contamination of the local water supply, excessive noise and dust nuisance to local residents, problems with the settlement tanks, failure to control noise pollution and visual intrusion, extensions of time will continue damage ecology and cultural setting, impact on productive agricultural land, minimal economic benefits, unnecessary road mileage and carbon emissions. They also wrote to complain about the quarry not stopping when requested by the County Council. A second response was received from the Parish Council on the 9 October 2012 related to potential risks to the water supply of Low Plains Court which is provided by a private borehole.

3.4. Hesket Parish Council do not wish to make any comments on this application.

3.5. The Highway Authority have no objection as the proposal will not lead to an increase in traffic providing that current conditions continue to apply.

3.6. The Highways Agency have no objection as it does not affect the strategic highway network.

3.7. The Environment Agency has made a number of responses to the proposals but has no objection subject to conditions and detailed comments on groundwater protection. They state that the majority of the site is in Flood Zone 1 (low risk) and parts are in Flood Zone 2/3 (medium/high risk) and flood risk has been assessed in Chapter 11 of the ES. Consent is required for the works within 8m of Blackrack Beck and a Flood Defence Consent is also required. The EA recommends that conditions be applied to monitor flows in the Beck, prevent dewatering of the quarry void and pollution of water courses and ensure implementation of mitigation proposals submitted by the applicant. These are covered in more detail in the separate Part 2 report.

Page 141

3.8. Natural England has no objections to the development. They agree that the development would not be likely to have a significant affect on the River Eden SAC and should not affect the Eden Gorge, Lazonby Fells and River Eden SSSI’s subject to implementing the mitigation proposals as set out in the Ecology and Hydrology sections of the ES. They broadly agree that their recommendations for the Scoping report under the topics of Soils and Land Use have been addressed in sufficient detail by the ES. However, while the application is for an extension of time till 2033 Natural England would recommend that the conditioned deadline for completion of restoration, should be no later than 30th September of the year in question in order to ensure that all works were carried out under favourable conditions (including the establishment of vegetation cover prior to the onset of winter).

3.9. Electricity NW states that the proposal could affect their infrastructure and advise that the applicant would need to take great care to protect electrical apparatus in line with their guidance. These ENW assets comprise of 11kV overhead circuits shown as Orange lines, and 11kV cable circuits shown as red lines on a map accompanying their submission of 3/12/2012.

3.10. National Grid has issued a holding objection on the basis that the proposal would affect the High Pressure Gas Pipeline Feeder 15 Longtown to Plumpton Head and the High Voltage Transmission overhead lines ZX Route (Harker to Hutton). National Grid has an easement across the site for each pipeline which prevents changes to existing ground levels and storage of materials.

3.11. Essar Oil (UK) Ltd has explained their position that if planning permission were granted for the 22 year time extension Shell UK would have to consider a diversion of their Major Hazard Pipeline. A new route through Cumbria would require planning consent, would be considered to be significant, would have an environmental impact and involve significant safety considerations. Essar Oil therefore considers that the preferred development option should avoid the need to divert or re-route the pipelines.

3.12. Cumbria Wildlife Trust consider that there should be no adverse impact on badgers should the mitigation be implemented as proposed on p 3 of the Marshall Ecology Report (Confidential Document status).

3.13. The local Member Ms HF Carrick has been notified.

3.14. Representations: Thirteen objections have been received to the proposal, and a number of follow up representations from the same sources..

3.15. One objection was received from the owners of Low Plains Farm Armathwaite in the eastern area) on grounds that extending the period of operation by a further 22 years would delay their plans for farm development and to continue the use of very valuable agricultural land. They say that when the County Council granted consent for the original proposal a spokesman said that the sand under Armathwaite Farm was different from that under the Calthwaite Farm and thus both farms were needed so that the mineral could be mixed, and this was not the case as only the latter was used.

Page 142

3.16. Eleven of the objections are from the residents of Low Plains Court, with one group submission dated August 2011, and additional individual representations. A further submission was made listing the elements within the current conditions which the residents consider have not been adhered to.

3.17. The residents of Low Plains in their joint objection and in their individual and follow up responses make the following points:

Their key point is that there is no need for the quarry as shown by the MWDF landbank; the office of National Statistics shows a decline in the need for sand and gravel; and there is not a local need. They dispute Tarmac’s claim to serve the south and east of Cumbria and to be distinct from other supply areas in the north of the county, and say that it is not sustainable to take a further 22 years of protracted working of a quarry that is not needed. The presence of Tarmac’s quarry at Cardewmires, which has consent until 2026 is more than adequate for their needs. The proposed scheme was originally proposed at the Scoping Stage to be extended for a further 30 years and as a consequence of discussion this was reduced to the current proposal of 22 years. This raises the question what does Tarmac consider to be a reasonable and realistic amount of time for the life of the quarry and is there a genuine need. Tarmac had 20 years to excavate the sand and has not completed, is it really necessary to have a further 22 years. The length of time taken to excavate shows lack of consideration of local residents and disrespect for planning process.

They further question information concerning employee numbers, saying 40 people may be employed at Tarmac sites in Cumbria but only 2 full time employees work at Low Plains and therefore economic benefits are low due to low demand and low numbers of employees. It should not be considered a major local employer, whereas the extension at the adjoining Prince’s water bottling plant will create 18-21 additional full time jobs.

Residents say that the quarrying operations have causes a significant noise nuisance sinc e initial works began, and that noise from the “large unscreened” plant machinery, during operating hours, varied from annoying to extreme. The record of complaints and discussions about noise is not complete as not all the 15 annual Liaison Committee Meetings have been minuted. Although 36 complaints have been lodged with Tarmac about non compliance with conditions prior to the application residents did not realise that they could go to the Enforcement Officer for the County or the Environmental Health Officer for Eden District Council. Also the complaints would have been greater if the residents had thought the quarry would go on beyond 2011.

Residents say that noise is clearly audible in the bedrooms of the most affected residents, and because operating hours start at 07.00, often wakes them. The objection confirms issues with frequency and duration of noise, referring both to a low frequency rumbling noises which travels long distances and is very intrusive, intermittent squeaking from the conveyor belt system and that stones dropping onto piles from screening conveyor belts is very noisy. Most of the complaints have been about noise coming from the screening and washing equipment in the processing area and the use of

Page 143

loading vehicles, some with beeping reverse signals. Some of the individual representations from Low Plains residents refer to a low frequency rumbling subterranean noise/vibration in their lower rooms and believe this is related to the crusher. The Low Plains residents agree with Tarmac that the noise levels from the machinery have increased dramatically over the last 2 years, and consider that Tarmacs claim ”to be doing nothing different” is not supported by the evident change in noise levels. They also say that the modifications made to the plant machinery have failed to make any noticeable improvement. The residents also say that Tarmac employees visiting the site have agreed how bad the noise levels can get. Residents state that the equipment is old and not as efficient as it should be in order to be sustainable, and that the processing area containing the washing and screening equipment is incorrectly positioned and the movable plant should be contained in a building, visually screened and should not generate noise.

Dust is also a concern of the residents, who say that as well as dust from the processing area they get considerable dust from the extraction on the western area. The say there is never a bowser there, contrary to existing conditions. They accept the ES findings that there do not appear to be health risks from dust, they do suffer dust nuisance both inside the homes and on the access road.

The residents disagree with Tarmac’s view that visual impacts are acceptable, pointing particularly to the views of the western area and conveyors from the access road/public footpath to their properties, saying that it has not been acknowledged that this is their sole access and therefore affects their enjoyment of their properties. Screen planting along the lane has failed and does not provide any screening.

The residents have grave concerns about the proximity of the two proposed silt lagoons to the public right of way, in addition to the existing conveyor belt, and say that gates onto the access lane are often left open. As this is the only route to the 11 homes at Low Plains Court and Low Plains House this has Health and Safety implications. They also are concerns about flooding of the road from the lagoons which would cut off road access for residents of Low Plains Court.

The objection also say that the ES does not refer to the borehole supplying Low Plains Court which is close to the current and projected quarrying operations, and they are concerned about the integrity of their water supply. A further representation on the 22 November 2012 re visits this issue in the light of ongoing work on the processing of the application, and comments received from the Eden District Council EHO. The residents confirm that the private borehole is their only water supply and they wish to be reassured that the Environment Agency is aware of this borehole and that the potential impacts of quarrying below the water table, and potential contamination of the borehole.

Residents also refer to adverse impacts on ecology, biodiversity and archaeology, loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, the operational threat to public health and cumulative environmental impact due to unnecessary road miles and carbon emissions. The large lagoon that was to be retained as part of the original restoration scheme has been replaced with land restored to agricultural use, only a few smaller ponds are now Page 144

retained. They object that the scheme results in less wetland habitat being created.

3.18. An objection has been received from Eden Valley Mineral Water Company which is located across the road from the main entrance to the quarry. This matter is dealt with in a Part 2 report.

4. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Planning History

4.1. Planning permission for the sand and gravel quarry at Low Plains was granted (3/91/0571) on 2 October 1991 with an expiry date of 30 September 2006; however, the site did not become operational until August 1998. During this time, planning consents under Section 73 were granted to extend the expiry date of the permission to 30 September 2011 (planning ref. 3/95/9013), and to defer the commencement of sand and gravel extraction by two years (planning ref. 3/96/9015). There was also a consent to amend the plant and processing area in September 1998 (a proposal to add a dry-screen process for the processing of the material from this area was withdrawn) and to work a section of the eastern area in a different order than proposed in June 1999. In January 2000 consent was given to use bulk haulage of material from the eastern area to the processing area in order to avoid the need for a conveyor.

4.2. In 2002 Tarmac asked to amend the working scheme to work the concreting sand separately, without the soft sand being worked concurrently, due to the reduced demand for asphalt. Monitoring in June 2003 confirmed that soft sand was not being worked. A separate planning application to create a new soil storage bund (3/04/9015) on land outside the application boundary for 3/91/0571 was approved on the.17 June 2005. At that time amendments to the approved scheme in eastern area to permit additional silt ponds (3, 4, 5 and 6) in the eastern area were proposed as a minor amendment to the scheme. This was an alternative to removing silt periodically from the four silt ponds included in the approved scheme. Three of the original silt ponds have since been completed and capped, one of the new silt ponds is currently drying, and the others were active at the time of this application.

4.3. A proposal to amend the phasing to progress to the western area, with a later return to the eastern area was requested in 2006. Tarmac’s letter of 25 September 2006 said this was required partly for tenure reasons; and partly because the quality and depth of material was known there to a greater extent. This was approved under condition on 31 January 2007.

4.4. A time extension application was discussed initially in 2006, with more detailed consideration in 2010, and a scoping report issued for a 30 year time extension in November 2010. Cumbria County Council’s response to that included a letter stating that it would be necessary to demonstrate the need for the extraction of the remaining reserves to be released, and that a 30 year time extension was excessive and a time of 15 years would be more appropriate.

Page 145

4.5. The County Council gave notice on the 11 February 2010 that the planning permissions on the site were subject to periodic review in accordance with the Environment Act (1995) and that an application for the determination of new planning conditions must be submitted by 7 March 2011. On the 15 December 2010 Tarmac requested an extension of time for the submission of new conditions to 30 September 201l, and this was agreed in writing by the County Council on the 14 January 2011.

4.6. The current planning permission expired on 30 September 2011 but work has continued pending the determination of this application. Whilst the operator has been asked to cease working no formal stop or enforcement notices have been issued by the County Council.

The submitted proposals

4.7. The original consent was for 15 years, expiring in 2006 and sales were predicted at 275,000 tpa. The current proposal would expire 27 years later than that, and, taking into account the later commencement date, result in a 37 year, and potentially significantly longer, operation (see the section dealing with need below). The changes to the scheme described in paragraph 2.12 above also have implications for phasing, the restoration timetable and landscape impacts, and the relevant sections below consider whether the proposals can be considered substantially the same development, or whether the differences have significant additional adverse impacts which are either contrary to the development plan or material considerations for the determination of this application.

4.8. I also consider that a number of material considerations are not the same as those pertaining at the time of the original consent. Outline consent (89/0437) for the conversion of barns at Low Plains Farm to create 6 more residential properties was approved by Eden District Council (EDC) on 21 September 1989, and detailed consent (with increase to 11 dwellings) submitted to EDC on the 28 January 1992 and approved on 23 April 1992. Impacts on the residents were therefore not considered at the time of the original consent for the quarry. In addition the reduction in need for sand and gravel discussed below, changes to the development plan, the National Planning Policy Framework, and issues discussed in the Part 2 report are all capable of being new material considerations. As a result the County Council is required to consider all the adverse impacts of the proposal, even where these were considered to be acceptable at the time of the original consent.

Need for the development

4.9. The policy context for consideration of the need for this proposal is set out in the Development Plan as enshrined in the NW Regional Spatial Strategy (NWRSS), and the Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework (CMWDF). The National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 (NPPF) and its Technical Guidance are material considerations, both in the specific policy guidance on minerals and the guidance on how to assess the weight of development plan policies.

Page 146

4.10. The revocation of Regional Strategies has come a step closer following the enactment of the Localism Act on 15 November 2011. However, until such time as the NW RSS is formally revoked by Order, limited weight can be attributed to the proposed revocation. Full weight should be given to relevant policies within the CMWDF for 12 months even where there is a limited degree of conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) and each policy considered in the sections below will be examined in the light of the NPPF.

4.11. On the issue of need there is a degree of conflict with the NPPF, as CMWDF Core Strategy Policy CS13, which relates to the maintenance of landbanks for mineral and thus to the assessment of need for the mineral extraction to take place, refers back to the NWRSS and the sub-regional apportionment rather than to the process outlined in the NPPF and in the Guidance on the Managed Aggregate Supply System (October 2012).

4.12. NPPF paragraphs 142 and 144 highlight the economic benefit of minerals extraction to the economy, and NPPF paragraph 145 requires that Local Planning Authorities plan for a steady and adequate supply of minerals. However the NPPF has replaced the top-down approach of regional and sub- regional apportionments with a bottom-up one based on Local Aggregate Assessments. These are required to be based on 10 year annual average sales, but the NPPF also requires that relevant local information be taken into account. The information that the major aggregate companies, including Tarmac, have provided to the Competition Commission's 2012 investigation of the aggregates, cement and ready mix concrete market is also relevant to the Local Aggregate Assessment and will be referred to below.

4.13. The landbank for sand and gravel in Cumbria at the end of 2010 was 11.48 million tonnes. At 760,000 tpa, which is the 10 year rolling annual sales to 2010, 11.48 million tonnes would give a land bank of 15.1 years. These landbank figures will include Low Plains but, because of the confidentiality required by the industry for the annual mineral survey returns, we do not know what figure was used. If it was assumed that the remaining reserves quoted at this quarry, of 2.2 million tonnes, was accurately reflected in the 11.48 million tonne figure can be assumed to reduce the permitted reserves to 9.28 million tonnes, and the landbank to 12.1 years.

4.14. Part of the relevant local information, for the Local Aggregates Assessment, is that at 2010 sales figures, and current ones are likely to be similar, the Cumbria sand and gravel landbank would last about 22 years. This is because sand and gravel sales from Cumbrian quarries for 2010 itself were only 530,000 tonnes, and sales of aggregates nationally have fallen again in 2012.

4.15. I consider that the landbank derived from the most recent information conforms better to national guidance than the landbank referred to in the CMWDF, and therefore at the 2010 Cumbria sales total the landbank without Low Plains would be approximately 17.5 years. This is far in excess of the 7 year landbank required by the NPPF.

4.16. However, as stated in paragraph 26 of the Guidance on the Managed Aggregate Supply System (October 2012), an adequate or excess landbank is not a reason for withholding planning permission unless there are other planning objections which are not outweighed by planning benefits. Such objections are addressed

Page 147

elsewhere in this report. The Guidance goes on to list valid reasons why an application for minerals development may be brought forward in an area where there exists an adequate landbank, as listed in Appendix 2 , and these are considered in turn below.

1. No future increases in demand have been identified. Paragraphs 4.19 following consider the likelihood of even the predicted rate of sales being achieved, and conclude that this is not supported by the available evidence; 2. The ES does present an argument that the location of other consented reserve is inappropriately located relative to the main market areas, and this is considered in paragraph 4.24 and following; 3. The ES also argues that the nature of the mineral extracted at Low Plains, 0-4mm washed concrete sand and 10 -20 mm concrete gravel, are not currently produced in sufficient quantities in other quarries in the south and east of the county to meet established demand. Paragraph 4.27 below considers whether the nature, type and qualities of the aggregate are such as its suitability for a particular use within a distinct and separate market ; 4. The ES does not present any argument with respect to the fourth bullet point to paragraph 26, i.e. known constraints on the availability of consented reserves that might limit output over the plan period.

4.17. Sales figures for the Low Plains operation were not submitted with the application, but have been provided by the applicant on request. These show that in the 10 years to the end of 2010 a total of 657,000 tonnes of mineral has been produced.

10 year Annual 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL Average 102,000 79,000 65,000 49,000 46,000 69,000 71,000 62,000 65,000 49,000 657,000 65,700

4.18. This represents an average of 65,700 tpa, whereas the 22 year time extension is based on an extraction rate of 75,000 tonnes/annum.

4.19. If the 2011 sales figures (not submitted) were in line with the trends both for this quarry and national and sub-regional sales, the 10 year rolling average at end 2011 is likely to be closer to 60,000 tpa.

Annual Duration of extraction Duration of extraction – extraction rate – entire scheme pipelines remaining (tonnes) : (years) (years) 75,000 Predicted by applicant 22.6 19.1 10 year rolling average 65,700 26 22.1 to end 2010 Probable 10 year rolling 60,000 28 24 average to end 2011 Sales continuing just 50,000 33.8 28.9 above 2010 level

4.20. The above table demonstrates the potential impact if the actual need and sales of material are lower than the 75,000 tpa predicted for the development. This would significantly affect the operational timetable, and as a result affect the duration of adverse impacts on amenity discussed in the sections below.

Page 148

4.21. The submitted proposals are also based on extraction ceasing after 22 years, and yet a 22 year time extension for the operations including restoration has been requested. No timescale has been proposed for the completion of restoration and the unknown delay involved adds to the probability of the mineral extraction and restoration taking considerably more than the 22 year time period applied for.

 CMWDF Generic Development Control Policy DC6 states that development inside identified Preferred Areas will be permitted if they do not conflict with other policies in this plan. Low Plains is not a Preferred Area because the CMWDF only included proposed lateral extensions to quarries, not time extensions. Strictly speaking therefore the second statement in DC6 applies, where proposals outside of Preferred Areas might be permitted if there is a need for the proposal to meet the levels of supply, and the proposal does not conflict with other policies in the plan. The fact that the landbank is adequate means that the proposal is not supported by CMWDF Policy DC 6. 

 However applications outside Preferred Areas might be permitted under CMWDF DC6 in spite of the landbank of reserves being below the required level under the last exception listed which would enable planning consents to be granted even where not required under the landbank in “Areas already subject to mineral exploitation where additional working will enable comprehensive exploitation of the reserves, or where the proposal achieves a more sustainable afteruse or a better restoration of the area”. In this case permitting the application would enable most of the reserves to be exploited, but refusing the application would not sterilise the reserves, as no evidence has been offered that the western area could not be exploited at some time in the future should a need for the mineral develop. If the need did increase in the future such that working the remaining reserves became viable, it is feasible that access could be taken directly from the A6. Although this would be more costly to the applicant than accessing from the existing vehicular access, it would address a number of the adverse impacts highlighted at this time. 

4.24. The ES argues that the location of other consented reserve elsewhere in Cumbria is inappropriately located relative to the main market areas; and that Low Plains Quarry is the sole remaining sand and gravel site in Eden District providing markets in south and east Cumbria and also in north Lancashire. The argument goes on to define market areas for west Cumbria and to the west of Carlisle; the far north east of the county east of Carlisle; Cardewmires, south west of Carlisle; and south Cumbria and north Lancashire, with issues of uncertain deliverability in the Barrow area. However defining Low Plains as serving a south and east area is a reference back to the supply areas used in the 1996 Cumbria Minerals and Waste Local Plan which no longer has any weight.

4.25. The direct distance from Low Plains to Low Gelt quarry defined as in the “far north east” is 9.8 miles (as crow fli es), and to Kirkhouse quarry is 12.4 miles. Cardewmires is 10.9 miles away. The Faugh quarries are approximately 8 miles away, and Faugh no 1 is currently mothballed due to lack of demand. The distance to Kendal in the south of the county is 31 miles, which is approximately the distance usually taken as a supply area for a local market. However I do not consider that the additional mileage from the quarries further to the north

Page 149

constitutes a separate supply area. On the basis of evidence given to the Competition Commission 2012, including that in Europe 50 miles has been shown to be an appropriate catchment; I consider that other quarries in addition to Bonnie Mount and Low Plains should be taken into account for Penrith and the nearby area.

4.26. The part of the county south of Penrith, including Kendal, has always been regarded as a problem in terms of sand and gravel supplies because there is only Roosecote quarry, near Barrow, plus marine dredged sand landed at Barrow. However, further information that the major aggregate companies have provided to the Competition Commission about substitutability of different types of aggregates is relevant both to the supply in south Cumbria, but also to the argument with respect to the nature of the material available at Low Plains Quarry.

4.27. The largest use of aggregates (50%) is in general construction (this includes fill, capping layers and sub-base) for which alternative aggregates can be substituted for primary aggregates. For ready mix concrete and the manufacture of concrete products, including blocks (30% of total aggregate use), there is very limited potential to use alternative aggregates but crushed rock and sand and gravel are regarded as substitutable. This information means that there could be less concern about supplying sand and gravel in the south because of the crushed rock quarries. I therefore do not consider that it has been demonstrated that Low Plains serves a distinct and separate market for concreting sand and gravel in the south and east of the county; that there is any reason to consider that these markets are potentially growing; or that there are no alternatives to serve the needs of these markets.

4.28. In summary: I consider that there is no need for the output of this quarry as there is an adequate land bank for sand and gravel in Cumbria; and there are no special types of aggregate produced at the quarry or locational factors that would require the extraction to continue to meet local supply needs.

4.29. The applicant has at other times presented a case that finer concreting sands from Low Plains are used to supplement the output from Cardewmires Quarry, and asphalting sands are used in its own asphalt coating plants. Whilst it must be accepted that there are benefits to the applicant of continuing production at the quarry, the low output from the quarry over the last 9-10 years indicates that there is insufficient need to complete this proposal within the timescale proposed.

Other constraints

4.30. The areas where major infrastructure in the form of pipelines and cables cross the site were not excluded from the 1991 planning consent and neither were any conditions imposed limiting development in these areas. National Grid has now issued a holding objection. Essar UK Ltd consider that avoiding any need to divert or re-route pipelines would be preferable, and states that any work taking place in proximity to the pipeline would have to be carefully risk assessed and controlled. I consider it is unlikely that the pipelines would be re-routed, but Tarmac considers this a matter between themselves and the relevant operators/owners of the pipeline. I would recommend that this matter should be reassessed in the event of a planning consent being granted for this proposal.

Page 150

4.31. In considering the impacts of the proposals for a time extension and changes to the working method and restoration plan the options with pipelines retained and not retained must be considered. As details of the working methods, easements, and slopes have not been submitted as part of the application, the proposed extraction area boundaries might have to be revised, but restrictions and easements may also affect other issues. These and mitigation of any adverse landscape impacts from either options are considered in the relevant sections of the report.

4.32. There are also 11KV overhead lines and cables belonging to Electricity NW running across the site. These have not been shown in the application submissions but working methods to avoid harm are in place already where necessary and it is likely that mitigation can be provided to avoid harm to these features in future.

Land Use and Restoration

Land Use

4.33. The ES reports that approximately 80% of the land subject to extraction was originally classified as “best and most versatile” on the MAFF Agricultural Land Classification system, (grade 2 and sub-grade 3a) and minimising the loss of high value agricultural land has always been an objective for the development. The ES provides two figures (10.1 and 10.2) which show the likely quality of the restored land under each option of this proposal and estimates a loss of agricultural land following extraction of only 4ha and the loss of “best and most versatile” agricultural land from quarrying as less than 5ha. The latter is because the slopes in the current proposal would be steeper than those pre- development. The 4ha lost to agriculture would be restored to woodland or small ponds, and some of the steeper areas of land planted to woodland. The ES goes on to state that the 4ha loss of agricultural land is less than 2% of the agricultural land of Low Plains Farm Calthwaite and would only have a slight adverse impact on the viability of the farm, which would be partially offset by royalties from the mineral extraction.

4.34. I consider that the key issue with respect to land use is whether more “best and most versatile” agricultural land would be lost than in the 1991 scheme, and if so is this significant. This needs to be assessed for both the full scheme with pipelines removed, and also for the scheme with pipelines retained. The achievement of grade 2 and 3a agricultural land classification in the restoration also depends not only on the slopes but also on the availability of sufficient soils and sub soils to achieve the required restoration.

4.35. The Land Use section of the ES relies upon the 1991 land capability survey and the ADAS 1998 Aftercare scheme proposals, and appears to assess the proposed scheme as compared against the original landuse of the area pre- development. Although Natural England are broadly satisfied that their recommendations at scoping stage have been incorporated I do not consider that the assessment has provided an adequate update of the ADAS report to reflect any modifications to the soils handling, storage and replacement proposals.

Page 151

4.36. I consider that the modifications proposed are significant and have not been assessed. Drawing L39/7 in the approved scheme shows 10,200 cu m of soils from the current Phase 3A moved to a storage mound, and only 4,900 used (from 4A) to restore the edges of the water body created. No soil is transferred back into 4A after extraction. Soil from other phases in the western areas would also have been transferred to the storage stockpile would have eventually supplied 63,000 cu m to restore Phase 6 the end of extraction. There is clearly a significant difference in the requirements for the restoration of the below water table extraction to agriculture which has probably led to the steeper slopes in the revised restoration plan. However no reassessment of the volume of soils stored, available and required in the modified restoration proposals has been reported in the ES. The implications of this are discussed further in the sections below.

4.37. The ES reports that the conditions for soil handling and the aftercare scheme approved in 1999 are still appropriate however the site history indicates that some problems have arisen, for example in parts of the eastern area the necessary sub-soils were not available for restoration according to the approved conditions and a variation was agreed.

4.38. With the caveat above I consider that the loss of agricultural land and of the best and most versatile agricultural land as reported is not significantly adverse. The scheme retaining the pipelines results in approximately 2ha less land restored to grade 2 and 3a, and more restored to 3b because of the steep spur left to accommodate and disguise the course of the pipelines. It should also be noted that if further tree planting were required to reduce the additional adverse impact of such contouring (see below) the loss of the highest quality of agricultural land could be higher.

4.39. Although the tenant farmer of Low Plains Farm Armathwaite has objected to the current proposal, this was on grounds of the uncertainty caused by the time extension rather than the final land use and the amended scheme reduces the land take in that area.

4.40. If consent were to be granted I consider that detailed assessments of soil availability and movements, and revised, consolidated soil handling and aftercare should be required under condition. This should also review and replace the existing series of separate conditions in order to ensure that it was consistent with current practice and any detailed phasing and restoration plan that might be developed.

4.41. Natural England has also recommended that in order for final restoration to be carried out at the appropriate time of the year the date for the expiry of the consent and completion of restoration should be the 30 th September.

The Final Restoration Plan

4.42. Although the revised final restoration plan (and its variant with the pipelines retained) is significantly different from the scheme approved in 1991 I do not consider that the differences have significant adverse impacts. The ES has included a landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) as requested in the Scoping Opinion and required under CMWDF Policy DC12 which is the key development plan policy and I broadly support the conclusions of that assessment.

Page 152

4.43. The main physical differences between the proposed final restoration and that of the consented scheme have been described in paragraph 2.12. In addition to these the proposed scheme would create a wider flat area in the valley bottom, with a steeper slope at the northern end of the valley than in the original proposal. The previous scheme was more compatible with the original landform at the site boundary; however the advanced planting already established provides some screening of the area. The restoration water body would have added interest to the landscape but I do not consider that the final landscape form would be incompatible with the landscape character of the area. This consists mainly of relatively open and rolling landscape interspersed by low hills and ridges and both deeply incised and open river valleys.

4.44. The site lies almost 9km from the North Pennines AONB and within 1.4km of an area of Landscape of County Importance. There is no longer a County Council policy framework for this policy; however it is a saved policy of the Eden Local Development Framework and I consider that the final restoration plan broadly conforms to that policy.

4.45. One caveat is that if planning consent were to be granted it is highly likely that the pipelines in the western area would not be removed, and the final restoration plan for the 19 year extraction scheme is not specifically addressed in the ES. It is important that no linear features, incompatible with the local landscape, are created, and the proposed restoration scheme creates a spur of rising ground with a small valley to the west of the spur. The proposed contours on both sides of this spur are steeper than previously consented for this scenario, do not entirely disguise the linear feature, and are not as compatible with the landscape character as the original scheme.

4.46. However it is possible that this could be integrated into the landscape by amending the final slope profiles and including additional woodland planting in the north eastern section of phase 6. This planting would need to be far enough away from the infrastructure to meet the way-leave restrictions and ongoing access and safety requirements for the operation of the underground infrastructure. If consent were to be granted the revised restoration could be established under a condition, however the amendments might have consequences for the areas that could be restored to grade 2 agricultural land as discussed elsewhere in this report.

4.47. NW RSS Policy requires sensitive environmental restoration and aftercare of sites including improved public access where they are of amenity value; while CMWDF Core Strategy Policy CS5 requires that restoration and aftercare proposals should use best practicable measures to deliver sustainability objectives relating to the environment and economy of the county. CMWDF Policy DC 16 - Afteruse and Restoration contains a number of detailed requirements for restoration, with regard to landscape character, wildlife interest, protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity conservation features. I consider that the final restoration scheme proposed does conform to these policies.

Page 153

Restoration Phasing

4.48. CMWDF Policy DC 16 - Afteruse and Restoration also requires that restoration will be completed within a reasonable timescale and is progressive as far as practicable, and that provision for the likely financial and material budgets for the agreed restoration, aftercare and afteruse will be made during the operational life of the site. NPPF paragraph 144 requires local planning authorities to provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest possible opportunity, and paragraph 41 of the Technical Guidance on minerals highlights the need for progressive restoration and for conditions to limit the area taken for mineral working and relate it to restoration of earlier phases of the operation.

4.49. The applicant contends that the restoration scheme is progressive, and explains in 5.2.91 that progressive restoration means that soils will be placed directly to restoration. However closer examination of the modifications proposed (see paragraph 2.12) demonstrates that restoration will not be as progressive as the original 1991 restoration, and that there would be significant and prolonged temporary impacts on landscape and visual amenity due to the slower mineral extraction rate and the changes to the final restoration plan and the working scheme required to achieve it.

4.50. These changes and their adverse impacts are considered in the two sections below on the eastern and western area. Where a year is shown in brackets beside a specific restoration event that is derived from the extraction phasing table from the ES. If extraction were less than the 75,000 tpa predicated for the 22 year time extension these dates would be later.

Temporary effects in the Eastern Area

4.51. As a result of the working scheme amendment to use “abandonment” silt ponds in 2005 (see paragraph 4.2) a larger proportion of the eastern extraction area is currently under silt ponds than the original approved scheme had anticipated. Only one field in the south east corner of the eastern area is now in the aftercare period, with topsoils having been replaced in spring 2007 and the first aftercare meeting conducted on 29 October 2007. This does support the complaint from residents that the restoration has not proved to be progressive, as 14 years from the first mineral extraction very little has been restored. (The area previously known as 1a in the western area, closest to the current Low Plains Farm has also been restored to grassland).

4.52. It appears that silt ponds take a considerable length of time to dry, possibly affected by the level of rainfall, and if a 22 year time extension were to be permitted a larger area would remain as silt ponds in various stages of drying and restoration for much longer than was originally intended. The main settling ponds (5 and 6) in the eastern extraction area would still be required until the end of Phase 3A (2017) after which time silt would be pumped instead to the new silt ponds in the western area. Ponds 5 and 6 are programmed to be restored by the end of Phase 4 (2024). Silt pond 1, one of the original silt ponds, would remain as a source for washing water until the end of the operations, and would be restored to a wildlife pond after the end of Phase 6 (2033).

Page 154

4.53. However the current proposals do significantly reduce the total area of extraction in the eastern area, and in spite of the changes above, and the longer timescale for the development and therefore before final restoration is completed, I do not consider that the overall impacts of the modifications to the working scheme and the requested time extension are significantly adverse.

Temporary effects in the Western Area

4.54. At the time of the 1991 application there was, as now, far greater concern about adverse landscape impacts from extraction of the western area than of the eastern area. The most significant and harmful effects arise if two phases of the proposal are either operational at the same time, or one is operational and the previous phase is left as exposed worked sand faces. As a result for example, Area 5 (the same as the proposed Phase 5) was split into two phases under a late amendment (letter dated 16 September 1991) to the scheme to ensure (it was said) that no more than 150m of the hillside in the western area was under extraction at any one time, however the current proposal does not split Phase 5 into 2, and in fact the previous scheme did allow for phases 1 and 2 to be under extraction at the same time as they now are.

4.55. Proposals for progressive restoration within the original Written Statement, as amended also secured a detailed scheme in which soil volumes to be stripped from, and required for restoration of each phase, were calculated, and soil movements, or if necessary storage, were defined. This demonstrated in detail that direct placement of soils for restoration would happen in all the most sensitive cases, whereas the ES states only that this will be achieved where possible. It also specified how the silt derived from the washing process would be recovered in silt ponds, and where it would then be used in the restoration. These were also shown in detailed drawings.

4.56. The amended proposals are not defined in such detail as the previous scheme, as only three separate stages are described, with the order and timing of steps within those not defined. Volumetric analysis of soil stripped from, or required for restoration of, each phase, and a schedule for movements have also not been provided to compare with the original. The phase completion schedule however does indicate the order of completion of the phases, and their duration at the predicted production/sales rate. Also the drawings of Phase 2, 4 and 6 show soil storage bunds, and the description in the ES gives some information about the origin; and in some cases the destination of, those soil resources.

4.57. The potential impact on the restoration of slopes within the western area is more difficult to assess from the information provided. The submitted information provides completion dates for each of these phases but it is not clear whether 3A and 3B (and 4A and 4B) would happen concurrently as in the previous scheme, and all 4 phases are considered together. It is simply confirmed that all of the steep slopes up to the southern boundary of Phase 4 would be restored, including woodland planting, by the end of Phase 4 (2024). No start date for 4A is given, although the extraction phasing says it would finish in 2024; nor for 3B, which would probably be the source of soils for Phase 1 and 2.

Page 155

4.58. There is also a discrepancy between Figure 2.6/2.6A and Figure 2.7/2.7A with respect to the last phase of operations. Figure 2.7/2.7A indicate that at the end of Phase 6 (during 2033 if the 75,000 tpa production continued) all proposed mineral extraction would be complete and the progressive restoration and grading of the area disturbed by Phase 6 would be complete. Silt pond 8 (phase 4A) would have been infilled and capped awaiting final restoration, and silt pond 7 would be fully restored. The stockpiling and processing area would remain to be restored. Figure 2.6/2.6A however state that by the end of Phase 6 silt pond 8 would still be active. No alternative method for recovering the silt for phase 6 has been identified therefore it has to be assumed that silt pond 8 would be active until the end of mineral extraction. The duration of the drying out of a silt pond from its active phase to being ready to cap has not been estimated in the ES, but evidence from the eastern area where this method is employed is that this can be several years. It is therefore not plausible to suggest that in the same year phase 6 extraction ceases, silt pond 8 will have been dried and capped ready for restoration.

4.59. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) in the ES addresses the resultant impacts of the proposed development with some further assessment of residual effects of the modifications. However the assessment of the restoration phasing is affected by the lack of clarity above. The LVIA quotes Figure 2.7 and 2.7/A rather than Figure 2.6 and goes on to say in paragraph 5.5.18:

“From phase 6 to the end of phase 6 site operations would be in a transitional period between the restoration of the final extraction area and full site restoration. Active parts of the site would include capped remnant silt pond 8, the field conveyor, processing area and silt pond 1 ”.

4.60. The ES goes on to considers the “substantial” effect of extraction together with the duration of the effect, and concludes that the temporary landscape effects are “moderate ” because the duration for each phase is limited to an average period of 3-4 years, with the exception of the minerals processing area which would remain operational until final restoration.

4.61. This assessment does not highlight that the 3-4 years for extraction in each phase would have been 1.5 – 2 years under the approved scheme, but also that it is the time from start of extraction to restoration that needs to be assessed. As discussed above the submitted proposals do not indicate a likely commencement date for extraction of Phase 4A, but extraction is estimated to take 4.7 years and end in 2022. Silt pond 8, following extraction in phase 4A, would however be in use until 2033, and the area would be in active use for 16 years (or longer if sales were lower than the predicted 75,000 tpa extraction rate). Phase 3A would not be restored for at least 14 years. The detailed soil movements in the 1991 scheme have not been revised and it is not clear how soon soils would be placed, or where from, on many areas of the site.

4.62. The ES has also not addressed the difference between the landscape and visual effects of extraction below the water table, which for most of the period is a large water body, with some degree of natural regeneration to much of the water edge, and the landscape and visual effects of a silt pond. The former has a positive landscape and visual effect very quickly following extraction, and this is reflected in the landscape proposals related to the 1991 consent which did not provide advance planting to screen these areas. I consider that the silt ponds would have a substantial adverse effect, as can be seen in the eastern

Page 156

area, and a long duration, and there would be open views to the site from sections of the A6 which runs in parallel with the western area.

4.63. The modified proposals would create a soil storage bund around Phase 3A, instead of moving the soils to the northern soil storage area. This is reasonable because these soils would be needed in the restoration, rather than being available to restore the valley slopes on the eastern edge of the western area. However no such visual screening or advance planting is proposed for silt pond 8 possibly because the site boundary lies close to the silt pond, and the high pressure gas pipe and the ethylene pipeline occupies the space in between. These adverse impacts could be controlled by condition by additional advance planting beyond the site boundary because it is not land in the control of the applicant. It should also be noted that the landscape impacts of the temporary soil bund in this location have not been considered.

4.64. I therefore disagree with the applicant’s conclusion that the proposals are acceptable in terms of their effects on landscape and conform to CMWDF Policy DC12. The conclusions of the LVIA in the ES are not based on an assessment of proposed modifications, including the use of the areas of below water table extraction as “abandonment” silt ponds for a prolonged period between extraction and final restoration; the increased duration for extraction for each phase as a result of the reduced extraction rate; the modified locations for soil storage bunds; and thus has not adequately assessed the effect of the modifications to restoration and working scheme or to extend the time limits by 22 years. These are major material considerations for the determination of the planning consent. I consider that the combined effect of these is that the restoration is not sufficiently progressive to prevent a significant adverse impact on the landscape for an extended period.

4.65. The proposal is thus contrary to CMWDF Policy DC 16 - Afteruse and Restoration in that restoration would not be completed within a reasonable timescale and is progressive as far as practicable. No assessment has been presented by the applicant to explore alternative methods for removing silt from the washing water and thereby reducing the timescale for restoration of areas 3A and 4A.

4.66. In addition it is not clear that restoration would proceed quickly following extraction, and that a Grampian style condition could be formulated to limit the area taken for extraction and relate these to the rate of restoration of earlier phases, as required by NPPF paragraph 41. Although it might be considered that detailed restoration phasing scheme could be provided under condition including an equivalent plan to the previously approved L37/9 I do not consider that the proposals submitted offer a plausible and consistent phasing plan on which such a condition could be based.

4.67. CMWDF Policy DC 16 - Afteruse and Restoration also requires that proposals should demonstrate that provision for the likely financial and material budgets for the agreed restoration, aftercare and afteruse will be made during the operational life of the site. This is also specifically required by NPPF Technical Guidance paragraph 49. No such demonstration has been made and it is clear that granting consent for this proposal would enable the operations to move into currently untouched landscape, making the need for restoration more acute and more expensive. The availability of suitable soils for the amended proposals has also not been demonstrated. Given the low level of need for the

Page 157

development, and the increasingly slow extraction rate, I consider that there is a considerable risk of restoration not being achieved.

4.68. NPPF Technical Guidance para 50 makes it clear that financial guarantees for restoration should only be required in exceptional circumstances: for very long term new projects such as a super quarry; where a novel approach or technique is to be used; or where there is reliable evidence of the likelihood of either financial or technical failure but these concerns are not such as to justify refusal of permission. In this case I consider that: the lack of considered assessment of the current proposals, as opposed to the scheme presented for EIA Scoping; the prolonged period for restoration; and the previous action of Tarmac in disposing of Faugh no2 quarry to another operator at a time when there was a considerable restoration liability; do fall into this category. In the case of Faugh no 2 Quarry, although Tarmac sold to another operator who did participate in the scheme, that operator sold it to a third party who did not. NPPF Technical Guidance para 51 continues by saying that where an operator is contributing to an established mutual funding scheme it should not be necessary to seek such guarantees however the County Council has significant concerns about disposal of quarries to operators that do not participate in such schemes and I consider this could be a risk in this situation.

4.69. The applicant has made a suggestion verbally (at a meeting on 29 November 2012) that financial guarantees might be offered to ensure completion of restoration, but this suggestion has not been pursued due to the other pressing reasons for refusal. However I consider that the proposal is contrary to Policy DC16, and also does not conform to NPPF Technical Guidance Paragraph 49.

Temporary effects on Visual Amenity

4.70. Many of the issues discussed with respect to landscape character are also relevant for visual amenity, which relates to the impacts on people rather than landscapes. The assessment in the ES under estimates residual effects of the changes between the approved and the proposed scheme given the increased duration and nature of the adverse impacts, and the material changes that have taken place since the previous consent.

4.71. The key material change is the conversion and occupation of the 11 residential properties at Low Plains Court. I agree with the assessment in the ES of the visual impacts of the quarry from the properties themselves, but the main effect to the amenity of residents would arise from views of the western area and the conveyor when travelling to/from the properties along the access road/public footpath . This route should therefore not be assessed simply as a public footpath.

4.72. Phase 3A extraction area would be highly visible from this footpath during the period of extraction (from 2015 to 2017), but would be more unattractive during the following period when it would be used as a silt pond, while it dried, and before it was finally restored. No timetable has been set for this final restoration, but the phasing proposals show it as being filled by the end of phase 4 (2024) and capped but not yet restored by the end of phase 6 (2033). I consider that effective fencing would also be needed to secure this site boundary during extraction, filling, and drying of the silt pond to ensure public safety because of its location adjacent to a public footpath. This could have a further adverse visual impact incompatible with the character of the lane.

Page 158

4.73. The ES does assess the visual impact of the footpath and indeed the applicant has proposed additional screen planting along the access roads northern edge as indicated in Figure 2.4A. The drawing does not make it clear how poor the existing beech hedge planting is, but says it would be enhanced through replacement planting where necessary and maintained on an annual basis. The new hedgerow referred to as providing screening has not established itself in the 6 years since it was planted in 2006, especially where the new plants have been planted in the raised bank between existing large trees. As the canopy of these trees is high it does not provide any visual screening, and neither does the new planting, some of which has failed to grow entirely. Other sections of the route have no screening at all.

4.74. Additional mitigation has been proposed in the current scheme, with a further row of native hedgerow plants to be planted, but these would not be sufficiently mature to provide adequate screening in the 3 years before extraction would commence, or to prevent harmful or unacceptable impacts on visual amenity. However the temporary storage mound formed by soil stripping of phase 3 is shown as extending close to Blackrack Beck, and would be in place until the final restoration of silt pond 7. Temporary storage mounds G, H I and part of J would still be in place at the start of phase 6 to screen silt pond 8 from the lane.

4.75. Improved visual screening could be provided to most of the lane under condition were consent to be granted for this proposal. This could utilise the temporary soil storage mound, and the proposed planting could be increased in area, and possibly include temporary non- native varieties to reduce the time required for it to be established. I consider that such a scheme would be deliverable even with the provision of improved security fencing, however it would have to be far enough from the mature trees to ensure there was no damage to their root systems, and this could require a reduction in the extraction area. Details would need to be supplied under condition if consent were to be granted.

4.76. The screening proposals above would not however avoid all visual impact from the access lane, and therefore experienced by the residents of Low Plains Court and other residential properties served from the access lane. The bunding would not be a natural landform and screen planting would not be in place in time to secure any amenity value prior to development of phase 3A. Views to the other phases of extraction including Phase 4A would also be seen from the A6 and the lane close to the A6, and also when crossing the conveyor. These adverse impacts would endure for a very long period of time, contribute to the loss in amenity for residents, and are not justified by any over riding need for the development.

Flood Risk

4.77. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) was completed in June 2011 and included in the ES as Appendix H1; however this assessed the proposals presented for EIA Scoping, i.e. with the western area restored as water bodies. Appendices have been included in the ES with the correct restoration plan, but the FRA included does not refer to them and concludes that

“upon restoration the ground levels will be generally lower than present and therefore floodplain storage will be increased. This combined with the

Page 159

additional storage provided within the lake is considered to have a positive impact on downstream flo ws (ie reduce peak flows).”

4.78. The hydrogeological assessment in the ES itself has been amended in places (para 11.6.30) to refer to the new scheme, and to an “additional area of flood storage” but in other paragraphs (e.g. para 11.6.37) continues to refer to restoration lakes.

4.79. I therefore do not consider that the proposal applied for has been adequately assessed with respect to Flood Risk.

Protection of Blackrack Beck and the Low Plains Court water supply

4.80. The proposals differ from the previously approved scheme in that Blackrack Beck would not be diverted, but would instead be separated from the below water table extraction areas and subsequent silt ponds (Phase 3A and 4A) by a bund, but also bridged to enable access to phases. The EA have confirmed that they have no objections to the revised proposals in this respect as long as details of the bridging and the bund are agreed with themselves. The bund would have to be high enough to ensure that even when in spate the watercourse and the lagoons would never merge.

4.81. The EA have also requested the imposition of a condition ensuring there was no active dewatering of the site, in order to prevent lowering of the water table, and also a further condition requiring a network of monitoring boreholes around the extraction areas with a scheme for regular monitoring of water levels.

4.82. The Environmental Health Officer for Eden District Council however raised concerns about potential harm to the borehole used by Low Plains Court as their sole water supply, saying that the supply could be subject to ingress of contamination due to work carried out in the area of the planning application, the EHO also said they were not sure whether the borehole was served by the main aquifer and asked whether the EA were aware of the borehole.

4.83. The Environment Agency has been asked to comment on this response but at the time this report was written this has only been via a telephone call. The EA have examined all their records from the drilling of the Low Plains Court borehole and have informed the County Council that the borehole reached the sandstone, ie the Penrith Aquifer, at 92m AOD, and continues down below that point. Drilling records show that there was no water until the sandstone was reached, so the borehole does not go into or through the secondary aquifer.

4.84. The EA advise that:

a) the fact that there would be no dewatering of the quarry and that it will work only down to 100mAOD means that the quantity of water in the Low Plains Court borehole would not be adversely affected and also that

b) the quarrying activity do not constitute an additional source of contamination to affect the water supply as only the back-actor arm would work in the quarry, no chemicals would be applied to the water, and there would be no risk of contamination even if the secondary aquifer and the primary aquifer were connected at this point.

Page 160

4.85. The EA also advise that the infilling of Phase 3A and 4A with silt and subsequent restoration to agricultural use does not present an extra risk of contamination compared to the previously approved restoration lake.

4.86. If consent were to be granted for this proposal the advice received verbally would need to be confirmed in writing by the EA. I also consider that conditions should be imposed with respect to the details of any crossing of Blackrack Beck, and of bunds around Phases 3A and 4A to ensure that flood risk concerns are met, including those related to flooding of the public footpath/access road.

Other Groundwater Protection Issues

4.87. Information relating to groundwater is contained in the Part 2 report.

Air Quality

4.88. The potential impacts from dust have been analysed within the ES based on guidance in MPS2, some of which is incorporated in NPPF Technical Guidance, and The Environmental Effects of Dust from Surface Mineral Workings (HMSO 1995). The ES states that the percentage of time that a dry wind of sufficient speed to carry dust would approach various sensitive receptor properties has been predicted using meteorological data. Low Plains Court and Low Plains Farm Calthwaite are the most likely to experience a problem, with wind blowing over the western extraction area to the properties 16.7% and 18.2% of the time respectively, giving 4.2 and 4.6 working days in a totally dry month. Westington Lodge is said to be the most likely to be affected by extraction in the western area as it is only 55m away from Phase 3A, but the applicant says that analysis of other factors such as wind speed and direction, soil moisture, rainfall, and other mitigation means that the impacts wo uld be “more analogous to the negligible criterion”. Mitigation measures have been proposed which it is said would reduce the severity of impacts to “negligible” or “insignificant”. These have been summarised in a submitted “Dust Action Plan”.

4.89. The residents at Low Plains say that they suffer considerable nuisance from dust as described in section 2 above, and dust from the working faces on the hillside is almost impossible to control. They also say that bowsers are never in use on the western area.

4.90. The Environmental Health Officer for Eden District Council concluded that “From past operations and given the nature of the operations I consider that there will be no significant deterioration of air quality arising from the continued operations providing that the best practicable means are employed to minimise dust emissions. To achieve this I would recommend that a condition is attached to any planning approval requiring the submission of a Dust Management Plan to be submitted to the Minerals Planning Authority. The plan shall be reviewed every three years or more frequently if required by the Minerals Planning Authority in the event of substantiated complaints being received.”

4.91. I consider that dust from quarrying operations would not constitute a reason for refusal for this application, as conditions could be applied to avoid adverse impacts on health. Also effects of the dust from working faces on the residential properties nearest to the quarry would be reduced in later years when faces

Page 161

further to the north, and phases below the water table were being worked. However adverse impacts from dust being deposited on surfaces within properties, and from dust on the access roads, would be likely to continue.

Noise

4.92. Noise complaints have arisen at various points during the history of extraction of this site, and have been noted in the records of County Council monitoring visits and site liaison committee meetings. The applicant has incorporated various measures to attempt to minimise noise, including the use of the conveyor for mineral, and the piping of dirty water containing silt, rather than vehicles to transport mineral around the site.

4.93. The noise assessment report includes modelled predictions of additional noise caused by quarrying activities, built from standard noise modelling software. The data considered includes both actual data at the processing plant and sensitive receptors (2 days in March 2011) and noise output levels from the machinery in use (apart from the crusher). The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) at Eden District Council had visited the site as a result of a complaint and assessed background noise levels at Low Plains Court. He advised that noise levels at sensitive residential properties should not exceed 55 dB(A) or no more than 10 dB(A) above the background noise level which ever is the lower. A condition permitting noise levels up to 70 dB (a) on 8 weeks in any 52 week period when site restoration was occurring was also recommended. These would ensure that operations were compliant with MPS2. The EHO at that time also confirmed that the predicted noise levels are all within the MPS2 criterion on Background noise Level + 10dB as an LAeq(1hour) by a significant margin and that therefore these levels are achievable.

4.94. However there are indications from the applicant and residents of Low Plains Court that a) noise levels may on occasions be higher than predicted and b) there are tonal elements to the noise.

4.95. The Planning Statement reports that complaints about noise from residents increased in the 18 months to June 2011, and that investigations indicated that noise (at certain times) from the processing plant appears to have become louder, and on some days noticeably louder in the Low Plains Court area. Tarmacs complaints log of from 31.1.11 to 28.9.11 lists complaints about 36 dates and confirms that noise was very evident when they visited the site after complaints. The most comprehensive note read “noise seemed louder than usual; all parts of the quarry processes could be heard quite clearly”. Tarmac have suggested that the higher than expected noise at Low Plains Court is due to prevailing winds refracting noise down into Low Plains Court, and also speculate that noise had previously been attenuated by a large stockpile of sand on the south side of the processing area.

4.96. The key tonal noises identified are “squeals” which usually result from stones trapped in moving machinery, and a low rumbling which has not been specifically investigated but Tarmac consider to possibly come from the drive belt for the conveyor. The ES lists issues raised by local residents at the public consultation event of 21 April 2011 which included: audible tonal bleeper; squeak from the field conveyor; low rumbling noise in specific rooms of house; and amplification of processing noise in specific wind conditions. On one CCC officer visit to Low Plains Court the noise appeared to be both annoying due to

Page 162

a squeal, and at a high volume compared to background noise although this could not be empirically verified. On that occasion the noise was clearly arising from extraction activities in the western area, and consisted of squealing from a digger, combined with loud noise from stones in the sand being dropped into the conveyor hopper, and also bouncing in the digger loading shovel. The noise did not come from the conveyor on that occasion, but the mineral was variable with large stones mixed with sand.

4.97. The ES suggests additional measures to mitigate tonal noise and noise in excess of that expected, however some of those have been implemented and made little difference, and the likely effectiveness of others appears to be speculative, and not based on identification of the sources of noise, as required by NPPF Technical Guidance paragraph 29.

4.98. There are strong indications that tonal noise contributes significantly to total site noise as referred to in NPPF para 30, but none of the monitoring for the ES, or previous noise monitoring to ensure compliance with the conditions of the previous consent assessed frequency and therefore the tonal effects from operational noise. I also consider it likely that noise levels of the operation vary significantly depending on the nature of the material being transported and processed. This can vary from consistently soft or fine sand, through gravel, to a highly mixed material with large stones or cobbles within it, and variation in the material extracted over the recent years has not been investigated as a possible reason for increased noise levels. Given that the quarry has been operating for many years it would have been reasonable to implement long term monitoring at the noise sensitive properties to enable noise impacts to be thoroughly understood and appropriate mitigation designed to combat them. The crusher that one resident attributes the noise to is also not included in the noise assessment as it is said to be only used occasionally. The mitigation proposals therefore have not adequately considered the likely future noise from the development and its impact on the neighbourhood of the operations.

4.99. One year after these applications had been received the Environmental Health Officer at Eden District Council was requested to re-assess the proposal in the light of material changes within the NPPF, and the information in the ES and from the objectors about tonal noise. The EHO has advised that due to the possibility of tonal elements to the noise the earlier response has been amended to include the use of a penalty of 5dB if tonal elements are detected. He also comments that specific consideration may be given to avoidable noise (in that the NPPF makes it clear that minerals and planning authorities should ensure that any unavoidable noise is controlled, mitigated or removed at source). In addition it is suggested that consideration may be given to peak or impulsive noise, and that the 5dB penalty would also be applicable if these characteristics were detected.

4.100. I consider that the applicant has not adequately addressed known noise issues, and therefore it is possible that both existing and future noise levels and impacts on amenity might be higher than those predicted. Also it is not clear that the applicant has addressed avoidable noise by utilising best available techniques and the mitigation proposed by the applicant may not enable the lower noise levels to be achieved without further investment in plant, machinery, or other mitigation measures.

Page 163

4.101. If there was an over riding need for the mineral then the guidance in the NPPF and its technical guidance would have led to conditions being imposed as advised by the EHO. These would have required a suitable Noise Management Plan, to include a monitoring scheme that would detect tonal elements, and also assessment of all plant used at the quarry including the crusher and the back- actor. The Noise Management Plan would also have to include a commitment to appropriate action if the operations were to exceed the noise limits imposed.

4.102. The EHO has also confirmed that a loss of amenity to local residents may still occur at the limits of acceptability for noise from mineral operations, and thus there would be adverse impacts on residential amenity if consent were given to extend the life of the quarry by 22 years.

Public Safety

4.103. Residents of Low Plains Court have raised a number of concerns related to the access track to their properties and lapses in security that have allowed gates to the quarry working areas being left open. Their concerns up to this point have mainly concerned the conveyor that runs under bridges and the danger to children who might get too close to the conveyor and suffer injury as a result. The previously approved scheme did incorporate water bodies that would have presented danger if unauthorised access to them was not adequately controlled, but the objectors are also now concerned about the silt ponds which represent an additional type of risk, for a prolonged period. The residents claim that the current silt ponds in the eastern area are inadequately fenced, and point out that they are effectively quicksand and thus extremely dangerous.

4.104. Tarmac have acknowledged some difficulties with the locking system for the gates on the quarry access routes across the public footpath/access lane, but consider the problems to have been solved. CCC officers have found the gate open on one occasion, but the conveyor was not operating at the time, and no activity was taking place in the extraction area. Conveyors are subject to health and safety regulations with sensors to stop them if work operatives get too close to them, however it is clearly important that the operator does have highly effective systems for ensuring gates are locked and entry by children or vulnerable adults cannot occur. Risks to the public during excavation below the water table and from active or drying silt ponds would also need to be controlled by secure fencing and adequate supervision and signage.

4.105. If an overriding need for the mineral had been established it is probable that a site security scheme, including details of secure fencing, locking systems for gates and supervision and signage of all danger points could have been supplied under conditions. The proposed scheme would need to have been designed to ensure that compliance of current and any future operators with such conditions could have been relied upon to reduce this risk to acceptable levels. I therefore do not consider that public safety would have presented a reason for refusal for this proposal, but the risks to public safety, and the perception of such risk and need for vigilance on the part of nearby residents, are adverse impacts that need to be weighed against the benefits of the proposal.

Page 164

Ecology

4.106. Approximately 2 km to the east of the site lies the River Eden Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and the River Eden and Tributaries Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Lazonby Fell SSSI, Eden Gorge SSSI and Wan Fell SSSI are within similar proximity. In addition, Blaze Fell Quarries Cumbria Wildlife Site and Middleholm and Birks Mosses Cumbria Wildlife Site lie within 2km of the site.

4.107. The approved scheme incorporated various features to enhance biodiversity, particularly related to the restoration water bodies, but the ES also highlighted a number of potentially adverse impacts on protected species and also on designated areas.

4.108. Natural England confirmed that the measures incorporated into the ES would be adequate to prevent harm to biodiversity if the development were to be implemented.

Archaeology

4.109. The site is of considerable and proven archaeological significance and Bronze Age human cremations and numerous other prehistoric remains have been revealed during on site investigations to date. Written recordings of investigations undertaken in the areas already subject to extraction have not yet been submitted by the applicant.

4.110. It is possible that significant prehistoric rock art, in particular a cup and ring stone located in Phase 4B would be disturbed by further extraction. If consent were to be granted the secure long term future of this and any other remains that were uncovered would need to be secured. The applicant states they will either carefully remove the stone in question to a publicly accessible store or, if it is not affected by future extraction will erect a fence around it to protect it during mineral extraction. However preservation in situ is preferable to disturbance and therefore this must be acknowledged as an adverse impact of the proposal. If consent were to be granted conditions would need to be imposed to ensure that archaeological investigations and recording were required conducted, reported, and adequate facilities provided for public display or access where appropriate.

Highways and Traffic

4.111. The site is located 9.5 km to the north of Penrith and adjacent to the north-south orientated A6 between the villages of High Heskett and Plumpton. Access to the site is from the A6 via the C3007 minor road. It is noted from the details supplied that the proposal will not lead to an increase in vehicular traffic to and from the site and therefore the Highway Authority has no objection to the proposal. It should be noted that the conditions for access and traffic as set out in the decision notice for application ref 3/91/0571 as amended by planning permission 3/95/9013 and 3/96/9015 should still apply.

Page 165

Conclusion

4.112. I do not consider that there is any need for the output of this quarry as an adequate landbank for sand and gravel has been identified by the County Council without the need for the extraction of the resources remaining at this site. Furthermore it has not been demonstrated that Low Plains serves a distinct and separate market for concreting sand and gravel in the south and east of the county; nor is there any reason to consider that these markets are potentially growing; or that there are no alternatives to serve the needs of these markets.

4.113. The proposed modifications to the final restoration have not been assessed to ensure that the soil resources available on site could achieve the quality of agricultural land indicated over the whole site including the areas previously to be left as permanent water bodies. Neither has the proposed modification to the restoration scheme to exclude the permanent water bodies been adequately assessed with respect to Flood Risk.

4.114. The landscape and visual impacts of the proposed modifications to the working scheme, including the use of the areas of below water table extraction as “abandonment” silt ponds for a prolonged period between extraction and final restoration; the increased duration for extraction for each phase as a result of the reduced extraction rate; and the modified locations for soil storage bunds have not been adequately assessed.

4.115. The proposals do not offer a plausible or consistent phasing plan for restoration. No estimated timescale for silt pond 8 in Phase 4A to dry ready for capping, or alternative methods for removing silt from the washing water during phase 6 have been submitted by the applicant and thus the timescale for restoration of silt pond 8 is not known. This unknown delay and the need to restore the processing area have not been taken into account, and no timescale has been proposed for the completion of restoration following the end of extraction of phase 6. The completion of all operations including restoration within 22 years as per the requested change to condition 2 is therefore not plausible.

4.116. On careful examination of the submissions it is clear that the requested time extension of 22 years and the proposed modifications to the working scheme would have a significant adverse impact on the landscape and on visual amenity for an extended period, and the proposal is thus contrary to CMWDF Policy DC 12. The proposed modifications to the working scheme are also contrary to CMWDF Policy DC 16 - Afteruse and Restoration in that restoration would not be completed within a reasonable timescale and is not progressive as far as practicable.

4.117. Granting consent for this proposal would permit the quarrying operation to move into currently untouched landscape which is highly visible from a main transport route making the need for restoration more acute and more expensive. Given the low level of need for the development, and the increasingly slow extraction rate I consider that there is a considerable risk of restoration not being achieved. It should also be noted that availability of suitable soils for the amended proposals has not been demonstrated. The submissions do not include any provision for the likely financial and material budgets for the agreed restoration, aftercare and afteruse being made during the operational life of the site, and thus the proposal is contrary to CMWDF Policy DC 16 and does not accord with the guidance in NPPF paragraph 49. Page 166

4.118. The falling need for the mineral compared to the high estimate for ongoing sales levels significantly increases the probability of the mineral extraction and restoration taking considerably more than the 22 year time period applied for. I consider that it would not be appropriate for the County Council to grant consent for a 22 year time extension, following a 20 year period when consent was first granted, when it is unlikely that extraction and restoration would be completed within that timescale.

4.119. There are a number of other adverse impacts from the development that either cannot be mitigated by conditions, or would still remain as adverse impacts on residential amenity even after conditions were imposed. These include nuisance from dust, noise, visual impact, and risks to public safety, and pertain particularly to the residents of Low Plains Court and other residential properties which rely on the public footpath/access lane for both vehicular and pedestrian access to their properties.

4.120. There is no need for the development that overrides the adverse impacts identified in this report and in the Part 2 report already considered and therefore the adverse impacts of the development with respect to temporary landscape and visual impact, the protection of the water environment, impact on a neighbouring land use and the local economy would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of, and need for, the development.

4.121. If members agree the recommendation for 3/11/9009 I consider that the separate planning application for the time extension for the soil storage bund should also be refused as there would be no need for the storage bund once the quarrying activities had ceased.

4.122. If members agree the recommendation, there will be further consideration whether or not to take enforcement action against the continued winning and working of minerals without planning permission and what form such enforcement action would take. Securing the satisfactory restoration of the operational areas is the priority and this will be best achieved by way of dialog with Tarmac. Should enforcement action be considered necessary, this will be authorised under delegated powers and reported to committee in the usual way.

Paul Feehily Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability

Contact Miss Maggie Mason, Kendal, Tel: 01539 713548, Email: [email protected]

Background Papers Planning Application File Reference Nos. 3/11/9009 and 3/11/9010

Electoral Division Identification Penrith North - Ms HF Carrick

\\Ccc-prdc-fp05\kendal\Filing\planning\applications\eden\2011\3119009&3119010_LowPlainsQuarry_S73s_Time_Extensions\DC and R Report.doc

Page 167

Appendix 1 Ref Nos. 3/11/9009 & 9010 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 3 January 2013

Reasons for Refusal of Planning Permission for 3/11/9009

1 There is no need for the sand and gravel resources from this site because provision for a steady supply of aggregates has been made in accordance with advice in the Guidance on the Managed Aggregate Supply System (October 2012) without the reserves remaining at this quarry. Furthermore there are no special types of aggregate produced at the quarry or locational factors that would justify the continuation of extraction to meet local supply needs.

2 The proposal, including the mitigation and remediation strategy submitted, does not demonstrate that there would be no unacceptable quantitative or qualitative impacts on the water environment and is therefore contrary to CMWDF Policy 14. The resulting adverse impacts of the land use on the neighbouring business and the local rural economy cannot be satisfactorily mitigated by effective and enforceable conditions, and the proposal is also contrary to CMWDF Policy CS2 and NWRSS Policy W1.

3 The proposal is contrary to CMWDF Policy DC 12 in that the submitted restoration phasing proposals would create significant and prolonged adverse landscape and visual impacts. The proposal is also contrary to CMWDF Policy DC16 in that restoration is not likely to be completed within a reasonable timescale, does not provide for progressive restoration, and has not demonstrated that provision for the likely financial and material budgets for the agreed restoration, aftercare and afteruse will be made during the operational life of the site.

Reasons for Refusal of Planning Permission for 3/11/9010

1 There is no need for the continuing use of the land identified for a separate soil storage bund.

Page 168

Appendix 2 Ref Nos. 3/11/9009 & 9010 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 3 January 2013

THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010

Summary of Policy Background to Refusal of Planning Permission

1 This application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, in the context of national and regional planning policy guidance and advice and the relevant development plan policies. The key development plan policies taken into account by the County Council before refusing permission were as follows:

North West Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (2008-2021) (Adopted September 2008)

Policy W 1 Strengthening the Regional Economy  Plans and strategies should promote opportunities for economic development (including the provision of appropriate sites and premises, infrastructure, and clustering where appropriate) which will strengthen the economy of the North West by:

giving positive support to the sustainable diversification and development of the rural economy through the growth of existing businesses and the creation of new enterprise, particularly within Cumbria where there is a need to both develop high value business activities and sustain traditional economic activities. Prospects for growth in tourism, food and energy sectors should be developed, including promoting links between regional agriculture and production and retail facilities to reduce food miles and support local businesses;

Policy EM 7 Minerals Extraction  Plans and strategies should make provision for a steady and adequate supply of a range of minerals to meet the region’s apportionments of land -won aggregates and requirements of national planning guidance. This will take into account:

the national significance of the Region’s reserves of salt, silica sand, gypsum, peat and clay (including fireclay); the need to maintain land banks of permitted reserves of certain minerals as identified in relevant government guidance (101) including silica sand and materials for the cement industry; the contribution that substitute, secondary or recycled sources, or imports from outside the Region, should make; the potential supply of marine dredged aggregate in contributing towards overall regional aggregate needs, applying the principles of sustainable development alluded to in relevant government guidance (102) and reflect any future Marine Spatial Planning arrangements.

Minerals extraction forms an exception to the sequential approach set out in the Core Development Principles. Plans and strategies should:

Page 169

include criteria-based policies to indicate the circumstances under which extraction might or might not be permitted; include opportunities for the transportation of minerals by pipeline, rail or water, including the maintenance of existing wharves and railhead facilities, the provision of new ones, and of facilities for on-shore processing and distribution of hydrocarbons; safeguard mineral resources from other forms of development and, where appropriate, reserve highest quality minerals for applications that require such grades; identify and protect sources of building stone for use in repairing and maintaining historic buildings and public realm improvements; and ensure sensitive environmental restoration and aftercare of sites including improved public access where they are of amenity value.

Policy EM 8 Land-won Aggregates  Mineral planning authorities should continue to work together to make provision for the agreed regional apportionment of land-won aggregate requirements to 2016 on the basis of the revision to Minerals Planning Guidance Note 6 (MPG6) (103) , and the sub-regional apportionment set out in Table 9.2.

Table 9.2 Sub-regional Apportionment of Aggregates in the North West 2001-2016 (million tonnes)

Sand & Gravel Crushed Rock Cheshire 31.5 2 Cumbria 11.2 66 Lancashire 8.2 73 Merseyside / Greater Manchester 4.1 26 / Halton/ Warrington Total 55 167

CUMBRIA MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK (CMWDF)

Core Strategy (CS) 2009-2020 (Adopted April 2009)

Policy CS 2 - Economic Benefit  Proposals for new minerals and waste developments should demonstrate that they would realise their potential to provide economic benefit. This will include such matters as the number of jobs directly or indirectly created or safeguarded and the support that proposals give to other industries and developments. It will also be important to ensure that minerals and waste developments would not prejudice other regeneration and development initiatives

Policy CS5 - Afteruse and Restoration  Restoration and aftercare schemes for mineral working and waste management sites should demonstrate that best practicable measures have been taken to secure full advantage of their potential to help deliver sustainability objectives relating to the environment and the economy of the county .

Page 170

Policy CS 13 - Supply of Minerals

Provision will be made to:- meet the Regional Spatial Strategy's apportionment to Cumbria of primary land won crushed rock and sand and gravel production, but further apply that apportionment to take account of Cumbria's pattern of quarries and the areas they supply, and its dispersed settlement pattern and transport routes; identify areas sufficient to maintain landbanks of permitted reserves for supply areas equivalent to at least seven years sales (using the rolling three-year annual average sales figure) for sand and gravel and at least ten years for crushed rock for general aggregate use, throughout the plan period, and recognise that the high and very high specification roadstone quarries, gypsum resources and High Greenscoe brick making mudstone quarry are regionally or nationally important, identify sites for the facilities that will be required to enable at least one quarter of the aggregates used within Cumbria to be met by secondary or recycled aggregates.

Generic Development Control Policies (GDCP) 2009-2020 (Adopted April 2009)

Policy DC1 – Traffic and Transport

Proposals for minerals and waste developments should be located where they:

a. are well related to the strategic route network as defined in the Local Transport Plan, and/or b. have potential for rail or sea transport and sustainable travel to work, and c. are located to minimise operational "minerals and waste road miles".

Mineral developments that are not located as above may be permitted if:

they do not have unacceptable impacts on highway safety and fabric, the convenience of other road users and on community amenity, where an appropriate standard of access and traffic routing can be provided, and appropriate mitigation measures for unavoidable impacts are provided.

Policy DC 2 - General Criteria  Minerals and Waste proposals must, where appropriate, demonstrate that:

a. noise levels, blast vibration and air over-pressure levels would be within acceptable limits, b. there will be no significant degradation of air quality (from dust and emissions), c. public rights of way or concessionary paths are not adversely affected, or if this is not possible, either temporary or permanent alternative provision is made, d. carbon emissions from buildings, plant and transport have been minimised, e. issues of ground stability have been addressed.

Page 171

Considerations will include:

the proximity of sensitive receptors, including impacts on surrounding land uses, and protected species, how residual and/or mineral wastes will be managed, the extent to which adverse effects can be controlled through sensitive siting and design, or visual or acoustic screening, the use of appropriate and well maintained and managed equipment, phasing and duration of working, progressive restoration, hours of operations, appropriate routes and volumes of traffic, and other mitigation measures.

Policy DC 3 - Cumulative Environmental Impacts

Cumulative impacts of minerals and waste development proposals will be assessed in the light of other land-uses in the area. Considerations will include:

a. impacts on local communities, b. all environmental aspects including habitats and species, landscape character, cultural heritage, air quality, ground and surface water resources and quality, agricultural resources and flood risk, c. the impact of processing and other plant, d. the type, size and numbers of vehicles generated, from site preparation to final restoration and potential impacts on the highway network, safety and the environment, e. impacts on the wider economy and regeneration, f. impacts on local amenity, community health and recreation facilities and opportunities.

Policy DC 6 - Criteria for Non-Energy Minerals Development

Proposals for non- energy minerals development inside the identified Preferred Areas will be permitted if they do not conflict with other policies in this plan.

Proposals for non- energy minerals development outside the Preferred Areas will only be permitted if :

a. the landbank of reserves with planning permission is below the required level, and there is a need for the proposal to meet the levels of supply identified in the Core Strategy, and b. they do not conflict with other policies in this plan and to any relevant locational or site specific policies, and c. where relevant, there are adequate safeguards for land stability.

Favourable consideration may also be given to proposals that can be demonstrated to be more sustainable than any available alternative, including:

borrow pits to meet a specific demand not easily met from elsewhere, building stone quarries to meet the need for stone to match local vernacular building, and the conservation and repair of historic buildings. areas already subject to minerals extraction where the additional working will enable comprehensive exploitation of the reserves, or where the proposal achieves a more sustainable afteruse or a better restoration of the area.

Page 172

Policy DC 12 - Landscape  Proposals for development should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria's landscapes and should:

a. avoid significant adverse impacts on the natural and historic landscape, b. use Landscape Character Assessment to assess the capacity of landscapes to accept development, to inform the appropriate scale and character of such development, and guide restoration where development is permitted, c. in appropriate cases use the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment to assess and integrate these issues into the development process, d. ensure that development proposals consider the effects on: locally distinctive natural or built features; scale in relation to landscape features; public access and community value of the landscape; historic patterns and attributes; and openness, remoteness and tranquillity, e. ensure high quality design of modern waste facilities to minimise their impact on the landscape, or views from sensitive areas, and to contribute to the built environment, f. direct minerals and waste developments to less sensitive locations, wherever this is possible, and ensure that sensitive siting and high quality design prevent significant adverse impacts on the principal local characteristics of the landscape including views from, and the setting of, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Heritage Coast or National Parks.

Policy DC 14 – The Water Environment

Planning permission will only be granted for developments that would have no unacceptable quantitative or qualitative adverse effects on the water environment, including surface waters and groundwater resources. Proposals that minimise water use and include sustainable water management will be favoured.

Policy DC 16 - Afteruse and Restoration   Proposals for minerals extraction, or for temporary waste facilities such as landfill, should be accompanied by detailed proposals for restoration including proposals for appropriate afteruse, financial provision and long term management where necessary. Restoration and enhancement measures should maximise their contributions to national, regional and local biodiversity objectives and targets. In all cases restoration schemes must demonstrate that the land is stable and that the risk of future collapse of any mineworkings has been minimised.

After-uses that enhance biodiversity and the environment, conserve soil resources, conserve and enhance the historic environment, increase public access, minimise the impacts of global warming, and are appropriate for the landscape character of the area will be encouraged. These could include: nature conservation, agriculture, leisure and recreation, and woodland,

Where sites accord with other policies, an alternative or mixed afteruse that would support long term management, farm diversification, renewable energy schemes, tourism, or employment land may be acceptable.

Page 173

All proposals must demonstrate that:

a. for agricultural, forestry and amenity afteruses there is an aftercare management programme of at least 5 years, but longer where required to ensure that the restoration scheme is established, b. the restoration is appropriate for the landscape character and wildlife interest of the area, and measures to protect, restore and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity conservation features are practical, of a high quality appropriate to the area and secure their long term safeguarding and maintenance, c. restoration will be completed within a reasonable timescale and is progressive as far as practicable, d. provision for the likely financial and material budgets for the agreed restoration, aftercare and afteruse will be made during the operational life of the site. e. restoration will be undertaken using industry best practice.

Peat workings should be restored to peat regeneration wherever possible.

Eden Local Plan 1996 - [Saved Policies] (Adopted December 1996)

Policy NE3: Landscapes of County Importance

Within Landscapes of County Importance proposals will be expected to have due regard to the distinctive character of the landscape. Those involving development outside established settlements will be permitted only if the following criteria can be satisfied: i) the selection of the site can be adequately justified; ii) the siting of the development will minimise impact; iii) the design, materials and landscaping measures are appropriate to the character of the landscape; iv) the scale of the proposal is appropriate to the location concerned; and v) an unacceptable level of harm will not be caused to any interests of acknowledged importance

2 The following policy advice has also been taken into account as a material consideration.

The National Planning Policy Framework ( Published March 2012 )

Para 142: Minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth and our quality of life. It is therefore important that there is a sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. However, since minerals are a finite natural resource, and can only be worked where they are found, it is important to make best use of them to secure their long-term conservation.

Para 144: When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should: give great weight to the benefits of the mineral extraction, including to the economy;

Page 174

ensure, in granting planning permission for mineral development, that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety, and take into account the cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality; ensure that any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at source,31 and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties; not grant planning permission for peat extraction from new or extended sites; provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions, where necessary. Bonds or other financial guarantees to underpin planning conditions should only be sought in exceptional circumstances;

Para 145: Minerals planning authorities should plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates by: preparing an annual Local Aggregate Assessment, either individually or jointly by agreement with another or other mineral planning authorities, based on a rolling average of 10 years sales data and other relevant local information, and an assessment of all supply options (including marine dredged, secondary and recycled sources); participating in the operation of an Aggregate Working Party and taking the advice of that Party into account when preparing their Local Aggregate Assessment; making provision for the land-won and other elements of their Local Aggregate Assessment in their mineral plans taking account of the advice of the Aggregate Working Parties and the National Aggregate Co- ordinating Group as appropriate. Such provision should take the form of specific sites, preferred areas and/or areas of search and locational criteria as appropriate; taking account of published National and Sub National Guidelines on future provision which should be used as a guideline when planning for the future demand for and supply of aggregates; using landbanks of aggregate minerals reserves principally as an indicator of the security of aggregate minerals supply, and to indicate the additional provision that needs to be made for new aggregate extraction and alternative supplies in mineral plans; making provision for the maintenance of landbanks of at least 7 years for sand and gravel and at least 10 years for crushed rock, whilst ensuring that the capacity of operations to supply a wide range of materials is not compromised. Longer periods may be appropriate to take account of the need to supply a range of types of aggregates, locations of permitted reserves relative to markets, and productive capacity of permitted sites; ensuring that large landbanks bound up in very few sites do not stifle competition; and calculating and maintaining separate landbanks for any aggregate materials of a specific type or quality which have a distinct and separate market.

Page 175

Technical Guidance to The National Planning Policy Framework (Published March 2012 )

Para 28: The National Planning Policy Framework makes it clear that minerals planning authorities should ensure that unavoidable noise emissions are controlled, mitigated or removed at source. It further recognises that mineral planning authorities should also establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties.

Para 29 : Those making development proposals should carry out a noise emissions assessment, which should identify all sources of noise and, for each source, consider the proposed operating locations, procedures, schedules and duration of work for the life of the operation. Proposals for the control or mitigation of noise emissions should consider: the main characteristics of the production process and its environs, including the location of noise-sensitive properties; proposals to minimise, mitigate or remove noise emissions at source; assessing the existing noise climate around the site of the proposed operations, including background noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive properties; estimating the likely future noise from the development and its impact on the neighbourhood of the proposed operations; monitoring noise emissions to ensure compliance with appropriate environmental standards.

Para 30 : Subject to a maximum of 55dB(A)LAeq, 1h (free field), mineral planning authorities should aim to establish a noise limit at the noise-sensitive property that does not exceed the background level by more than 10dB(A). It is recognised, however, that in many circumstances it will be difficult to not exceed the background level by more than 10dB(A) without imposing unreasonable burdens on the mineral operator. In such cases, the limit set should be as near that level as practicable during normal working hours (0700-1900) and should not exceed 55dB(A) LAeq, 1h (free field). Evening (1900-2200) limits should not exceed background level by more than 10dB(A) and night-time limits should not exceed 42dB(A) LAeq,1h (free field) at noise-sensitive dwellings. Where tonal noise contributes significantly to the total site noise, it may be appropriate to set specific limits for this element. Peak or impulsive noise, which may include some reversing bleepers, may also require separate limits that are independent of background noise - e.g. Lmax in specific octave or third-octave bands - and should not be allowed to occur regularly at night

…

Para 49: Responsibility for the restoration and aftercare of mineral sites lies with the operator and, in the case of default, with the landowner. Applicants should, therefore, demonstrate with their applications what the likely financial and material budgets for restoration, aftercare and after-use will be, and how they propose to make provision for such work during the operational life of the site. No payment of money or other consideration can be required when granting planning permission except where there is specific statutory authority.

Page 176

Para 50: Exceptional cases where it will be reasonable for a minerals planning authority to seek a financial guarantee to cover restoration (including aftercare) costs, through a voluntary agreement/planning obligation at the time a planning permission is given include:

for very long-term new projects where progressive reclamation is not practicable, such as a super-quarry or some types of industrial or metalliferous mineral sites, where incremental payments into a secure fund may be made as the site develops; where a novel approach or technique is to be used, but the minerals planning authority considers it is justifiable to give permission for the development; where there is reliable evidence of the likelihood of either financial or technical failure, but these concerns are not such as to justify refusal of permission.

Para 51 : However, where an operator is contributing to an established mutual funding scheme, such as the Mineral Products Association Restoration Guarantee Fund, it should not be necessary for a minerals planning authority to seek a guarantee against possible financial failure, even in such exceptional circumstances.

Guidance on the Managed Aggregate Supply System (Published 18 October 2012; DCLG )

Para 26: Equally an adequate or excess landbank is not a reason for withholding planning permission unless there are other planning objections which are not outweighed by planning benefits. There may be valid reasons why an application of minerals development is brought forward in an area where there exists an adequate landbank, including:

significant future increases in demand that can be forecast with reasonable certainty; the location of the consented reserve is inappropriately located relative to the main market areas; the nature, type and qualities of the aggregate such as its suitability for a particular use within a distinct and separate market; known constraints on the availability of consented reserves that might limit output over the plan period.

Page 177 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 178 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 179 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 198 Agenda Item 9b

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 3 January 2013 A Report by the Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability ______

Application No: 4/12/9005 District: Copeland

Applicant: Mr Geoff Storey Parish: Millom Without Parish Aggregate Industries UK Ltd Council High Roads Carnforth Received: 4 October 2012

PROPOSAL Retention of temporary aggregate loading facility and access track

Land at Castle Farm, Off A5093, Millom, LA18 5EY ______

Page 199

1.0 RECOMMENDATION

1.1 That planning permission is Granted for the reasons stated in Appendix 1 and subject to the conditions in Appendix 2.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The proposal is for the retention of temporary aggregate loading facility, welfare cabin and access track.

2.2 The proposal is for the retention of a 50 m x 50 m aggregate storage area along with a section of an existing farm access. The storage area was given temporary approval in 2008 for 18 months (4/08/9007) to allow the transport of material to Drigg via the rail system, this has subsequently expired. The works involved the removal of minimum amount of top soil to allow the laying of 300 mm of hardcore on a terram membrane. The principle of the design of the aggregate loading facility was to minimise the level of development in the rural area. The appearance of the hardstanding would be typical of one which could be found on farmsteads.

2.3 Infrastructure on the storage area would involve the siting of a welfare unit, four temporary lighting towers would be located in the vicinity of the existing gated entrance from the aggregate storage area to the loading area.

2.4 It is proposed to store up to 4,000 tonnes of aggregates in this area which would be loaded onto rail wagons for delivery. The delivery of aggregate would take place during the day. It is anticipated that a maximum of 75 loads of stone would be delivered to the site each day, this figure is equivalent to the capacity of a single train load.

2.5 Access to the site would be via an existing farm track for the first 250 m from the A5093, which is also a public footpath, and then by the new access track to the storage area. It is proposed to have a banksman available during the day to allow the safe passage of pedestrians along the section of public right of way. Pedestrians would have priority passage to HGVs. It is envisaged that a maximum of 75 vehicles would visit the site daily, i.e. 150 vehicle movements along the access road.

2.6 It is proposed to work the site 07.00 to 18.00 Monday to Friday and 07.00 to 13.00 on Saturday for HGV deliveries. There would be no working on Sundays or Bank/Public holidays. Rail loading would take place between 22.00 and 05.00 inclusive.

2.7 The nearest residential property is Salthouse Farm, 415 metres to the south of the site.

3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 Copeland Borough Council – No objection.

Page 200

3.2 Highway Authority – No objection subject to the following conditions being implemented on any planning approval. The access lane shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound material for a distance of 15 m, the access route from the public highway to the loading area shall be maintained in a good standard of repair, no vehicles shall leave the site in a condition that would cause mud or other material to be deposited on the highway, temporary signage and all vehicles shall be sheeted.

3.3 Natural England – No objection is raised with regards to Natura 2000 site and SSSI. However insufficient information regarding protected species has been submitted, several species of bats are using features that are to be affected by the proposed development.

3.4 Ramblers Association – Subject to their being no undesirable impact on the current rights of way access, no objection.

3.5 Network Rail – No objection, however, loading at the site by night will be by agreement and only when the aggregate distribution is for local projects within Cumbria. This is because of the delay risk if trains are required to go further afield this is also likely to impact on daytime passenger and freight services on the route. The applicant is liable for all costs incurred by the Network Rail Asset Protection Engineer and the Network Rail Maintenance Team in facilitating the proposal including, but not limited too, any drainage working and drainage clearing/cleaning and any works to any decking at the site or any protection to Network Rails assets.

3.6 Millom Town Council – No objection

3.7 The local Member - Ms S Brown has been notified.

3.8 Millom Without Parish Council – No objection

3.9 One representation has been received from Castle Cottages who are concerned with noise during night time working, wagons speeding on the road, state of the highway (i.e. mud, pot holes etc) and generator leaking oil into the watercourse.

4.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT

4.1 The proposal is for the retention of the rail sidings until 2021 which would run parallel with the life of the quarry.

Policy

4.2 The proposal is supported in terms of both national and local policy as the scheme would reduce road miles. This is in line with Minerals and Waste Development Framework Policy DC 1 – Traffic and Transport and CS 1 – Sustainable Location and Design. Copeland Local Plan Policy TSP 11 – Transport.

4.3 The scheme also conforms with Minerals and Waste Development Framework Policies DC 2 – General Criteria, DC 10 – Biodiversity, DC 16 – Restoration and Afteruse and CS 5 – Afteruse and Restoration.

Page 201

4.4 Copeland Local Plan relevant policies include ENV 1 – Nature Conservation, ENV 14 – Access to the Countryside, TSP 2 – Traffic Management, TSP - 4 and TSP 5 – New development and TSP - 10 and TSP 11 – Rail Transport.

Highways

4.5 Access to the site is directly from A5093 from a sweeping bend in the road. This provides good visibility in both directions. The entrance is a tarmaced lane the lane was tarmaced under planning permission 5/08/9007 this has remained in situ and would remain for the duration of the proposed scheme. A condition would be imposed requiring the lane is kept in a reasonable state of repair.

4.6 The number of vehicles that would access the site when material is required to be transported by rail would be in the region of 75 loads (150 wagon movements) per day. The facility would be conditioned so that the site would only be worked and material stored on site only as and when required by contract.

4.7 One letter of objection has been received from a local resident who was concerned with vehicles not abiding to the speed limits in the area. This has been brought to the attention of Aggregate Industries. This is outside the control of the Local Planning Authority.

Visual Impact

4.8 The storage site is some 415 m from the nearest residential property. The land is classed as urban fringe, generally flat areas influenced by urban and leisure related development, dereliction and transportation routes. The land undulates gently but there is a relatively steep mound on the western side of the storage area which would act as a visual and acoustic barrier from receptors. The storage site is also screened by substantial hedgerows. I consider its use would have limited visual impact, the main visual intrusion being from the public footpath which runs parallel to the railway.

Noise

4.9 Because of the distance of the site from potential receptors it is not envisaged that delivery of material would be a problem. The nearest receptor is 415 m to the west of the site. The noise of vehicles on the access would be no different from this arising from the movement of vehicles on the public highway.

4.10 The situation when loading trains at night is more complex and difficult to assess. This has to take place at night when other rail traffic is not running. As this is a temporary loading facility loading would be by a loading shovel at one point of the track (there is an existing level crossing affording access to the track). The train would move progressively forward to allow individual trucks to be loaded. It is understood that the trains are 312 m in length and as a consequence whilst the site itself is 415 m from nearest receptor the engine and front of the train would be far closer, perhaps 300 m from the nearest property by the time loading is completed. It is proposed to impose a condition which would allow noise monitoring to take place during the loading of the material during night time operations.

Page 202

4.11 During the previous temporary operational period (4/08/9007) a couple of complaints were received from residents along the railway line as running trains were waiting on the line close to residential properties for the last passenger train to depart which was disrupting sleep for young children. This issue was resolved and it was agreed that the trains would rest outside Millom (Haverigg Crossing) and would be moved to the sidings once the last passenger train had departed (22:02). This arrangement would remain in situ with this application.

Biodiversity

4.12 Natural England have raised concerns with regards to bats in the area and the affect the temporary lighting columns would have on their flight and foraging patterns. In the Ecological Impact Assessment submitted it identifies that “if the use of the site at night is to be more than a temporary period of 3 months between 1 April and mid-November further bat activity surveys should be carried out between May and September to assess the magnitude of bat disturbance due to lighting”. Natural England have suggested that a bat activity survey be carried out between May and September to assess the likely impact of lighting disturbing foraging bats. It is proposed that an appropriately worded condition is imposed on the granting of any planning permission to ensure the assessment of bats foraging and flight patterns can be adequately assessed.

Network Rail

4.13 Network Rail have raised no objection on the storage of aggregate at the site however they have clarified that loading to rail at the site by night would be by agreement with Network Rail and only for aggregate distribution for local projects within Cumbria. This is to prevent disruption to trains further afield and would also likely to impact on daytime passenger and freight service routes. This agreement could not be controlled by a planning condition as it is outside the jurisdiction of the Local Planning Authority.

Other

4.14 Loading would involve the loading shovel crossing the public footpath between the storage area and the railway. This would take place between 22.00 and 05.00 hours. Whilst the level of pedestrian use at those times is likely to be very low a sentry would be provided to safeguard the public.

4.15 Temporary lighting would be required and used as and when required for the loading of material onto the trains. There is some potential for light pollution, which might also affect nocturnal wildlife. I consider that these matters could be addressed by ensuring proper control of lighting and would propose a condition on any permission to cover this matter.

4.16 Conditions would also cover hours of operation for deliveries to the site, noise from plant (including reversing alarms), dust etc.

Page 203

Concerns of Local Residents

4.17 One letter of concern has been received from a local resident who has raised concern over speeding vehicles passing their property, condition of the highway (i.e. pot holes) and noise from the loading of material during the evening onto the trains.

4.18 The section of highway from the quarry to rail loading site is national speed limit and has no weight restrictions imposed. However, drivers do have to abide by the drivers code of practice implemented by the quarry. With regards to the condition of the road this is a difficult one to assess. Highways have not raised any concerns with the state of the highway. With regards to noise from the site an appropriately worded conditions would be imposed to ensure that noise is monitored and where necessary mitigation measures are undertaken to reduce any noise impact.

4.19 Concern has also been raised with regards to the generator leaking within the site. It is proposed to impose a condition that the generator be placed on plant nappies to prevent any leakage into the watercourses.

Human Rights Act 1998

4.20 The proposal will have a limited impact on the visual, residential and environmental amenity of the area. Any impacts on the rights of local property owners to a private and family life and peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1) are minimal and proportionate to the wider social and economic interests of the community.

Conclusion

4.21 This proposal complies with policies and seeks to switch transport of materials from road to rail, where possible. There is a clear benefit of replacing HGV’s with trains both in environmental terms and in terms of reducing the impact on other road users. The site operated satisfactorily for the temporary period of 18 months in 2008 and it contributed significantly to reducing road miles. The proposed scheme would again contribute significantly to reducing road miles over the life span of the scheme.

4.22 I am satisfied that measures proposed would ensure the safety of users of footpaths in and around the site.

4.23 I am satisfied that the proposal would have a limited impact on the amenities of residential properties in the area and the road network. I recommend that the application is approved subject to appropriately worded conditions being imposed.

Paul Feehily Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability

Contact Mrs Jayne Petersen, Kendal, tel: 01539 713549, email: [email protected]

Page 204

Background Papers Planning Application File Reference No. 4/12/9005

Electoral Division Identification Seascale & Whicham ED - Ms S Brown \\ccc-prdc- fp03\kendal$\Filing\planning\applications\copeland\2012\4129005_Castle_Farm_Aggregate_Loading_Facility\130102DCandR Report.doc

Page 205

Appendix 1 Ref No. 4/12/9005 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 3 January 2013

THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010

Summary of Reasons For Grant of Planning Permission

1 This application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, in the context of national and regional planning policy guidance and advice and the relevant development plan policies.

2 The key development plan policies taken into account by the County Council before granting permission were as follows:

National Planning Policy Framework

4. Promoting sustainable transport

29. Transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives.

35. Plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people. Therefore developments should be located and designed where practical to accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies.

11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

113. Local Authorities should set criteria based policies against which proposals for any development on or affecting protected wildlife or geodiversity sites or landscape area will be judged. Distinctions should be made between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites, so that protection is commensurate with their status and gives appropriate weight to their importance.

13. Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals

142. Minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth and out quality of life. It is therefore important that there Is a sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. However, since minerals are a finite natural resource and can only be worked where they are found, it is important to make best use of them to secure their long term conservation.

Page 206

Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework Development Control Policies (DC) and Core Strategy (CS) Policies

Policy DC1 – Traffic and Transport

Proposals for minerals and waste developments should be located where they are well related to the strategic road network as defined in the Local Transport Plan or have potential for rail or sea transport and sustainable travel to work and are located to minimise operational “minerals and waste road miles”.

Policy DC2 – General Criteria

Minerals and Waste proposals must, where appropriate, demonstrate that : a. noise levels, blast vibrations and air over-pressure levels would be within acceptable limits, b. there will be no significant degradation of air quality (from dust and emissions) c. public rights of way or concessionary paths are not adversely affected or if this is not possible either temporary or permanent alternative provision is made d. carbon emissions from buildings, plant and transport have been minimised e. issues of ground stability have been addressed.

Policy DC 10 – Biodiversity and Geodiversity

Proposals for minerals and waste developments that would have an impact on locally important biodiversity and geological conservation assets, as defined in the Core Strategy, will be required to identify their likely impacts on and also their potential to enhance, restore or add to these resources and to functional ecological and green infrastructure networks.

Policy DC 16 – Afteruse and Restoration

Proposals for minerals extraction or for temporary waste facilities such as landfill, should be accompanied by detailed proposals for restoration including proposals for appropriate afteruse, financial provision and long term management where necessary. Restoration and enhancement measures should maximise their contribution to national, regional and local biodiversity objectives and targets. In all cases restoration schemes must demonstrate that the land is stable and that the risk of future collapse of any mine workings has been minimised.

Policy CS 1 – Sustainable Location and Design

Proposals for minerals and waste management development should demonstrate that : their location will minimise as far as practicable the “minerals and waste road miles” involved in supplying the minerals or managing the wastes unless other environmental/sustainability and for minerals, geological considerations override this aim.

Page 207

Policy CS 5 – Afteruse and Restoration

Restoration and aftercare schemes for mineral working and waste management sites should demonstrate that best practicable measures have been taken to secure full advantage of their potential to help deliver sustainability objectives relating to the environment and the economy of the county.

Saved Policies of Cumbria & Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016

Policy E 37 – Landscape Character

Development and land use change should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape character types and sub types. Proposals will be assessed in relation to locally distinctive natural or built features, visual intrusion or impact and scale in relation to the landscape features.

Copeland Local Plan 2001

ENV1 – Proposals for development which may affect a site of international nature conservation importance including proposed or confirmed Ramsar sites, SPAs and SACs will only be permitted where there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest for the development.

ENV14 – The Council will protect existing rights of way from development at the planning stage and will support proposals for improvement and promotion of local importance circular routes.

TSP2 – Where appropriate and in association with existing or proposed development, the Council will promote traffic management measures to improve road safety, achieve environmental improvements and to relieve existing housing areas or town or village centres from extraneous through traffic and commercial traffic.

TSP4 – Proposals for new developments which are likely to generate significant traffic volumes particularly involving the regular movement of heavy goods vehicles will normally be permitted where the development site has direct access to an appropriate standard of road/or where the applicant undertakes to improve highway conditions along agreed routes.

TSP5 – Proposals for new development will be expected to take into account the needs of pedestrians, disabled people and cyclists and emergency vehicles in the design and layout of buildings and facilities on site.

TSP10 – Proposals for development which would help to improve overall standards and service provision for both passengers and freight handling on the Cumbria Coastal Railway Line will normally be permitted.

TSP11 – The Council will support the transfer of freight traffic to the railway and proposals for new development likely to have high rail dependency will be approved subject to other policies in the plan.

Page 208

3 In summary, the reasons for granting permission are that the County Council is of the opinion that the proposed development is in accordance with the development plan, there are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made otherwise and with the planning conditions included in the notice of planning consent, any harm would reasonably by mitigated. Furthermore, any potential harm to interests of acknowledged importance is likely to be negligible and would be outweighed by the benefits of the development.

Page 209

Appendix 2 Ref No. 4/12/9005 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 3 January 2013

Conditions

Time Limit for Implementation of Permission 1. This permission shall be for a limited period only expiring on 31 December 2021, by which date the operations hereby permitted shall have ceased and the site shall be restored within a further period of six months in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to commencement of restoration.

When approved the scheme shall be implemented in its entirety.

Reason: The Local Planning Authority considers that the restricted time limit specified, having regard to Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, is applicable in this instance.

Approved Documents 2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved documents, hereinafter referred to as the approved scheme. The approved scheme shall comprise the following:

a. The submitted Application Form – dated 2 October 2012 b. Retention of temporary aggregate loading facility – October 2012 c. Plans numbered: i) MRLA_300709 – Site survey d. Design and access statement e. Flood risk assessment f. Ecological Impact Assessment – dated June 2008 g. Drivers guide to health and safety h. Aggregate Industries cardinal rules i. The details or schemes approved in relation to conditions attached to this permission. j. This Decision Notice

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out to an approved appropriate standard and to avoid confusion as to what comprises the approved scheme.

3. Before any further activity on site a report setting out a strategy for investigation and mitigating any impact on bats as a consequence of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The report shall include the following details:

 Surveying methods and timings (with reference to the Bat Conservation Trust guidelines)  Results of Surveys  Analysis of results

Page 210

 Proposed mitigation strategy in light of results and the proposed development.

When approved the mitigation strategy shall be implemented in full.

Reason: To ensure European Protected Species remain in favourable conservation status.

4. No vehicles shall leave the site in a condition that would give rise to the deposit of mud, dust or other debris on the public highway.

Reason : In the interests of highway safety.

5. All vehicles used to transport aggregate mineral from the site onto the public highway shall be sheeted so as to not deposit any mineral upon the highway. Reason: To ensure that material is not released into the air or deposited upon the highway in the interest of local amenity and highway safety.

6. All plant, machinery and vehicles used on site shall be effectively silenced at all times in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations so as to minimise the level of noise generated by their operation.

Reason : To safeguard the amenity of local residents by ensuring that the noise is minimised and so does not constitute a nuisance outside the boundaries of the site.

7. Only a white noise reversing warning system shall be used on the site unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason : To safeguard the amenity of local residents by ensuring that the noise is minimised and so does not constitute a nuisance outside the boundaries of the site.

8. The operator shall provide, implement and maintain such suppression measures as may be agreed by the Local Planning Authority to minimise the emission of dust from the development hereby permitted. Such measures shall include the spraying of haul roads and working areas with water to satisfactorily suppress dust in periods of dry weather in order that it does not constitute a nuisance outside the site.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity by ensuring that dust does not constitute a nuisance outside the boundaries of the site.

9. No operation hereby permitted shall take place outside the following hours:

HGV Deliveries

07.00 - 18.00 hours Monday to Fridays 07:00 – 13:00 hours Saturday

and not at all on Sundays or Public and Bank Holidays.

Page 211

Freight loading

22:00 – 05:00 hours Monday to Sunday

However this condition shall not operate so as to prevent carrying out outside of these hours of essential maintenance of plant and machinery used on the site.

Reason : To protect the amenities of local residents.

10. Details of the height, type, position and angle of glare of any floodlights shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the development hereby permitted being continued. The details and measures so approved shall be carried out and maintained thereafter whilst ever the use subsists.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

11. The access lane shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or otherwise bound and shall be constructed and completed before development is brought into use. This surfacing shall extend for a distance of at least 15 metres from the carriageway edge of the adjacent highway and shall incorporate junction marking. This should remain in a good state of repair for the life of this permission.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

12. No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision of temporary works access signage shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.

When approved the scheme shall be implemented in its entirety whilst the site is in operation.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety

13. Before any further activtiy noise monitoring measures shall be implemented in accordance with a scheme to be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The scheme shall cover:

 establishing a background noise level during day time and night time periods  prevailing weather conditions and comments on any significant noise  noise monitoring locations  frequency of measurements  submission of results to the local planning authority  procedures to be adopted if noise limits go above a certain level  sources which are audible.  night time upper limit

On receiving written approval the scheme shall be implemented in its entirety. Reason: To enable the effects of the development to be adequately monitored during the course of operations and set adequate control measures.

Page 212

14. The use of any generators on site shall be “Plant Nappies” to ensure no spillage of oils onto the ground.

Reason: To minimise the risk of pollution to water courses or groundwater resource.

Informative

Planning conditions should be complied with at all times, failure to do so could entail enforcement action being undertaken to rectify the matter.

Prior agreement with Network Rail is required prior to any live loading taking place.

Page 213 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 214 Agenda Item 9c

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 3 January 2013 A Report by the Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability ______

Application No: 5/12/9009 District: South Lakeland

Applicant: L & W Wilson (Endmoor) Ltd Parish: New Hutton Gatebeck Road Received: 27 July 2012

PROPOSAL Erection and operation of wash plant and associated infrastructure and increased height of screening mound.

Roan Edge Landfill and Recycling Facility Site, New Hutton, Killington, Kendal, LA8 0AP ______

Page 215

1.0 RECOMMENDATION

1.1 That planning permission is granted for the reasons stated in Appendix 1 and subject to the conditions in Appendix 2.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The Landfill and Recycling Centre at Roan Edge, Killington, located approximately 5.7km to the east of Kendal, is operated by the applicant L&W Wilson (Endmoor) Ltd. The company is the largest site clearance, demolition, plant hire and construction work contractor in South Lakeland with an on-going need for an inert waste management site for recycling inert wastes and landfilling those residual wastes that cannot be recycled.

2.2 Planning permission was granted in March 1995 (ref. 5/95/9002) for landraising a 6.4 hectare area with inert waste and recycling inert materials. At that time it was estimated that around 50,000 cubic metres of waste would be deposited each year and that the site would have an operational life of six years. Planning permission was granted for this limited period which expired in June 2001.

2.3 The planning permission was amended in 1996 (ref. 5/96/9013) to enable the storage, crushing and screening of wastes for recycling and to secure additional landscape screening measures. The planning permission was further amended in March 2001 (ref. 5/00/9019) to allow greater flexibility in site operations and to continue the use of the site until June 2006. In 2004 (ref. 5/04/9006), planning permission was granted for a new access to the site. In 2006 (ref. 5/06/9008 and 5/06/9009) further permissions were granted for a 10 year extension of time to operate the site and for the continued use of the new access, and to engineer an area of 1.4 hectares (by extracting a quantity of stone) to increase void space and provide a lower, better screened area to carry out recycling operations. Planning permission for the landfill operation, including the recycling of inert waste and the crushing and screening of these wastes using mobile plant to produce secondary aggregate, expires on 1 November 2016.

2.4 This current planning application is for the construction of plant to wash the recycled wastes to produce a clean secondary aggregate. The plant would provide a further level of refinement in the processing of inert materials to enable the production of a washed, cleaner and so higher quality secondary aggregate, which would increase the range and opportunities for using the secondary aggregate product. The process would allow a greater proportion of material to be recycled, thereby reducing the volume of waste that would need to be landfilled at the site.

2.5 The washing process would grade the components of the waste by size to produce a usable product. The proposal therefore includes the erection of three bays (each 20 metres by 10 metres by 2 metres high) for the storage of these secondary aggregate products until dispatch from the site.

2.6 The proposed plant and storage bays would be located entirely within the area permitted for landfilling and recycling of inert waste, in the northern part of the site close to the weighbridge and site office. The wash plant comprises a Warrior rinser, a sand plant, a logwash, a dewatering screen and thickener tank,

Page 216

a buffer tank to hold the dirty water until treated and silt removed, a flocculent tank, a centrifuge, a clean water tank and a generator. The tallest of these structures is the conical thickener at 10 metres high. The buffer tank is 7 metres high and the clarified water tank is 6 metres high. The plant would be static and located on a concrete base with surface water captured and drained to a central sump.

2.7 Materials processed by the wash plant would be those brought to the site with high silt/clay content. The first stage of the washing process would involve the material being washed through the Warrior rinser. This plant would use water primarily used previously in the process but supplemented by water provided by an on-site borehole, and this water would be used to separate sand and stone at the start of the process. Sand would be sent to the sand plant and the stone to the logwash. Stone material would be washed again in the logwash with the smaller particle size material being sent to the sand plant. The remaining stone would then go through a three way split screen to grade the stone by size. Dirty water resulting from these processes would be sent to the thickener, within which flocculent would be added and suspended solids within the dirty water settled out. The clarified water would then be reused in the washing process. Sludge from the thickener tank would be pumped to the centrifuge where it would be dewatered: the dirty water would go back into the thickener tank and dewatered sludge would be removed to a stockpile for disposal into the landfill.

2.8 Around 30% of the material processed by the wash plant would remain as waste and go to landfill. The remaining 70% would be useable aggregate comprising fill sand, sharp sand and graded aggregate.

2.9 This application also proposes to increase the height of a 100 metre section of the existing grass vegetated screen bund, along the eastern edge of the site, by a maximum of three metres, from 275 metres to 278 metres AOD, in order to provide enhanced screening for the plant. It is proposed that all of the plant components would be finished in a visually recessive colour such as grey or green.

2.10 Throughput at the site is currently around 30,000 tonnes per annum. The applicant advises that this proposal would not increase the volume of material being processed and/or landfilled at the site, but would provide a higher specification of recycled material with an increased number of uses and users. Secondary aggregate deliveries would be made by backload wherever possible. It is not anticipated that there would be any significant increases in the number of vehicles visiting the site or the type of traffic as a result of the proposals.

3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 South Lakeland District Council – Planning has no objection to the proposed development subject to the following provisos:

the duration of the permission being linked to the duration of the operation of Roan Edge Landfill Site;

the height of the proposed earth mounding being increased to provide better screening from key eastern vantage points;

Page 217

approval of dark/recessive colours for the exterior of the proposed plant, and

the detail of the proposed plant/infrastructure taking into account the technical advice of the Environment Agency and other specialist consultees.

3.2 South Lakeland District Council – Environmental Health has no objections, subject to the attachment of the following conditions to any approval in order to avoid potential problems with dust from the site:

the storage bays shall be enclosed on three sides and materials stored within the bays shall not exceed the height of the bays, and the bays shall be maintained in a good state of repair for the life of the site;

no operations shall take place outside the hours 07.00-19.00 hours Mondays to Saturdays and 08.00-17.00 hours Sundays and Bank or Public Holidays;

efficient means shall be installed for cleaning vehicles and shall be used by all vehicles leaving the site (with the exception of cars);

during periods of dry weather, the site access and working areas shall be sprayed with water to suppress dust, and a means of cleaning the access road between the site entrance and the A684 shall be available for use as required; and

the proposed bund shall be established prior to use of the washing plant and maintained for the use of the site.

3.3 The Highway Authority has no objections as it is considered that the proposal does not affect the public highway.

3.4 The Local Member Upper Kent ED, Mr SB Collins, has been notified.

3.5 New Hutton Parish Council has no objections to the proposal provided a full study has been completed to ensure that there will be no environmental effects, especially to watercourses. The Council is, however, seriously concerned about the extent of quarrying being carried out on the site. The Council is not aware that the operator has permission to quarry rock, and considers that there is not as much recycling being undertaken as in the past. The Council strongly recommends that a programme is set up to monitor activities on the site.

3.6 The Environment Agency considers the proposed development to be acceptable provided planning conditions are attached to any approval to ensure that facilities for the storage of oils, fuels and chemicals are suitably bunded. The Agency also requests that the applicant is informed of the need for them to provide a report which assesses abstraction rates and groundwater resources for agreement with the Agency’s Groundwater Section in Warrington. This is because the application depends on the utilisation of water from a borehole. The Agency considers that this matter does not justify inclusion as a planning condition, as it would be dealt with through an application for an abstraction licence.

Page 218

3.7 Natural England has no comments to make as the application is not likley to result in significant impacts on statutory designated sites, landscapes or species. Natural England states that it is for the local authority to determine whether or not this application is consistent with national or local policies on biodiversity and landscape.

3.8 The Ramblers has no objections to the propsed development.

3.9 No representations had been received when this report was prepared.

4.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT

4.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Paragraph 196; March 2012) reiterates the requirement of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It also states (Paragraphs 14 and 197) that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

4.2 PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (March 2011) sets out the Government ’s national policies on waste and will remain in place until the National Waste Management Plan is published. Paragraph 1 of PPS10 states that the overall objective of Government policy on waste is to ‘… protect human health and the environment by producing less waste and by using it as a resource wherever possible. By more sustainable waste management, moving the management of waste up the ‘waste hierarchy’ of prevention, preparing for re-use, recycling, other recovery and disposing only as a last resort, the Government aims to break the link between economic growth and the environmental impact of waste.’ Paragraph 2 of PPS10 refers to the role of planning and states that positive planning has an important role in delivering sustainable waste management ‘…by providing sufficient opportunities for new waste management facilities of the right type in the right place and at the right time.’ The Coalition Government has reiterated the approach of continuing to increase rates of recycling. Paragraph 7 of the DEFRA publication Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011 states that ‘ On recycling, we must continue to increase the percentage of waste collected from both households and businesses which is recycled…’

4.3 North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy (to 2021) (RSS) contains several policies of relevance to this proposal. Policy EM9 (Secondary and Recycled Aggregates) states that Regional Planning Bodies will work with the Regional Aggregates Working Party, mineral and waste planning authorities and others to maximise the role played by secondary aggregates and recycled sources of aggregates in meeting the Region’s requirements by , inter alia, working with the construction industry to achieve a target of 25% of construction aggregates to be from secondary or recycled sources by 2021. Policy EM10 (Regional Approach to Waste Management) states that plans, strategies, proposals and schemes should promote and require the provision of sustainable new waste management infrastructure, facilities and systems that contribute to the development of the North West by reducing harm to the environment,

Page 219

improving the efficiency of resources, stimulating investment and maximising economic opportunities. It sets out a number of waste targets that should be achieved, and exceeded where possible, which refer to waste reduction, recycling and re-use.

4.4 RSS Policy EM11 (Waste Management Principles) reiterates the need to manage waste in accordance with the Government’s ‘waste hierarchy’. Policy EM12 (Locational Principles) states that waste planning and disposal authorities should provide for communities to take responsibility for their own waste; that the final residue should be disposed of in one of the nearest facilities, and that waste management facilities are sited to avoid unnecessary carriage of waste over long distances. Policy EM13 (Provision of Nationally, Regionally and Sub- Regionally Significant Waste Management Facilities) states that in considering proposals for waste management facilities the ability of existing established sites to meet the needs of the region/sub-region should be fully explored, and that, wherever possible, such sites shall be used in preference to other sites where waste management activities have not previously been located, provided proposals satisfy other planning and licensing conditions.

4.5 The above demonstrates that a fundamental objective of waste planning policy, evident at national, regional and local policy levels, is the requirement to manage waste in a more sustainable way, in accordance with the ‘w aste hierarchy ’. There is strong policy support for the recycling of wastes, an essential component of the hierarchy and for the production of secondary aggregates. The Roan Edge site already recycles inert waste to produce secondary aggregate. This proposal would enable an additional level of processing at the site, as it would enable materials with a high clay/silt content to also be recycled. Aggregates produced as a result of this process would be of a higher specification and have a greater range of uses, thereby increasing the re- use of such materials. The proposal is evidently compliant with these general policy principles at all levels.

4.6 The policies most relevant to considering this proposal are those contained in the Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework (CMWDF). CMWDF Generic Development Control Policy DC4 states that waste management facilities that accord with Core Strategy Policies 2, 8 and 9, and which do not have adverse environmental impacts, will be permitted if they conform to certain locational criteria. For proposals of this nature; that is, for recycling facilities for construction and demolition waste, mineral and other wastes, it states that proposals will be permitted at active quarries and landfill sites, and on suitable industrial estates.

4.7 This proposal is for the establishment of a wash plant to produce a higher quality secondary aggregate on an existing landfill site. It therefore clearly complies with the requirements of Policy DC4, RSS Policy EM13 and therefore Paragraph 2 of PPS10, referred to above. The proposed wash plant would, by providing a further level of refinement in the processing of the waste materials, contribute to the competitiveness of the applicant’ s business and so help secure local jobs at the site. This complies with Core Strategy Policy 2 which requires developments to demonstrate that proposals would realise their potential for economic benefit, including matters such as safeguarding jobs.

Page 220

4.8 CMWDF Core Strategy Policy 8 indicates that sufficient capacity will be provided by facilities within Cumbria to manage all of the waste arising within Cumbria, with the acceptance of limited cross-boundary movements. This proposal and the operation of the site in general is compliant with this policy as the majority of the waste brought to the site is from Cumbria (around 70%) and South Lakeland District in particular, however, some of the material is derived from other areas outside the administrative area. For example, the applicant has been undertaking work in the north of Lancaster District and the waste materials have been dealt with at the Roan Edge site as the closest facility, albeit in a different administrative area, thereby minimising the waste miles necessary to deal with the waste. In the future similar material from similar locations may be transported to Roan Edge for washing. Where possible the waste material is brought back to the site by return load (‘backload’) as the site operator provides aggregate from Roan Edge for construction works and then brings waste from that same site to Roan Edge for processing.

4.9 By operating in this way, the proposal is also compliant with the locational principles of RSS Policy EM12, CMWDF Core Strategy Policy 1 and CMWDF Development Control Policy DC1 which all require that waste management facilities are sustainably located to minimise ‘waste miles’ , and the wider principles of RSS Policy EM12 which requires that communities take responsibility for managing their own wastes and that the final residue is disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate facilities. Development Control Policy DC1 also requires waste facilities to be located where they relate well to the strategic road network. It is considered that the proposal accords with this policy as the Roan Edge site has, via a short section of the U5637, immediate access to the A684, and from this point is only approximately 1km from the M6.

4.10 CMWDF Core Strategy Policy 9 sets out in broad terms the capacity that is required and the type of facilities that will be needed to manage municipal, commercial and industrial waste until the end of the development plan period in 2020. It states that the sites identified will provide an integrated network of a range of appropriate and necessary waste management facilities across the County, and that preference will be given to sites that can accommodate more than one type of facility. As an existing site, Roan Edge is consistent with this policy in that it is a landfill site as well as a recycling centre for inert wastes. The proposed wash plant would provide a further level of refinement in the recycling activities at the site.

4.11 In order to be fully compliant with the requirements of Policy DC4, it must be demonstrated that no adverse environmental impacts would result from the proposed development. Considerations include potential impacts upon landscape and visual receptors, ecology, the water environment, residential and local amenity and the potential impacts of traffic. These are assessed in turn.

Landscape and Visual Impacts

4.12 The site is positioned on a ridge slope that descends eastwards towards Killington Lake and the M6 Motorway. Roan Edge Quarry, operated by Cemex Ltd lies immediately west and Lambrigg Wind Farm is located 300 metres to the north. The nearest dwelling is located 670 metres to the north west of the site; a

Page 221

further, Moorcock Hall, is located approximately 1.4km to the north east, a collection of dwellings at Hutton Park is located about 1.3km to the west and the nearest settlement, New Hutton, is located approximately 3km to the southwest. The application site has direct access, via the U5637, onto the Kendal to Sedbergh A684 immediately north of the site and is approximately 1km from Junction 37 of the M6. A local footpath to the immediate north east of the site connects the U5637 to the A684 and a bridleway runs between Roan Edge Quarry and the landfill site immediately along its western boundary.

4.13 Given the elevated and exposed location of the site, the most important issue to consider in assessing the environmental impacts of this proposal is its potential impact upon landscape character and visual amenity. The policy context for considering this impact is provided by the North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy (to 2021) (RSS) Policies DP 7 and EM 1(A); CMWDF Core Strategy Policy 4 and CMWDF Development Control Policies DC 2 and DC 12. RSS Policy DP 7 requires proposals to respect the character and distinctiveness of landscapes and maintain and enhance the tranquillity of the open countryside and rural areas. Policy EM 1(A) requires proposals to identify, protect, maintain and enhance natural, historic and other distinctive features that characterise the landscape.

4.14 Core Strategy Policy 4 reiterates the need to protect, maintain and enhance the features that contribute to the character of the landscape. Policy DC 12 states that proposals for development should be compatible with the distinctive features and characteristics of Cumbria’s landscapes and should avoid significant adverse impacts on the natural and historic landscape; consider the effects on locally distinctive natural or built features, on scale in relation to landscape features, on public access and community value of the landscape, on historic patterns and attributes, and on openness, remoteness and tranquillity. It further states that modern waste facilities should be of high quality design to minimise their impact on the landscape, or views from sensitive areas, and that landscape and visual impact assessments are undertaken where appropriate. Policy DC2 states that is assessing proposals, considerations will include the extent to which adverse effects can be controlled through sensitive siting and design, or visual screening.

4.15 The landfill site is positioned on a ridge slope that descends eastwards towards the M6 Motorway. It is located within landscape sub-type 11b ‘Low Fells’ as defined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCGT) (Cumbria County Council, March 2011). This is characterised by rolling low fells with rocky outcrops; open improved pasture; some areas of bracken, moorland and heather; small woodlands and scrub on the steeper slopes and by farms, and with distant views along the Kent and Lune valleys. The CLCGT describes this landscape as one which ‘… is still generally seen as open place to enjoy the countryside, with wide and largely unspoilt panoramic views.’ Development guidelines include ‘… ensuring that developments take advantage of the natural containment offered by intermediate ridges and horizons, avoiding sites on prominent edges of the plateau .’ Landscape sub-type 9b Rolling Farmland and Heath, characterised by plateaus with ridges and hollows, rough pasture with wet flushes and semi heathland, coniferous plantations and narrow wooded valleys, lies approximately 750m to the south east of the site.

Page 222

4.16 The whole area was formerly designated as a Landscape of County Importance, which indicates its landscape quality. Elevated ridges of Open Access Land lie in the vicinity, including Lambrigg Fell 290m to the north, Drybeck Hill 850m to the east and Firbank Fell 940m to the east. The location and proximity of the potential visual receptors are described in paragraph 4.12. These include local residents, users of the adjacent bridleway and footpath, and users of the M6 Motorway.

4.17 A landscape and visual appraisal was submitted by the applicant at the Council’s request. This has assessed the impact of the proposal upon the landscape character and the main visual receptors.

4.18 In terms of impacts on the landscape, the appraisal indicates that there would be a minor increase in the extent of site visibility in the Low Fells landscape sub- type as a result of the proposed wash plant, including the 3 metre increase to the screening bund height, and that this would be visible primarily from within the areas of higher ground on Lambrigg Fell and, to a lesser degree, from some parts to the south. From the northerly perspective, the marginal increase in bund height and the wash plant would be visible in the context of the existing landfill site and adjacent Roan Edge Quarry. From the southern and eastern parts of the landscape character area, open views west would comprise the upper parts of the proposed wash plant and a marginally increased vegetated screening bund. These effects would again be in the context of the existing landfill site, Lambrigg Wind Farm and the M6 Motorway. Similarly, the appraisal indicates that, in this context, the proposal would result in limited additional visibility from within the Rolling Farmland and Heath landscape sub-type.

4.19 The appraisal concludes that the effects of the proposal on the landscape character would be of slight to negligible magnitude and of moderate to minor significance. Notwithstanding the natural features of the landscape as described above, the area within which the wash plant is proposed is characterised by a degree of development, including Lambrigg Wind Farm, Junction 37 of the M6, Roan Edge Quarry and the landfill site. In this context, given the scale of change proposed and the fact that the proposal would only marginally increase the extent of the site’s visibility within the landscape , it is not considered that this development would result in any significant net impact upon the local landscape character. The conclusions of the appraisal in this regard are therefore accepted.

4.20 The appraisal assessed the potential effects of the proposal on the visual amenity of residents, motorists, walkers and cyclists. This concludes that, because of the undulating nature of the landform to the west of the site, the proposed development would not be visible from the nearest dwelling (the farm 670m to the north west of the site). The closest dwelling to experience any visibility would be Moorcock Hall, located approximately 1.4km to the north east of the site on the opposite side of the M6. The appraisal concludes that the effects upon residents would be negligible in magnitude and of minor significance.

Page 223

4.21 In terms of the impacts on motorists, those travelling north and southbound on the M6 Motorway; southbound on the Old Scotch Road adjacent to the east side of the M6, and westbound on the A684 heading towards Kendal, would experience the most direct views of the site, although only over relatively short sections of these routes. A photomontage prepared as part of the appraisal illustrates that the proposed increase in the height of the bund would screen the majority of the development from this aspect, the exception being the highest part of the wash plant, the 10 metre high conical thickener. There would also be limited visibility from Fairthorns Road to the south of the site on the eastern side of the M6. The appraisal concludes the effects upon motorists would be slight to negligible in magnitude and of moderate to minor significance.

4.22 The visual appraisal concludes that, users of the bridleway along the western boundary of the existing landfill site would be the most significantly affected in terms of recreational receptors, experiencing direct and open views of the wash plant. It concludes that the effects would be of major to moderate significance. Due to the local topography, views from the local footpath connecting the U5637 to the A684 would be of the vegetated screening bund only. The appraisal concludes that the effects would be of slight magnitude and moderate to minor significance as far as the impacts on these users and those of the Open Access Areas around the site are concerned. Views from these areas would be distant and in the context of the existing landfill site and Roan Edge Quarry and the proposal would represent only a marginal change.

4.23 In terms of visual impacts, the conclusions of the appraisal are also accepted. This is because the majority of the views would be in the context of the existing aforementioned developments and activities in this area. Again, given the scale of the proposed development in this wider context; its limited visibility; and the proposed mitigation measures in the form of raising the height of the vegetated screening bund by 3 metres, limiting the height of the materials stored in the storage bays to the height of the storage bays, and finishing the plant in dark/recessive colours (the implementation of which would be secured by planning conditions), it is considered that the scheme is compliant with the development plan policies outlined above and is therefore acceptable both in terms of it potential impacts on landscape character and visual amenity.

Ecology

4.24 There are no ecological designations of national or international significance in the vicinity of the site that could be impacted by the proposed development. There are, however, a number of local sites of County importance in the form of County Wildlife Sites (CWS) and UK Priority Habitats in the vicinity of application site. These (including Lambrigg Tarn and Fell CWS; Docker Fell Flushes CWS; Hutton Park Mire CWS; Brundrigg Moss CWS and UK Priority Habitat fen, marsh and swamp designation; Killington Reservoir CWS; Lily Mere and New Park Mosses CWS, and UK Priority Habitat heathland designation of Lambrigg Fell) are located from between 500 metres and 1.8km from the site. It is considered that primarily because of their distance from the application site, the proposal would not adversely impact upon these designations or the interest features within them.

Page 224

4.25 In terms of potential impacts upon protected species, Paragraph 98 of ODPM Circular 6/2005: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their impact within the Planning System (2005) states that ‘ The presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to t he species or its habitat.’ Local records over the last decade or so show the presence in the vicinity of the site of a number of Species of Principal Importance as listed, for the purpose of conserving biodiversity, under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) Act 2006. These include Common Lizard, Brown Hare, Small Heath butterfly, and a variety of birds including Reed Bunting, Sky Lark, Common Cuckoo, Curlew and Lapwing.

4.26 Having considered Natural England’s Standing Ad vice and the fact that the area proposed to be developed is on existing disturbed ground within an operational landfill site, it is unlikely that such species would be present on the site as conditions within it are not conducive, nor do there appear to be habitats present, to support such species. Following Natural England’s Standin g Advice, however, as a precaution, it is recommended that an informative is added to the decision notice stating that if a protected species is encountered during the course of the development, then works should cease and advice sought from an ecological consultant prior to continuing with the development.

The Water Environment

4.27 In terms of potential impacts on the water environment, all of the elements of the wash plant would be static and located on a concrete base. The base would be laid to falls with surface water captured and drained to a central sump. The sump would be emptied of any solids periodically as required. Water from the sump would either be pumped out or drained. The latter method would be subject to a discharge consent from the Environment Agency. These measures, together with a planning condition requiring the storage of all chemicals, oil, diesel or any other potentially polluting liquids within tanks that are bunded, should ensure that both surface and groundwater resources are protected during the operation of the proposed wash plant, in compliance with CMWDF Development Control Policy DC14. The proposed wash plant would be further compliant with this policy as it is proposed that the clarified water resulting from the washing process would be reused in the process thereby minimising water usage and ensuring sustainable water management.

4.28 The applicant has been informed of the Environment Agency ’s reques t regarding the need to provide information on abstraction rates and groundwater resources. Such information would be required for any forthcoming application for an abstraction licence.

Residential/Local Amenity and Traffic

4.29 As paragraph 4.12 explains, there are no dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the site, the closest, which is a single dwelling, being 670m to the north west. Any noise emanating from the plant should therefore not cause a nuisance. In order to protect general local amenity and to minimise the impacts of the development on local road users, however, planning conditions are proposed to

Page 225

limit hours of operation to those of the existing site; to ensure that dust does not become a nuisance outside the site, and to prevent material from the site from being tracked onto the public highway, in the interests of highway safety and local amenity. In terms of the potential impacts of traffic, it is not envisaged that this proposal would lead to any significant increase in the volume or character of traffic movements to and from the site as the proposal provides an additional component of processing from waste that would be taken to the site in any event.

4.30 A further planning condition requires the permission for the wash plant to cease upon cessation of landfilling operations, all structures associated with the wash plant including the bunding to be removed from the site, and the part of the site occupied by the wash plant to be restored in accordance with the existing approved restoration scheme for the site, again to protect the general amenity of the area. It is therefore concluded that this proposal is compliant with the general requirements of CMWDF Development Control Policy DC2, as far as impacts on local amenity are concerned.

Human Rights Act 1998

4.31 The proposal will have a limited impact on the landscape, visual and environmental amenity of the area. Planning conditions are proposed that should mitigate these impacts. Any impacts on the rights of local property owners to a private and family life and peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1) are minimal and proportionate to the wider social and economic interests of the community.

Conclusion

4.32 The proposed wash plant would provide a further level of refinement in the processing of inert materials to enable a greater proportion of material, which would otherwise be landfilled, to be recycled in the production of secondary aggregate. It would be located on an existing landfill and recycling site which relates well to the strategic road network and should, with the attachment of the conditions proposed, have limited environmental impacts.

4.33 The proposal is generally compliant with national, regional and local planning policies as indicated above and repre sents ‘sustainable development’ by its very nature. It is therefore considered that the ‘presumption in fa vour’ advocated by the NPPF should apply in this case, and that planning permission should be granted, subject to the planning conditions presented in Appendix 2.

Paul Feehily Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability

Contact: Rachel Brophy, Kendal; Tel: 01539 713413; Email: [email protected]

Background Papers: Planning Application File Reference No. 5/12/9009

Electoral Division Identification: Upper Kent ED - Mr SB Collins

\\ccc-prdc-fp03\kendal$\Filing\planning\applications\south_lakeland\2012\5129009_Roan_Edge_Landfill_WashPlant_(PP-02068446)\report 130103 dcr.doc

Page 226

Appendix 1 Ref No. 5/12/9009 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 3 January 2013

THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010

Summary of Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission

1 This application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, in the context of national and regional planning policy guidance and advice and the relevant development plan policies.

2 The key development plan policies taken into account by the County Council before granting permission were as follows:

NORTH WEST REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY (RSS) (2008-2021)

Policy DP 7 - Promote Environmental Quality

Environmental quality (including air, coastal and inland waters), should be protected and enhanced, especially by:

understanding and respecting the character and distinctiveness of places and landscapes; the protection and enhancement of the historic environment; promoting good quality design in new development and ensuring that development respects its setting taking into account relevant design requirements, the NW Design Guide and other best practice; reclaiming derelict land and remediating contaminated land for end-uses to improve the image of the region and use land resources efficiently; maximising opportunities for the regeneration of derelict or dilapidated areas; assessing the potential impacts of managing traffic growth and mitigating the impacts of road traffic on air quality, noise and health; promoting policies relating to green infrastructure and the greening of towns and cities; maintaining and enhancing the tranquillity of open countryside and rural areas; maintaining and enhancing the quantity and quality of biodiversity and habitat; ensuring that plans, strategies and proposals which alone or in combination could have a significant effect on the integrity and conservation objectives of sites of international importance for nature conservation are subject to assessment, this includes assessment and amelioration of the potential impacts of development (and associated traffic) on air quality, water quality and water levels.

Page 227

Policy EM1 (A) - Landscape

Plans, strategies, proposals and schemes should identify, protect, maintain and enhance natural, historic and other distinctive features that contribute to the character of landscapes and places within the North West. They should be informed by and recognise the importance of:

detailed landscape character assessments and strategies, which local authorities should produce, set in the context of the North West Joint Character Area Map (93). These will be used to identify priority areas for the maintenance, enhancement and/or restoration of that character and will under-pin and act as key components of criteria-based policies in LDFs; the special qualities of the environment associated with the nationally designated areas of the Lake District National Park, the Yorkshire Dales National Park, the Peak District National Park, the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), the Arnside and Silverdale AONB, the North Pennines AONB and Solway Coast AONB and their settings; the characteristics and setting of World Heritage Sites.

Policy EM 9 - Secondary and Recycled Aggregates

The Regional Planning Body will work with the Regional Aggregates Working Party, mineral and waste planning authorities, and others to maximise the role played by secondary and recycled sources of aggregates in meeting the Region’s requirements by:

working with the construction industry to achieve a target of 20% of construction aggregates to be from secondary or recycled sources by 2010 and 25% by 2021; encouraging local authorities and developers to incorporate temporary materials-recycling facilities on the sites of major demolition or construction projects; and plans and strategies identifying, sites or criteria for the provision of permanent recycling plants for construction and demolition waste in appropriate locations.

Policy EM 10 - A Regional Approach to Waste Management

Plans, strategies, proposals and schemes should promote and require the provision of sustainable new waste management infrastructure, facilities and systems that contribute to the development of the North West by reducing harm to the environment (including reducing impacts on climate change), improving the efficiency of resources, stimulating investment and maximising economic opportunities.

Plans and strategies should reflect the principles set out in the Waste Strategy for England 2007 and PPS10. They should seek to achieve the following regional waste targets, and to exceed them where practicable:

growth in municipal waste to be reduced to zero by 2014; 40% of household waste to be reused, recycled or composted by 2010; 45% by 2015; and 55% by 2020;

Page 228

value to be recovered from 53% of municipal solid waste by 2010 (including recycling/composting); and 67% by 2015 and 75% by 2020; zero future growth in commercial and industrial wastes; recycle 35% of all commercial and industrial wastes by 2020; value to be recovered from at least 70% of commercial and industrial wastes by 2020 (including recycling/composting).

Policy EM 11 - Waste Management Principles

Every effort should be made to minimise waste, maximise re-use, and maximise opportunities for the use of recycled material. Such residual waste as does arise should be managed at the highest practicable level in the Government’s waste hierarchy. The following sequence of initiatives should be followed, and appropriate facilities provided:

first, waste minimisation; then maximise the re-use of waste for the same or a different purpose; then composting or recycling (for instance through streamed “kerbside” collections, “bring” banks, civic amenity sites, and centralised recycling facilities); then intermediate treatment of wastes that cannot readily be composted or recycled (through anaerobic digestion or mechanical biological treatment (MBT)); or treatment to deal with hazardous materials; then production of refuse derived fuels from waste; then recovery of energy from residual waste and refuse derived fuels (by a range of thermal treatments); and finally disposal of residual wastes by land-filling (or land-raising), including the recovery of energy from landfill gas where practicable.

Policy EM 12 - Locational Principles

Waste planning and disposal authorities should provide for communities to take more responsibility for their own waste. The final residue, following treatment, of municipal, commercial and industrial waste should be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations. Local authorities should ensure that waste management facilities are sited in such a way as to avoid the unnecessary carriage of waste over long distances. In considering the location of new waste management facilities, they should take account of the availability of transport infrastructure that will support the sustainable movement of waste, seeking when practicable to use rail or water transport. They should also take account of the environmental impact of the proposed development.

Policy EM 13 - Provision of Nationally, Regionally and Sub-Regionally Significant Waste Management Facilities

Plans, strategies, proposals and schemes should provide for an appropriate type, size and mix of development opportunities to support, bring forward and safeguard sites for waste management facilities that will deliver the capacity to deal with the indicative volumes of non-hazardous commercial and industrial

Page 229

waste, hazardous waste and municipal waste in each sub-region, as set out in Tables 9.3, 9.4 and 9.5 respectively.

Plans and Strategies should identify locations for waste management facilities and allocate suitable sites for the provision of facilities up to 2020. When identifying these sites, account should be taken of the scope for co-location of complementary activities, such as resource recovery parks, to support the provision of adequate reprocessing and re-manufacturing capacity.

In considering proposals for waste management facilities (including additional landfill capacity) the ability of existing established sites to meet the needs of the region / sub region should be fully explored. Wherever possible, such sites should be used in preference to other sites where waste management activities have not previously been located, provided proposals for the development of waste management facilities satisfy general planning and licensing conditions, including the likely cumulative impact on the environment, landscape, cultural heritage, groundwater, the amenity and health of the neighbourhood and residents, the traffic impact; available transport links; the prevention and control of pollution and any specific technical issues.

For both the municipal, and the commercial and industrial waste streams, primary reception, treatment and transfer facilities should be located near to the sources of arisings. Secondary treatment and disposal facilities may be located on a sub-regional strategic basis, to serve a wider catchment area. Regionally significant facilities may be needed to serve the Mersey Belt, which includes the Manchester and Liverpool conurbations. The provision of nationally significant waste management facilities may be appropriate where the region offers a particular waste management advantage on a national scale.

Where it is appropriate at the sub-regional level, waste planning, disposal and collection authorities should work together to produce joint waste management strategies in partnership with the Environment Agency, the waste management industry, Regional Planning Body and other stakeholders.

CUMBRIA MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK [CMWDF]

Core Strategy 2009-2020 (Adopted April 2009)

Policy CS1 - Sustainable Location and Design

Proposals for minerals and waste management developments should demonstrate that :-

energy management, environmental performance and carbon reduction have been determining design factors. their location will minimise, as far as is practicable, the "minerals or waste road miles" involved in supplying the minerals or managing the wastes unless other environmental/sustainability and, for minerals, geological considerations override this aim. all proposed waste management developments with gross floor space of over 1000 square metres gain at least 10% of energy supply, annually or over the design life of the development, from decentralised and renewable

Page 230

or low carbon energy supplies. Any exceptions to this should demonstrate that this would not be feasible or viable for the specific development and that the development would form part of an integrated process for reducing greenhouse gas emissions or for carbon-offsetting measures. where appropriate, the restoration proposals have a role in helping to combat climate change. mineral working proposals should demonstrate a life cycle ("cradle to grave") analysis of product and process carbon emissions. construction of buildings minimises waste production and use of primary aggregates and makes best use of products made from recycled/re-used materials.

Work will be undertaken, in conjunction with stakeholders, to develop life cycle analysis criteria that are relevant for minerals developments.

Policy CS2 - Economic Benefit

Proposals for new minerals and waste developments should demonstrate that they would realise their potential to provide economic benefit. This will include such matters as the number of jobs directly or indirectly created or safeguarded and the support that proposals give to other industries and developments. It will also be important to ensure that minerals and waste developments would not prejudice other regeneration and development initiatives.

Policy CS 4 - Environmental Assets

Minerals and waste management developments should aim to: protect, maintain and enhance overall quality of life and the natural, historic and other distinctive features that contribute to the environment of Cumbria and to the character of its landscapes and places. improve the settings of the features, improve the linkages between them and buffer zones around them, where this is appropriate; realise the opportunities for expanding and increasing environmental resources, including adapting and mitigating for climate change.

Areas and features identified to be of international or national importance .

Planning application proposals within these, or that could affect them, must demonstrate that they comply with the relevant national policies as set out in Planning Policy Statements. Wherever practicable, they should also demonstrate that they would enhance the environmental assets.

Environmental assets not protected by national or European legislation

Planning permission will not be granted for development that would have an unacceptable impact on these environmental assets, on its own or in combination with other developments, unless:-

it is demonstrated that there is an overriding need for the development, and that it cannot reasonably be located on any alternative site that would result in less or no harm, and then, that the effects can be adequately mitigated, or if not,

Page 231

that the effects can be adequately and realistically compensated for through offsetting actions.

All proposals would also be expected to demonstrate that they include reasonable measures to secure the opportunities that they present for enhancing Cumbria's environmental assets.

Guidance on implementing parts of this policy will be provided by the Landscape Character and Highway Design Guidance Documents and by the Cumbria Biodiversity Evidence Base .

Policy CS8 - Provision for Waste

Provision will be made for the management of all of Cumbria's wastes within the county, with the acceptance of limited cross boundary movements (net self sufficiency). Any proposals to manage significant volumes of wastes from outside the county would have to demonstrate that the local, social and economic benefits outweigh other sustainability criteria. These other criteria include the impacts of the additional "waste miles" and the principles of managing waste as close as possible to its source, with each community taking responsibility for its own wastes and taking account of the nearest appropriate facility. Any proposals would have to demonstrate that their environmental impacts are acceptable.

Note: This policy does not relate to radioactive wastes which are considered separatel y.

Policy CS9 - Waste Capacity

Capacity will be provided for managing and treating between 340,000 and 462,000 tonnes/year of municipal waste and between 659,000 and 750,000 tonnes/year of commercial and industrial waste by the end of the plan period. Around 7 million cubic metres of landfill capacity will be provided, including the void space remaining in sites that have planning permission.

An Integrated Network

Sufficient sites will be identified for an integrated network of a range of appropriate and necessary waste management facilities across the county, and preference will be given to sites that can accommodate more than one type of facility.

Any proposal for the alternative of a centralised network will be considered in the context of the Generic Development Control Policies.

Waste Facilities

To enable the waste capacity and integrated network to be provided the plan will seek to identify:

eleven sites of between 2 and 3 ha for waste treatment facilities, (these could include Materials Recovery Facilities, Mechanical and Biological Treatment plants or Transfer/Bulking stations), and two sites of between 2 and 4.5ha for Energy from Waste incinerators, and 2 million cubic metres of landfill capacity in addition to the void space remaining in existing permitted sites, and

Page 232

nine new or enlarged Household Waste Recycling Centres, with innovative solutions or alternative sites kept under review for smaller communities.

Generic Development Control Policies 2009-2020 (Adopted April 2009)

Policy DC1 – Traffic and Transport

Proposals for minerals and waste developments should be located where they:

a. are well related to the strategic route network as defined in the Local Transport Plan, and/or b. have potential for rail or sea transport and sustainable travel to work, and c. are located to minimise operational "minerals and waste road miles".

Mineral developments that are not located as above may be permitted if:

they do not have unacceptable impacts on highway safety and fabric, the convenience of other road users and on community amenity, where an appropriate standard of access and traffic routing can be provided, and appropriate mitigation measures for unavoidable impacts are provided.

Policy DC 2 - General Criteria

Minerals and Waste proposals must, where appropriate, demonstrate that:

a. noise levels, blast vibration and air over-pressure levels would be within acceptable limits, b. there will be no significant degradation of air quality (from dust and emissions), c. public rights of way or concessionary paths are not adversely affected, or if this is not possible, either temporary or permanent alternative provision is made, d. carbon emissions from buildings, plant and transport have been minimised, e. issues of ground stability have been addressed.

Considerations will include:

the proximity of sensitive receptors, including impacts on surrounding land uses, and protected species, how residual and/or mineral wastes will be managed, the extent to which adverse effects can be controlled through sensitive siting and design, or visual or acoustic screening, the use of appropriate and well maintained and managed equipment, phasing and duration of working, progressive restoration, hours of operations, appropriate routes and volumes of traffic, and other mitigation measures.

Policy DC 4 - Criteria for Waste Management Facilities

Waste management facilities that accord with Core Strategy Policies 2, 8 and 9, and which do not have adverse environmental impacts, will be permitted if they conform to the locational and other criteria below.

Page 233

a. Proposals for scrapyards, vehicle dismantlers, materials recovery facilities, or transfer and storage facilities to facilitate materials re-use and recycling, including household waste recycling centres, will be permitted on existing or planned industrial estates or at existing waste management sites, b. Developments of facilities involving processing, storage or transfer of non- inert waste in proximity to housing, business uses, or other sensitive industries will only be permitted if enclosed within a building, and adverse emissions controlled through appropriate and well managed equipment, c. Facilities for physical, chemical or biological treatments of waste will be permitted if they reduce the potential of waste to pollute the environment; and are: i. on industrial estates, or ii. at non-inert landfill sites where they are needed for pre-treatment , or for treatment of leachate, and will not prejudice good operational standards or the restoration scheme, d. Open windrow green waste composting will be permitted, where adequate stand off distances can be established to safeguard other land uses from odours and emissions, and development is on: i. farms or open countryside locations, or ii. isolated industrial estates or waste management sites, e. Other facilities for composting waste will only be permitted where odours and emissions to atmosphere are controlled by effective enclosure and other techniques, f. Waste water treatment facilities will be permitted in appropriate locations if proposals have minimised any adverse environmental impacts, g. In considering energy from waste proposals preference will be given to combined heat and power providers. Proposals located on an industrial site or premises where the waste arises or heat can be used will be favoured, h. Proposals for recycling facilities for construction and demolition waste, mineral and other wastes will be permitted at active quarries and landfill sites, and on suitable industrial estates. Proposals for facilities for periods longer than the active life of a quarry or landfill will require to be justified as sustainable development.

Policy DC 12 - Landscape

Proposals for development should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria's landscapes and should:

a. avoid significant adverse impacts on the natural and historic landscape, b. use Landscape Character Assessment to assess the capacity of landscapes to accept development, to inform the appropriate scale and character of such development, and guide restoration where development is permitted, c. in appropriate cases use the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment to assess and integrate these issues into the development process, d. ensure that development proposals consider the effects on: locally distinctive natural or built features; scale in relation to landscape features; public access and community value of the landscape; historic patterns and attributes; and openness, remoteness and tranquility, e. ensure high quality design of modern waste facilities to minimise their impact on the landscape, or views from sensitive areas, and to contribute to the built

Page 234

environment, f. direct minerals and waste developments to less sensitive locations, wherever this is possible, and ensure that sensitive siting and high quality design prevent significant adverse impacts on the principal local characteristics of the landscape including views from, and the setting of, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Heritage Coast or National Parks.

Policy DC 14 – The Water Environment

Planning permission will only be granted for developments that would have no unacceptable quantitative or qualitative adverse effects on the water environment, including surface waters and groundwater resources. Proposals that minimise water use and include sustainable water management will be favoured.

3 In summary, the reasons for granting permission are that the County Council is of the opinion that the proposed development is in accordance with the development plan, there are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made otherwise and with the planning conditions included in the notice of planning consent, any harm would reasonably by mitigated. Furthermore, any potential harm to interests of acknowledged importance is likely to be negligible and would be outweighed by the benefits of the development.

Page 235

Appendix 2 Ref No. 5/12/9009 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 3 January 2013

Conditions

Time Limit for Implementation of Permission

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

2. This permission shall be for a limited period only expiring on 1 November 2016 or upon cessation of landfilling operations at the site, whichever is the sooner, by which date the use of the site shall have ceased and all buildings, structures, plant, machinery, foundations, hardstandings and bunding shall have been removed from the site. The site shall then be restored in accordance with the restoration and aftercare scheme approved for the Roan Edge Landfill and Recycling Facility site.

Reason: To secure the proper restoration of the site following the approved period for this temporary development, in accordance with Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework (CMWDF) Development Control Policy DC 16.

Approved Operations

3. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved documents, hereinafter referred to as the approved scheme. The approved scheme shall comprise the following:

a. The submitted Application Form – dated 27 July 2012; b. The ‘Wash Plan t and Associated Infrastructure Roan Edge Landfill and Recycling Centre’ Supporting Statement by Stephenson Halliday; dated July 2012; c. The ‘Wash Plant and A ssociated Infrastructure Roan Edge Landfill and Recycling Centre Landscape and Visual Appraisal’ by Stephenson Halliday; dated November 2012; d. Plans as follows: i) Figure 1 Location Plan; dated July 2012; and ii) Figure 3 Wash Plant – Section from M6 Ju nction 37; dated July 2012; e. The details or schemes approved in relation to conditions attached to this permission, and f. This Decision Notice

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out to an approved appropriate standard and to avoid confusion as to what comprises the approved scheme.

Page 236

4. Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed plan illustrating the location of the wash plant components and associated generator and fuel tank shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved all wash plant components, including the associated generator and fuel tank, shall be erected in accordance with the locations on that approved plan.

Reason: To ensure that all elements of the proposed development are located to minimise the visual and landscape impact of the development, in accordance with CMWDF Development Control Policies DC 2 and DC12 to safeguard the water environment in accordance with CMWDF Development Control Policy DC 14.

5. The works to increase the height of the eastern screening bund (shown on Figure 2 Wash Plant Layout; dated July 2012) shall be completed prior to the washing plant being brought into use. When completed the bund shall be gassed over in the next available seeding season. The bund shall remain in place and the grass maintained free of injurious weeds for the life of this permission.

Reason: To minimise the visual and landscape impact of the development, in accordance with CMWDF Development Control Policies DC 2 and DC12.

6. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the recessive colours used to finish all components of the proposed plant, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved these details shall be implemented in full.

Reason: To minimise the visual and landscape impact of the development, in accordance with CMWDF Development Control Policies DC 2 and DC12 .

Hours of Working

7. No operations shall take place at the site outside the hours:

07.00 to 19.00 hours on Mondays to Saturdays 08.00 to 17.00 hours on Sundays and Public or Bank Holidays

However, this condition shall not operate so as to prevent the carrying out, outside these hours, of essential maintenance to the plant.

Reason: To ensure that no operations hereby permitted take place outside normal working hours, which would lead to an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of the area, in accordance with CMWDF Development Control Policy DC 2.

Access and Traffic

8. Efficient means shall be installed for cleaning all vehicles leaving the site (with the exception of cars) to prevent loose material from being deposited on the public highway.

Reason: To prevent the deposition of material from vehicle wheels on the public highway in the interests of highway safety and amenity, in accordance with CMWDF Development Control Policy DC 1.

Page 237

Control of Dust

9. During periods of dry weather, the site access and working areas shall be sprayed with water to suppress dust in order that it does not constitute a nuisance outside the site.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjacent land and land users, including users of the public bridleway, by ensuring that dust does not constitute a nuisance outside the site, in accordance with CMWDF Development Control Policies DC1 and DC2.

10. The storage bays shown on Figure 2 - Wash Plant Layout, dated July 2012, shall be enclosed on three sides and the material stored within the bays shall not exceed a height of 2 metres. The bays shall be maintained in a good state of repair for the life of the permission.

Reason: To keep dust to a minimum within the site in order to reduce the potential or nuisance from dust outside the site, and to minimise the visual and landscape impact of the development, in accordance with CMWDF Development Control Policy DC2 and DC12.

Control of Lighting

11. No artificial lighting units installed or mobile lighting towers used within any part of the site shall be in any location other than that which would ensure that the lights are not directly visible from outside the site.

Reason: To ensure that the impact of lighting is kept to a minimum and does not constitute a nuisance outside the site, in accordance with CMWDF Development Control Policy DC2.

Safeguarding of Watercourses and Drainage

12. No chemical, oil, diesel or any other potentially polluting liquids shall be stored within the site except within a tank or tanks that are on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls, with the bunded areas capable of containing not less than 110% of the total tank volume, and which must enclose all fill and draw valves, and pipes shall be directed to discharge downwards into the bund and any sight glasses located above the wall of the bund.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment, in accordance with CMWDF Development Control Policy DC 14.

Informative regarding Protected Species

Should any protected species, or evidence of protected species be found prior to or during the course of the development, all works must stop immediately and an ecological consultant contacted for further advice before works can proceed. All contractors working on site should be made aware of the advice and provided with the contact details of a relevant ecological consultant.

Page 238 Agenda Item 9d DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 03 January 2012 A Report to the Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability ______

Application No: 6/12/9014 District: Barrow

Applicant: Mrs J Byne Parish: N/A Newbarns Primary School Barrow-in-Furness Received: 25 October 2012 ______

PROPOSAL: Proposed Conservatory

Newbarns Primary School, Rising Side, Barrow-in-Furness, LA13 9ET ______

PagePage 2391

1.0 RECOMMENDATION

1.1 That planning permission is granted for the reasons stated in Appendix 1 and subject to the conditions in Appendix 2.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The applicant seeks to erect a conservatory to provide an additional 49.2m 2 of teaching space. The conservatory would be located in a landscaped recreational area and would adjoin the school’s western-facing elevation. Its’ footprint would project 6m from the existing building line and would be 8.2m long.

2.2 The proposed conservatory measures 3.3m high to the eaves and its ridgeline will stand at 3.8metres from ground level. It would be constructed of buff- coloured brickwork with toughened double glazed glass windows and doors with UPVC frames. The roof would consist of two small pitched lantern style glazed roof-windows with aluminium framing in white UPVC.

3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 Barrow Borough Council ’s Planning Department have no objections.

3.2 The Highway Authority have no objections.

3.3 United Utilities have no objections.

3.4 The local Member for Newbarns Electoral Division, Councillor Tina Macur, has been notified.

3.5 The owner of a neighbouring property on Harrel Lane raised an objection in relation to the proposals al teration to the existing roofline on the school’s western-facing elevation. They state that they “would like to see the roofline of the proposed application to be in line with the current school building that it is attached to”.

4.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Background

4.1 Newbarns Primary School is a large primary school campus catering for approximately 460 children. The school lies in the Newbarns area/ward of Barrow-in-Furness which is situated within the eastern side of the town.

4.2 Due to the south-easterly downward slope that the site occupies, the existing school complex exists across split levels, being predominantly one storey on its higher level northern and western elevations and two storey on its lower level southern and eastern elevations. In light of this; and a number of piecemeal additions/extensions over the last two decades; the school’s present massing is varied and complex with a combination of pitched and flat-roofs using a mixture of grey and red clay tiles on the pitched roofs and light grey metallic sheeting. The school ’s built form is predominantly constructed of a mixture of buff and red coloured brickwork interspersed with UPVC windows and doors and a small number of conservatory style glazed infills and extensions.

PagePage 240 2

Site Context

4.3 The western school elevation that the proposed conservatory will connect onto currently stands at 3.3m and has a flat-pitch roof. The ridgeline of the proposed conservatory would be 0.5m above the existing roofline on the immediately adjoining elevation. Though it should be noted that the building which adjoins to the south of these western classrooms, and that links them through to the main school, has a height of 3.8m to the eaves and 6.5m to the ridgeline, while the boiler room between these stands at 7.5m tall 1.

4.4 The proposed conservatory would, at its closest point to the school perimeter, stand 5m from the north-western perimeter of the school. The properties adjoining the north-western perimeter are bounded by hedgerow and planting of variable height. The properties backing onto the school’s western perimeter are bounded by various forms/designs of wooden garden fencing.

Policy Context

4.5 This proposal is deemed to accord with the criteria for good design and quality development referenced in Policy D21 of the saved pol icies of the ‘ Barrow-in- Furness Borough Council Local Plan (1996-2006) ’ based on the reasons set out in the planning assessment below ( Paragraph 4.8). Furthermore the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] stipulates that great weight should be given to the need to create, expand or alter schools

Planning Assessment

4.6 The proposed conservatory represents a minor extension to the built environment. It has been sensitively located and positioned so as not to be intrusive or negatively impinge on the outlook of the adjoining residents . It would not impact on any established public views and it would only be fully visible to the properties on the schools ’ western perimeter. The boundary hedgerow on the north-western perimeter meanwhile generally provides a strong visual backcloth that would partially screen and soften any addition to the built environment at this point. The proposed positioning of windows and doors means the extension would not overlook neighbouring properties anymore than the present arrangement.

4.7 The siting of this extension makes more productive use of an underutilised landscaped area, providing an important transitional space and interface to better encourage outdoor learning and play. While its use of glazed lantern roofing would maximise the amount of natural sunlight in the proposed teaching spaces. As such this proposed extension would provide a valuable contribution to the school .

4.8 The proposals ’ simple design and use of buff brickwork and UPVC windows and doors to match the immediately adjacent building which it extends off successfully harmonises this conservatory extension with the existing built fabric. The extension is in-keeping with the irregular building line on the western elevation and does not appear out of scale or character with similar glazed structures within the school grounds. The proposed ‘lantern style’ pitched glazed roofing adds welcome interest and variety in the roofscape and built-form.

1 N.B. These heights are given in relation to the ground-level on the western side of the school and are based on the approved plans of Planning Consent 6/01/9001.

PagePage 2413

Resultantly, the extension does not appear incongruous within this site or inappropriate to its context and complies with design principles of Policy D21.

Alteration to the Roofline

4.9 The original proposal for the roof was for a pitched glazed roof, the ridgeline of which would have been 0.95m above the existing roofline on the immediately adjoining elevation. The applicant responded to the objection from the neighbouring representees by altering the roof design so as to lower the height of the proposed roof of the extension. The revised twin lantern style roof proposed thus created two reduced ridgelines that stand 0.5m above the existing roofline on the immediately adjoining elevation. Despite this reduction, the representees affirmed that they wished to sustain their objection, emphasising that none of the existing conservatories at the school extend beyond the roofline of the buildings that they immediately adjoin onto.

4.10 The revised roof design successfully makes the roof less prominent whilst still maximising the amount of natural sunlight in the teaching spaces the extension would provide while also maintaining the proposed extensions’ spatial configuration and overall appearance inside. Whilst the proposed roof design does still alter the existing roofline of the immediately adjoining western elevation; it would not be practicable to build a conservatory without any form of pitched-roof. A low angled single-pitched roof would be possible, but this has been discounted as it does not provide the applicant’s desired internal aesthetic nor the same quantity of natural light. Moreover, it would require the proposed conservatory’s door and window lines to be dropped-lower – whereas, as proposed, they match those of the existing adjoining building and resultantly harmonise well with it.

4.11 In the wider context of the school’s western elevation ( as set-out in paragraph 4.3 regarding site context ), and its’ other elevations; the roof design is considered to be in-keeping, as variations in height are commonplace within the school complex as a whole. It is also considered to be sympathetic to the roofscape of both the immediate local area (which is characterised by the sheds, outbuildings, greenhouses and conservatories to the rear of the neighbouring properties) and the school (which comprises of a mixture of pitched and flat roofs with some glazed elements – such as those to the southern and western elevations). As such, the elevations are considered to be in proportion with surrounding school buildings.

4.12 The marginal 0.5m increase in height at this location is not considered to adversely affect residential amenity as the proposal does not overshadow any neighbouring properties and nor will it impact upon the broader skyline.

Construction

4.13 The only physical external works above ground are the erection of three walls, installation of doors and windows and attachment of the pre-constructed roof and guttering. As such these works are considered to constitute a minimal and very temporary disturbance.

Human Rights Act 1998

4.14 The proposal will have a limited impact on the visual, residential and environmental amenities of the area. Any impacts on the rights of local property

PagePage 242 4

owners to a private and family life and peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1) are minimal and proportionate to the wider social and economic interests of the community.

Conclusion

4.15 This is a logical area to develop to provide this conservatory extension and the proposal will harmonise with the existing school complex as a whole. Whilst an objection has been received, amended drawings show a reduction in height of the proposed roof. It is considered that the design and materials are satisfactory and that the proposal would have no adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties. The proposal thus complies with policy and I therefore recommend that the application be approved.

Mr Edward Page Planning Officer

Tel: 01539 713 424

Email: [email protected]

\\ccc-prdc-fp03\kendal$\Filing\planning\applications\barrow\2012\6129014_Newbarns_Primary_Conservatory

PagePage 2435

Appendix 1 Ref No. 6/12/9014 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 3 January 2013

THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010

Summary of Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission

1 This application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, in the context of national and regional planning policy guidance and advice and the relevant development plan policies.

2 The key development plan policy taken into account by the County Council before granting permission was as follows:

Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council Local Plan Review 1996-2006 [Adopted 24th August 2001 and formally altered in 2006 ];

POLlCY D21

In determining all applications submitted to it the local planning authority will have regard to the General Design Code set out in paragraph 5.4.27 of this plan.

In towns and villages, proposals shall relate to the context provided by buildings, street and plot patterns, building frontages, topography, established public views, landmark buildings and other townscape elements. Proposals that do not respect the local context and street pattern or the scale, height, proportions and materials of surrounding buildings and development which constitutes over development of the site by virtue of scale, height or bulk will not be permitted, unless there is specific justification, such as interests of sustainability, energy efficiency or crime prevention ….

General Design Code (Paragraph 5.4.27)

The importance given by PPG1 to design as a material consideration now merit s the introduction of policies to ensure that development and infrastructure changes are carried out with adequate sensitivity to their surroundings. Development will therefore, be required to be related to the General Design Code, as follows:

Setting: the setting of any building should be carefully considered, whether in the countryside or in a built-up area. Attention should be paid to its impact on public views into, over, and out of the site. Those views should not be significantly harmed, and opportunities should be taken to enhance them or open up new views. In the countryside, or on the edge of towns and villages, buildings should be located to sit comfortably in the landscape. Buildings on the skyline should be avoided, unless local circumstances deem this to be appropriate for the site.

Harmony and street scene: new buildings should be in harmony with others around them. They can add interest and variety but should not be out of keeping overall. They should be visually well-mannered towards their neighbours. Where buildings are arranged in gentle curves, irregular building lines, or sit on or close to the rear of the footpath, these local characteristics should be emulated in new development. New roofs should fit in with the roofscape of the area. Dormers that break up an unrelieved roof plane, where this is important to the character of a building, or roof-lights that would spoil an unbroken vista of roofs, will not be permitted.

PagePage 244 6

Proportion: new buildings should be well proportioned and relate to the human scale. All extensions should be in scale and character with the building to which they are added. Elevations should be in proportion with one another and with surrounding buildings. Excessive bulk should be avoided. The size, spacing, and location of openings should be in proportion and related to the function of the building and harmonious with its architectural style. Shop fronts should reflect the character and architectural style of the upper floors and the distinction between separate buildings; they should be of materials and colours appropriate to the building, and be well proportioned in themselves.

Simplicity, detail, and decoration: as a general principle, the design of new buildings should be simple, avoiding over-fussy detailing. Within this principle, opportunities should be taken to add interesting details, ornamentation, and expressions of local craftsmanship. The nature and colour of external woodwork, cladding and rainwater goods, should harmonise or successfully contrast with the colour of the walling materials. Large new buildings on the edge of towns or villages or in the open countryside should be constructed in vernacular or traditional materials or finished or clad in colours that complement their surroundings.

Materials: new buildings should be constructed of materials typical of, and used in similar proportions to, those traditionally used in the immediate surroundings. In certain circumstances the Council will require the construction of sample panels onsite, to be approved before building work commences, and to be kept for reference throughout the work.

3 The National Planning Policy Framework (published March 2012) is also a material planning consideration, and has been taken into account in this report with reference to the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the following national planning policies:

Paragraph 14

At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development , which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. … For decision-taking this means: 10 ● approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and ● where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: – 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. 9

Paragraph 72

The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should:

● give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools;

PagePage 2457

● work with schools promoters to identify and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted

4 In summary, the reasons for granting permission are that the County Council is of the opinion that the proposed development is in accordance with the development plan, there are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made otherwise and with the planning conditions included in the notice of planning consent, any harm would reasonably be mitigated. Furthermore, any potential harm to interests of acknowledged importance is likely to be negligible and would be outweighed by the benefits of the development.

PagePage 246 8

Appendix 2 Ref No. 6/12/9014 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 3 January 2013

PROPOSED CONDITIONS

Implementation of Consent

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Approved Scheme

2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved documents, hereinafter referred to as the approved scheme. The approved scheme shall comprise the following:

a. The submitted Application Form – dated 25 October 2012 b. Design and Access Statement c. Drawing No. PH041012 RevA (1of2) – Location Plan, School Floor Plan and Existing Site Plan d. Drawing No. PH041012 RevB (2of2) – Proposed Floor Plan and Section e. This Decision Notice

Reason: To avoid confusion as to what comprises the approved scheme and ensure the development is carried out to an approved appropriate standard.

PagePage 2479 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 248 Agenda Item 10

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL & REGULATION COMMITTEE

Meeting Date: 03 January 2013 From: Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability

APPLICATIONS/CONSULTATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS NOTE: These are applications/consultations that have been recently determined by Assistant Director of Planning and Sustainability in accordance with their schemes of delegation. Case Officer Contact Details are provided in the Footnote at the end/rear of the Agenda Authority Proposal / Date Decision Area./ Site Location / Received / & Date - Ref. No. / (Case Officer) - Type Applicant -

Carlisle

1/12/9015 Construction of a noise/visual screen to reduce noise pollution and 01.11.12 Granted Cumbria visual intrusion, Adjacent to Carlisle Northern Development Route, 12.12.12 County Near Spa House, Stainton, Carlisle (CA3 9QY) Council (EP)

Allerdale

2/12/9016 Erection of a building/office kiosk to house a PPC Environment 09.11.12 Granted United Agency Kiosk and provide ancillary storage and laboratory space 12.12.12 Utilities Wigton Wastewater Treatment Works, Oulton Road, Standingstone, Wigton, CA7 0EP (EP)

2/12/0660 Residential development for 24 affordable dwellings and 11 open Validated Category 1 Home Group, market dwellings including associated infrastructure, Land to East 29.08.12 Strategic Thomas of Ellerbeck Brow, Brigham, Cockermouth Consultation Consultation Armstrong & (MB) Received No Objection, Hearthstone Web-Link : http://tinyurl.com/ABC-2-12-0660 04.09.12 subject to Homes conditions and S106 contributions for Education and Highways & Transport 05.10.12

2/12/0784 Outline application for the erection of 50 dwellings, access roads, Validated Category 1 North Homes engineering works and landscaping, Kirk Cross Quarry Low Road, 26.10.12 Strategic Limited Brigham, Cockermouth Consultation Consultation (MB) Received No Objection, Weblink: http://tinyurl.com/2-12-0784 subject to 30.10.12 conditions and S106 contributions for Education 14.12.12

Eden

3/12/9010 Erection of two metal mesh fences on the boundary of Plumpton 12.07.12 Granted Cumbria School. Plumpton School, Plumpton, Penrith, CA11 9PA 06.11.12 County (MM) Council

Page 249 Copeland

Nil

South Lakeland

Nil

Barrow

Nil

Page 250 Agenda Item 11

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL & REGULATION COMMITTEE

Meeting Date: 03 January 2013 From: Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability

APPLICATIONS/CONSULTATIONS PROPOSED TO BE DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

NOTE: These are applications/consultations that have been submitted to the County Council but are not yet ready/appropriate for determination under delegated powers and/or have been recently withdrawn or determined as invalid, or not requiring planning permission, etc. Case Officer Contact Details are provided in the Footnote at the end/rear of the Agenda

Authority Area/ Proposal / Date Notes / Ref. No. / Site Location / Received / Additional Applicant (Case Officer) Registered Information

Carlisle

1/12/9014 Proposed new pumping station and associated development 29.08.12 United Utilities including new control building, land raising/re-profiling, surfacing, boundary fencing and temporary construction access. Land to South of existing Pumping Station, off Stanegate, Irthington (MM)

1/12/9016 New single storey front extension providing additional office and 28.11.12 Cumbria pupil withdrawl room, Newlaithes Infant School, Langrigg Road, County Council Carlisle, CA2 6DX (EP)

1/12/9017 Prior Approval of Demolition of Music House, Science 05.12.12 Cumbria Bungalow, Scout Hut and Campbell Building, Trinity School, County Council Strand Road, Carlisle, Cumbria, CA1 1JB (MM)

Allerdale

2/12/0837 Outline application for the erection of 74 dwellings, access Validated Category 1 North Homes roads, engineering works and landscaping, Land adjoining King 15.11.12 Strategic Limited Street, Wigton Consultation Consultation (FMcE) Received Web-Link : http://tinyurl.com/2-12-0837 22.11.12

2/12/9012 To improve an existing farm access to provide a new 08.10.12 United Utilities permanent stone access to Plumbland Wastewater Treatment Works. Plumbland Wastewater Treatment Works, B5301, Near Arkleby Farm, Arkleby, Plumbland (ELL)

2/12/9014 Construction of improved access junction and stone access 30.10.12 United Utilities track including hammerhead, Greengill Wastewater Treatment Works, Greengill, Aspatria, Wigton, CA7 2RA (EP)

2/12/9017 Change of Use from B1 to B1 and D1 Law Court, Unit 5C, 20.11.12 Cumbria Lakeland Business Park, Lamplugh Road, Cockermouth, CA13 County Council 0QT (EP)

Page 251

Eden

Nil

Copeland

4/12/9003 Erection of extension to office accommodation and associated 21.09.12 Withdrawn LLW works. Low Level Waste Repository Ltd, Holmrook, Near Drigg, (14.11.2012) Repository Ltd CA19 1XH (ELL)

4/12/9006 Extension to existing perimeter fence, St James C of E Infants 21.11.12 Cumbria School, High Street, Whitehaven, CA28 7PZ County Council (EP)

4/12/9007 Erection of an extension to existing office and construction of 05.12.12 LLW new car park, Low Level Waste Repository Ltd, Holmrook, Near Repository Ltd Drigg, CA19 1XH (ELL)

South Lakeland

5/12/9011 Proposed Storm Detention Tank, CSO Chamber, Control Kiosk 09.11.12 United Utilities and Service Area Ellers Allotments, Lund Road, Ulverston, LA12 9BE (JP)

Barrow

6/12/9016 Variation of condition no 2 of planning permission 6/11/9001 23.11.12 Cumbria and condition no 1 of planning permission 6/12/9011 to allow County Council revised elevational changes to the energy centre Furness Academy South (Formerly Park View School), West Avenue, Barrow-in-Furness, LA13 9AY (JP)

Page 252 Agenda Item 12

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL & REGULATION COMMITTEE

Meeting Date: 03 January 2013 From: Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability

APPLICATIONS/CONSULTATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED AT FUTURE MEETINGS NOTE: These are applications/consultations that have been submitted to the County Council but are not yet ready/appropriate for presentation to the Committee and/or have been recently withdrawn or determined as invalid, or not requiring planning permission, etc. Case Officer Contact Details are provided in the Footnote, following this list. Authority Area/ Proposal / Date Notes / Ref. No. / Site Location / Received / Additional Applicant - (Case Officer) - Registered Information

Carlisle

Nil

Allerdale

2/12/9011 Erection and operation of 4 wind turbines to maximum height 02.10.12 EIA Application FCC of 99metres and associated infrastructure. New access track, Environment widening of access gate and new control kiosk. Lillyhall Landfill Site, Joseph Noble Road, Lillyhall Industrial Estate, Workington (JP)

2/12/9013 Section 73 Application to vary condition 1 of Planning Consent 31.10.12 Anticipated for DA Harrison 2/08/9017 to extend time limit for operation of concrete February Committee batching plant and the restoration of the site. Aldoth Quarry & Landfill Site, Aldoth, Abbeytown, Silloth, Wigton, CA7 4NB (JP)

2/12/9015 Section 73 Application to vary condition 2 of Planning Consent 31.10.12 Anticipated for DA Harrison 2/08/9016 to extend time limit for use for aggregate February Committee processing and the restoration of the site Dixon Hill Quarry, Aldoth, Abbeytown, Silloth, Wigton, CA7 4NB (JP)

Eden

3/97/9002 Determination of new conditions for a mineral site (Initial 31.01.97 Further EIA RMC Review); Hartley Quarry, Hartley, Kirkby Stephen, CA17 4JJ Submissions EIA Roadstone (RB) Received April 2011 Submitted 28.09.08 Time Extension Agreed with Applicant until 15 February 2013

3/08/9020 Application to Deepen Part of Shapfell Quarry and associated 01.12.08 Collection of data on Tata Steel mitigation measures Shapfell Quarry, Hardendale, Shap, ground and surface Penrith, CA10 3QG (JLC) water are ongoing. Data due 2012 /2013 .

3/12/9013 Review of Working Scheme and Conditions (Environment Act 27.09.12 Periodic Review Lakeland Waste 1995) of planning consent 3/91/0396 for operations at Flusco (ROMP) Management Ltd Quarry. Flusco Quarry Landfill Site, Newbiggin, Penrith, CA11 EIA Application 0HT (MM) Anticipated for February Committee

3/12/9014 Extension of time for operations at Flusco Quarry (Section 73 27.09.12 EIA Application Lakeland Waste application to amend condition 2 of planning consent Anticipated for Management Ltd 3/91/0396) Flusco Quarry Landfill Site, Newbiggin, Penrith, February Committee CA11 0HT (MM)

Page 253 3/12/9015 Extension of time for operations at Flusco Quarry (Section 27.09.12 EIA Application Lakeland Waste 73 application to amend condition 2 of planning consent Management Ltd 3/04/9014). Anticipated for February Committee Flusco Quarry Landfill Site, Newbiggin, Penrith, CA11 0HT (MM)

3/12/9016 Upgrading of Birkdale Track and the working of a borrow pit in 05.10.12 Anticipated for Ougthred family order to provide stone aggregate for the works to the track February Committee Land to South-East of Meldon Hill, Dufton Fell, North Pennines, To West of Birkdale, Harwood, Barnard Castle, Cumbria (JP)

3/12/9017 First periodic review of mining site under paragraph 4 of 02.11.12 ROMP Application Block Stone Ltd schedule 14 to the Environment Act 1995 Crag Nook Quarry, Lazonby Fell, Lazonby, Penrith, CA10 1AY (JP)

3/12/9018 Upgrading of Birkdale Track and the working of a borrow pit in 11.12.12 Anticipated for Ougthred family order to provide stone aggregate for the works to the track February Committee Land to South-East of Meldon Hill, Dufton Fell, North Pennines, To West of Birkdale, Harwood, Barnard Castle, Cumbria (JP)

Copeland

4/11/9007 Phased construction of Vaults 9a to 14 and for the disposal of 07.07.11 EIA Application LLW low level radioactive wastes within these new Vaults and Pending receipt of Repository Ltd within the existing Vault 9 with higher stacking, for the Further Information retention of temporarily higher stacked containers in Vault 8 Report potentially for with additional higher stacking. Phased construction of a DCR Committee in permanent engineered capping layer over Trenches 1 to 7 April/May 201 3 and Vaults 8 to 14, with other ancillary works. Low Level -N.B. This timeframe Waste Repository, near Drigg, Holmrook, CA19 1XL is dependent upon (RGE) receipt of the Environment Agency's comments following its technical review of the Environmental Safety Case (this is not now expected until March .2013)

South Lakeland

5/12/9012 Section 73 application to vary conditions no 1 and 8 of 03.12.12 Anticipated for Tony Brown planning permission 5/12/9003. Condition no 1 is to revise February Committee Aggregates drawing Brown-01 - Existing site plan with scheme proposals Ltd, to allow the relocation of the siting of operational machinery and condition no 8 to allow extended timescales for the creation of the screening bunds. Diamond Yard, Pennington Lane, Lindal-in-Furness, Ulverston, LA12 0LA (JP)

Barrow

6/12/9015 Time extension and amended scheme of working and 02.11.12 ROMP application Furness Brick restoration. Anticipated for & Tile Co Ltd High Greenscoe Quarry, Greenscoe, Askam-in-Furness (JP) February Committee

Recommendation Members are asked to consider whether they wish to visit any of the above sites prior to determination.

FOOTNOTE Page 254 Case Officer Contact Details :

Initials - Name - Title - Telephone No. - DH David Hughes Senior Monitoring & Enforcement Officer 01539 71 3422 ELL Emma Lunn Senior Planning Officer 01539 71 3426 EP Edward Page Planning Officer 01539 71 3424 FMcE Francesca McEnaney Planning Officer 01228 22 1027 GH Graham Hale Spatial Planning Team Leader 01228 22 6716 GI Graeme Innes Senior Planning Officer 01228 22 6599 IF Iain Fairlamb Planning Services Manager 01228 22 1065 JLC Jane Corry Development Control Team Leader 01539 71 3414 JP Jayne Petersen Senior Planning Officer 01539 71 3549 MB Michael Barry Senior Planning Officer 01228 22 6729 MM Maggie Mason Senior Planning Officer 01539 71 3114 PF Paul Feehily Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability 01228 22 6476 RB Rachel Brophy Senior Planning Officer 01539 71 3413 RP Richard Pearse County Landscape & Countryside Officer 01539 71 3427 RGE Richard Evans Minerals & Waste Policy Team Leader 01539 71 3425

Page 255 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 256