to
29 January 2010
Development Panel Will meet on Tuesday 9 February 2010 at 12.15 pm in The Wave, Maryport
Membership:
Councillor Ian Francis (Chairman)
Councillor Allan Caine Councillor John (Binky) Armstrong Councillor Bill Bacon Councillor Peter Bales Councillor Duncan Fairbairn Councillor Carl Holding Councillor Joe Holliday Councillor Ivor Humes Councillor John Hunter Councillor William Jefferson Councillor Peter Kendall Councillor Jim Lister Councillor Heather McIntosh Councillor Jacqueline Mounsey Councillor Alan Smith Councillor Margaret Snaith Councillor Audrey Tinnion Councillor Alan Tyson Councillor Martin Wood
Members of the public are welcome to attend the meeting. If you have any questions or queries simply contact Democratic Services on 01900 702550.
Agenda
1. The following Site Visits will take place:
2/2009/0741 - Proposed broiler units (resubmission to 2/2009/0539), Cunningarth, Westward, Wigton (Ward/Parish Reps please be on site by 10.05am)
2/2009/0750 - Temporary consent for the change of use of land for storage of agricultural machinery, Land at Beck Bottom, Beck Bottom Road, Westward, Wigton (Ward/Parish Reps please be on site by 10.50am)
Members of the Development Panel will be picked up from The Wave, Maryport and the bus will leave at 9.00a.m. prompt.
Lunch will be provided at The Wave, Maryport for Members of the Panel.
2. Minutes (Pages 1 - 4)
To sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 26 January 2010.
3. Apologies for absence
4. Declaration of Interest
Councillors/Staff to give notice of any personal or prejudicial interest and the nature of that interest relating to any item on the agenda, in accordance with the adopted Code of Conduct.
5. Questions
To answer questions from members of the public – 2 days notice of which must have been given in writing or by electronic mail.
6. Development Panel - 2 2009 0524 (Pages 5 - 20)
7. Development Panel - 2 2009 0725 (Pages 21 - 24)
8. Development Panel - 2 2009 0726 (Pages 25 - 32)
9. Development Panel - 2 2009 0738 (Pages 33 - 36)
10. Development Panel - 2 2009 0753 (Pages 37 - 46)
11. Development Panel - 2 2009 0797 (Pages 47 - 60)
12. Development Panel - 2 2009 0799 (Pages 61 - 68)
13. Development Panel - 2 2009 0810 (Pages 69 - 76)
14. Development Panel - 2 2009 0811 (Pages 77 - 82)
15. Development Panel - 2 2009 0855 (Pages 83 - 90)
16. Development Panel - 2 2009 0863 (Pages 91 - 106)
17. Development Panel - 2 2009 0864 (Pages 107 - 132)
18. Development Panel - 2 2009 0741 Site Visit (Pages 133 - 142)
19. Development Panel - 2 2009 0750 Site Visit (Pages 143 - 148)
Chief Executive
Date of next meeting Tuesday 9 March 2010 at 13.00 pm The Wave, Maryport
Agenda Item 2
At a meeting of the Development Panel held in The Wave - Maryport on Tuesday 26 January 2010 at 10.30 am
Members
J Hunter (Chairman)
A Caine J Lister J Armstrong H McIntosh B Bacon J M Mounsey P Bales M A Snaith D S Fairbairn A Tinnion C Holding A Tyson P G Kendall
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors I W Francis, J Holliday, I A Humes, W H Jefferson, A Smith and M G Wood
Staff Present
R Evans, S Long, C Tyson and J Ward
471 Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 8 December 2009 were agreed and signed as a correct record.
472 Declaration of Interest
5. Solway Coast AONB Management Plan 2009-2014. Councillor Duncan Fairbairn; Personal; due to being a member of Solway AONB.
6. Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework; Consultation. Councillor Audrey Tinnion; Personal; due to being a member of Aspatria Town Council.
6. Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework; Consultation. Councillor Duncan Fairbairn; Personal and Prejudicial; due to being a member of the Port of Workington Board.
6. Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework; Consultation. Councillor Duncan Fairbairn; Personal; due to being a member of Cumbria County Council.
6. Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework; Consultation. Councillor John (Binky) Armstrong; Personal; due to being ward councillor for Wigton.
8. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).
Page 1 Councillor Alan Tyson; Personal; due to his membership of Cockermouth Town Council.
8. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). Councillor Heather McIntosh; Personal; due to shared ownership of piece of land in Allerdale.
473 Questions
None received.
474 Solway Coast AONB Management Plan 2009-2014
The Planning Policy Manager submitted a report regarding the adoption of the Solway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2009- 2014.
The Management Plan was a review of, and replaced, the Solway Coast Management Plan 2004-09 which was adopted by the Council in 2004.
The Development Panel had considered a report on the draft Solway Coast AONB Management Plan which had been published for consultation and Allerdale Borough Council had submitted comments on the plan.
Members were advised that it is Allerdale Borough Council’s statutory duty to have an adopted up to date Management Plan for the Solway Coast AONB.
Recommended – that the Executive be requested to agree that the Solway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2009-2014 be adopted as the Statutory Management Plan for the AONB.
475 Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework; Consultation
The Planning Policy Manager submitted a report detailing Allerdale Borough Council’s proposed comments on the Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework Site Allocations Policies.
Members considered each of the sites in turn and considered the proposed highlighted responses.
At paragraph 2.4 members asked that the word ‘detrimental’ in the highlighted response be replaced by ‘worsening’.
At paragraph 2.6 members felt that rail links were very important to the businesses round the coast and asked that the highlighted response be removed and replaced with ‘Allerdale supports this safeguarding proposal’.
Recommended – that the Executive be requested to agree that the comments highlighted in the report be approved as Allerdale’s formal response to the County Council, subject to the highlighted response at paragraph 2.4 being amended so that the word ‘detrimental’ is replaced by ‘worsening’ and the
Page 2 highlighted response at paragraph 2.6 being removed and replaced with ‘Allerdale supports this safeguarding proposal’.
476 Statement of Community Involvement
The Planning Policy Manager submitted a report asking members to approve the proposed amendments to the Statement of Community Involvement and adopt it as part of the Local Development Framework.
In June last year the process by which Local Development Documents were produced was changed. In light of this the Statement of Community Involvement had to be amended to reflect the changes.
Members voiced their disappointment that so few Parish Councils had responded when consulted on the draft Statement of Community Involvement.
Recommended – that the Executive be requested to agree that the draft Statement of Community Involvement be adopted
477 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)
The Planning Policy Manager submitted a report asking members to approve the draft Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) for a 4 week consultation.
The SHLAA is a catalogue of deliverable sites suitable for potential future housing development. The SHLAA will not be formally adopted, and does not have any official planning status; it sits as part of the evidence base behind policy that will be developed at a later stage.
Agreed –
(a) that the draft SHLAA be approved for consultation (b) that the draft SHLAA should come back to the Development Panel at the end of the consultation period
The meeting closed at 12.20 pm
Page 3 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 4 Agenda Item 6
Allerdale Borough Council
2/2009/0524
Reference No: 2/2009/0524 Received: 19 June 2009 Proposed Proposed new housing development for 59 No. units, Development: including associated infrastructure and off-site surface water pipe Drawing Numbers: SH066.90.9.SL.PA.C - Site layout planning layout (amendment received 17 December 2009) SH066.90.9.SL.BD - Boundary details and hard surface area details (amendment received 17 December 2009) SH066.90.9.SE.A - Street elevations EXT/T-PLE3 - Planning elevations 3 (amendment received 21 October 2009) SH066.90.9.SL.SW.A - Surface water route (amendment received 21 October 2009) BD-01 - 900mm high fence BD-02 - 1800mm high open boarded fence BD-03 - 1800mm high closed boarded fence BD-04 - 900mm high brick wall BD-05 - 1800mm high brick wall YOR/S-PLE2 - Planning elevations YOR/S-PLP - Floor plans YOR/T-PLE - Planning elevations YOR/T-PLP - Floor plans FAR/S-PLE - Planning elevations FAR/S-PLP - Floor plans EXE/T-PLE1 - Planning elevations 1 (amendment received 21 October 2009) EXE/T-PLE2 - Planning elevations 2 EXE/T-PLP - Floor plans (amendment received 21 October 2009) CHE-PLE - Planning elevations (semi) CHE-PLP - Floor plans (semi) CHE-PLE - Planning elevations CHE-PLP - Floor plans ASC-PLE - Planning elevations ASC-PLP - Floor plans ARU-PLE1 - Planning elevations 1 ARU-PLE2 - Planning elevations 2 ARU-PLP1 - Floor plans 1 ARU-PLP2 - Floor plans 2 APP-PLE - Planning elevations APP-PLP - Floor plans
Page 5 SH066/9012 - Schedule of finishes (amendment received 21 October 2009) EXT/T-PLE3 - Planning elevations 3 (amendment received 21 October 2009) EXT/T-PLP2 - Floor plans 3 (amendment received 21October 2009) 2078/001/T4 - External levels (amendment received 17 December 2009) 2078/002/T4 - Site drainage layout (amendment received 17 December 2009) 2078/003/T4 - Site drainage layout (amendment received 17 December 2009) 2078/004/T4 - Off site drainage layout (amendment received 17 December 2009) 2078/101/T4 - Highways layout (amendment received 17 December 2009) 2078/102/T3 - Section through adoptable roads (amendment received 17 December 2009) 2078/103/T2 - Road construction sections (amendment received 17 December 2009) CS41463/1300/01/Am0 - Road lighting layout (amendment received 17 December 2009) c-613-01 - Soft landscape proposals (amendment received 17 December 2009) Location: Land adjacent to Kirkland Road Wigton Applicant: Mr Andrew Hewson Story Homes
Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Allerdale Flood Zone 1 Conservation Area:,WIGTON ASCA Area Adv Control Exclusion - Wigton Site Of Arch Interest 10258
Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN1 - Minimising Travel Policy EN14 - Safeguarding Water Environment Policy HS5 - New housing in settlements Policy HS14 - Affordable/local needs housing on large sites Policy WHS2 - Housing Allocation, Kirkland Road Policy TR3 - Design and layout of residential roads Policy TR6 - Car parking guidlines Policy TR9 - Access for disabled people Policy TR13 - Provision for pedestrians Policy CO13 - The setting of a Conservation Area Policy L1 - Provision of open space in housing development
Page 6 Allerdale Local Plan, First Alteration June 2006 (Saved) Policy HS8 - Housing design Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing
Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001- 2016 (Saved) Policy H19 - Affordable housing outside the Lake District National Park
North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 Policy DP2 - Promote sustainable communities Policy DP4 - Make the best use of existing resources and infrastructure Policy DP5 - Manage travel demand, reduce the need to travel and increase accessibility Policy DP7 - Promote environmental quality Policy L2 - Understanding housing markets Policy L4 - Regional housing provision Policy L5 - Affordable housing Policy RT2 - Managing travel demand Policy RDF2 - Rural areas and key service centres
Interim Housing Policy Policy SH1
Representations: Town Council – No objections but would like to see a contribution to upgrade the playing field at Kirkland Road as 59 houses will have a large number of children. A local questionnaire raised the point that the children would like a skate park in the town.
County Archaeologist – No objections.
Environment Agency – The Local Planning Authority should promote the use of SUDS for the management of run off. If the Council are satisfied that there are no other methods of surface water run off and surface water is discharged to Speet Gill at a restricted run off this should be conditioned by the Council. Would recommend that storage rates should be on site for a 1 in 100 year flooding event.
No objections to submitted ground investigations in connection with controlled waters.
Page 7 Housing – An identified need for a total of 44 affordable units for the Parish grouping (Wigton, Dundraw, Waverton and Woodside) with 25 affordable units within Wigton. There would be a need for 10 affordable ‘sale’ within the Parish grouping. The affordable price for Wigton is £86,100. Would want 20% affordable dwellings as it is a greenfield site.
County Archaeologist – No objections.
Cumbria Highways – No objections subject to appropriate highways conditions if approval is recommended. The Highways Authority has not objected to the details submitted on additional plans and removes some of the original highway conditions but requests that the financial contribution should be towards a pedestrian crossing and bus shelter.
Environmental Health – No objections subject to no conditions relating to gas risk assessment.
United Utilities – No objections subject to only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer, surface water should discharge to the soakaway/water course/surface water sewer.
The application has been advertised on site and within the local press. Adjoining owners have also been notified.
There have been 20 letters of objection which outline the following points:
• Devaluation of property • Loss of privacy • Light pollution • Noise pollution • Loss in water pressure • Gas pressure problems • Drainage overload • Sewer overload • Extra draw from electricity substation • Traffic problems including parking problems, congestion, traffic jams • Moving bus stop would lead to congestion • Potential to increase vehicular accidents • Not all children would walk to school and therefore increase congestion at school drop off and pick up times • Loss of view
Page 8 • Transport assessment states no access on King Street but diagrams show access from houses onto King Street • Access onto King Street close to brow of hill • Relocation of bus stop could cause traffic problems and would narrow the road • Main entrance may be more suitable coming off King Street • Other developments such as Tesco and Lidl would increase traffic • Maintenance of fences, walls, trees and hedges and to what height • Bungalows would solve most of problems relating to views and privacy at ‘Wellgarth’ • Flooding problems especially surface water • Increase in surface water run off in this area of Wigton • Lack of social facilities • Lack of children’s facilities • Not enough affordable dwellings • Disruption during building works • Extra load on school intake • Over development • Affects on wildlife • Overlooking of rear gardens on Howrigg Bank • Concerns in the reduction of boundary walls • Potential to interfere with existing visibility of driveways
A further letter has been received from Rt Hon David Maclean MP on behalf of local residents which reiterates the above points.
There have been no further letters since the last Committee report.
Report Members will recollect that this application was considered at the Development Panel on Tuesday 10 November 2009. Members resolved to defer the application to seek clarification if the developer was in agreement that the financial contribution could be made towards the provision of play equipment instead of the cycleway.
The developer has indicated that they are willing to provide the financial contribution for the play equipment. Officers consider it appropriate that within the S106 Agreement that if the money is not utilised on play equipment within two years from receiving the contribution it should be utilised on the section of cycle route adjacent to the site.
Page 9 This application is a detailed consent for the erection of 59 dwellings off King Street/Kirkland Road in Wigton. The site has an area of 1.6ha and is allocated for housing development within the adopted Allerdale Local Plan. The site is considered to be greenfield with the last use being agricultural grazing; currently the land is not in beneficial use.
The application seeks approval for 24 x 4 bedroom, 24 x 3 bedroom and 11 x 2 bedroom properties served by one central access point onto Kirkland Road. The proposed materials would be brick and rendered walls, art stone heads and sills, grey roof tiles with white uPVC windows and doors.
The application is accompanied by a transport assessment, ecological report, viability assessment, house type specifications, boundary details, design and access statement, flood risk assessment and ground investigation reports.
The site itself is located adjacent to a modern residential housing estate to the east of the site and a mixture of modern and traditional dwellings to the west. To the north and south of the proposed development the site is separated from existing housing by King Street or Kirkland Road. The Conservation Area abuts the boundary of the site to the west.
Under Policy SH1 of the Interim Housing Policy there is a requirement for all residential development within the Key Service Centre of Wigton to be 100% local affordable dwellings. The applicant is contesting that the most recent Annual Monitoring Report (December 2008) identifies that there is a shortfall of completed dwellings within the district. They also outline that the development would concur with the aims and objectives of PPS3.
The applicant outlines that the saving of this allocated site by Government Office is an indication that a supply of housing land within Wigton is maintained. Within the report it is stated that this site and the other undeveloped allocated site within Wigton has been included within the Authority’s five year land supply.
As part of the proposal a sequential test has been provided to support their application which has identified and discounted a number of brownfield sites within Wigton.
• Former Huntingdon’s Garage site – Unavailable due to option on site for retail use, contamination issues and the inability to generate a land value.
Page 10 • Coach depot adjacent to Burnfoot Cottage/Strand Cottage - Unavailable due to option on site for retail use, limited visibility from access and existing use as coach depot/MOT. • Harden’s Yard, Station Road – Constrained by access width, access immediately adjacent to INNOVIA entrance and conflict with residential use and a chemical installation. • Adjacent to Somerfield – Access constraints, site not immediately developable without significant changes to the road layout. • Adjacent to Hope’s Auction Mart – Site subject to option agreement with supermarket chain. • Adjacent to Methodist/Evangelical Church – Owners wish to retain the site for community use. • Former Council Highways depot, Station Road – Subject to contamination, poor visibility and potential viability problems.
The applicant has indicated that they do not believe that there are any available brownfield sites that are capable of delivering housing in the short term. This assessment is considered as a satisfactory reflection of the existing situation within Wigton and therefore development on this greenfield site is acceptable.
The Council’s Interim Housing Policy was introduced in September 2004 to address the over-supply of housing within the Borough. Under Policy SH1 of the Interim Policy any residential development in Wigton was limited to local affordable housing. More recently, as demonstrated by the lack of housing development in the town, it was acknowledged that without supporting housing corporation funding this was likely to result in housing development within the town being unviable, with the consequence that it was also undeliverable. The Council therefore pursued an alternative strategy of applying viability tests to housing development to ensure that any developers achieve a reasonable level of profit (thus safeguarding deliverability), but securing the maximum level of affordable housing in ensuring the scheme is viable.
Page 11 There also has been a recent appeal decision at Fletchertown which has allowed residential dwelling not in line with the Interim Housing Policy. Officers consider that greater weight should be given to the recent adopted saved strategic policies than that of the Interim Housing Policy for Wigton, but would highlight, however, that if there is evidence of demonstrable local affordable housing need, then the provisions of PPS3 can override the adopted Local Plan policies.
It is acknowledged that in the current economic climate it would be unreasonable to require 100% local affordable dwellings on this site; this has been backed up by the viability assessment on this and other sites within Wigton.
This site is one of two allocated sites within Wigton which have not been developed; the housing allocation is covered by saved Policy WHS2 of the Allerdale Local Plan and therefore the principle of development on this site is acceptable under the parameters of the current plan. Officers consider that this is an appropriate site for residential development given its allocated status and its location within the designated settlement limits of Wigton.
Evidence of the need for affordable dwellings has been outlined within a Housing Market Assessment (HMA) for the Wigton area. The Council’s HMA document demonstrates that there is a need for 25 affordable dwellinghouses in Wigton in the next five years to serve the needs of the town itself. An additional 19 units are required to serve the adjacent parishes of Dundraw, Waverton and Woodside.
The applicant’s initial viability assessment indicated that the site would only be viable with a 10% allocation in relation to affordable housing, this would equate to six dwellings. Due to the greenfield status of the site, identified need within the HMA and the Council’s Housing department’s demand for 20% affordable housing, the applicant was advised that an increased number of affordable dwellings would be required. A revised scheme has now increased the number of affordable dwellings to 10 units which is considered, albeit marginally below the 20% threshold (i.e. the one dwelling shortfall would be difficult to support at appeal), satisfactory in terms of this development. The affordable housing would be two bedroom properties as this is to meet the need identified within the Wigton HMA. These local affordable dwellinghouses will be secured under a S106 Agreement and the tenure would be secured to meet the HMA. Details on the S106 criteria and the type of tenure will be reported at the Committee Meeting.
Page 12 In terms of the layout, the development of 59 dwellings would consist of a mixture of two, three and four bedroom units, with the two bedroom houses being designated as affordable dwellings. The housing would be a mixture of detached, semi-detached and terraced two storey dwellings; it is considered that there is a satisfactory mix of dwellings for a site of this size.
The proposed site has frontages onto King Street and onto Kirkland Road, with the main access into the site being off Kirkland Road. The objectors have indicated that the transport assessment has outlined that there would be no access points on King Street; the report actually states that there would be no access points where it has been identified as a location for parking in terms of school drop off and pick up times.
From the findings of the transport assessment it was concluded that four new individual access points onto King Street could be accommodated without compromising the parking at school times. A survey was undertaken showing that the main parking occurred to the section of highway nearest to the school and the upper half of the site’s road frontage was not obstructed with school parking.
There would be a number of individual accesses onto Kirkland Road which would not conflict with the existing properties opposite the development.
It is considered that sufficient parking, including communal areas, has been provided for the development as a whole. A pedestrian link is provided to the western corner of the development onto King Street.
The Highways Authority has not objected to the proposal and considered the development acceptable in terms of access, provision of roads within the development and amount of parking provided. The Highways Authority has not identified any problems with the relocation of the bus stop which would be moved 17.5m to south-west of the existing site.
The Highways Authority has requested a financial contribution to the local cycle network, however, as mentioned above, Members resolved at the last Committee Meeting the financial contribution should be made for the provision of play equipment.
Page 13 The layout of the development is based around a central access road, with a large open space within the heart of the development. The dwellings have been positioned to minimise the potential impacts on the existing dwellings surrounding the site. It is also considered that the dwellings would not lead to a significant loss of light or privacy to any properties adjoining the site.
The ground conditions have been assessed in relation to surface water management and have been found not to be suitable for soakaways or sustainable drainage systems, therefore the site would be drained by way of an off site drainage system to Speet Gill.
The surface water drainage pipe would cross King Street and traverse across the fields to the rear of the school and church and would enter Speet Gill adjacent to the WCF Country Centre. The route is considered satisfactory as the discharge point would be away from identified areas of flooding at Burnfoot. Surface water would be stored on site in storm water conditions in order to minimise the risk of flooding elsewhere in Wigton. Details of this issue have been independently assessed by a consultant commissioned by the Council which indicate that attenuation of surface water on site should be for a 1 in 100 year event in order to ensure the discharge of surface water would not compromise this site and sites elsewhere within Wigton.
In relation to the objection letters, a number of the points would not be considered valid planning points of objection, including devaluation of property and loss of view, therefore will not be considered as part of the application.
There have not been any objections from United Utilities therefore it is considered that if there was to be a problem with the water pressure or electricity supply this would have been identified within the consultation response.
The site is in close proximity to services within the town centre and satisfies the Council in terms of links to public transport.
The open space within the centre of the site is considered sufficient to provide play space within the development to satisfy Policy L1 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
Page 14 Although the site is located adjacent to the conservation area, it is considered this development would not affect its setting. The site would be located adjacent to existing modern development surrounding the site and therefore the development would have a neutral effect on the setting of the Conservation Area. The site at present has limited amenity or landscape value and has little value as agricultural semi- improved grassland.
An ecological survey has been undertaken and due to the agricultural nature of the field there is little in the way of ecological impacts. There is the potential that birds may nest within the hedge adjacent to Kirkland Road, however, it is considered that as nesting birds would be protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 the developer has a responsibility under this legislation not to damage or destroy nests.
It is recommended that the application is approved subject to a S106 relating to local affordable housing, securing off site surface water drainage, maintenance of common areas and financial contribution towards play equipment.
Recommendation: Approved
Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun Reasons: before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The parking courts shall be designed, constructed and drained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, 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. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is complete. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety.
Page 15 3. Ramps shall be provided on each side of every junction to enable wheelchairs, pushchairs, etc, to be safely manoeuvred at kerb lines. Details of all such ramps shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before development commences. Any details so approved shall be constructed as part of the development. Reason: To ensure that pedestrians can negotiate road junctions in relative safety.
4. The development shall not be commenced into use until visibility splays providing clear visibility of 2.4 metres x 66 metres in a westerly direction and 2.4m x 90m in an easterly direction measured down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of Kirkland Road have been provided at the junction of the access road with the county highway. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grow within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
5. The use shall not be commenced into use until visibility splays providing clear visibility of 2.4 metres x 33 metres measured down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the roads have been provided at the junction of the internal roads and parking courts. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grow within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
Page 16 6. No dwellings shall be occupied until the estate road, including footways to serve such dwellings, has been constructed in all respects to base course level and street lighting where it is to form part of the estate road has been provided and brought into full operational use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
7. The access drive shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or otherwise bound and shall be constructed and completed before the development is occupied/brought into use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
8. Access gates, if provided, shall be hung to open inwards only away from the highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
9. The accesses direct onto the existing public highways shall be designed to be paired with each other. Reason: To minimise the number of separate access points to the public highway.
10. The dwellings fronting the public highway shall not be occupied until visibility splays providing clear visibility delineated by straight lines extending from the extremities of the site frontage with the highway to 2m along the centre line of the access drive measured from the edge of the adjacent highway has been provided at the properties fronting the existing public highway. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grow within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
Page 17 11. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised within the approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season following completion of the development and any trees of plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to enhance the appearance of the development and minimise the impact of the development in the locality.
12. Full details of the surface water drainage system shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to the development being commenced. The surface water drainage system shall be designed to include flood events up to and including 1 in 100 year events being kept on site. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained operational thereafter. Reason: In the interests of environmental management.
13. Prior to the occupation of the development, the completion of the remediation works detailed in the approved remediation statement and validation report shall be submitted to and approved in writing be the Local Planning Authority. This report shall: 1) Describe the remediation works carried out and any significant variations from the works set down in the approved remediation statement; 2) Include and discuss substantiating data (analytical or otherwise); 3) Confirm that the remediation objectives set down in the remediation statement have been achieved. All works shall be undertaken in accordance with current UK guidance, particularly CLR11 and CIRIA 665. Reason: To minimise the risks to public health from any potential gas emissions at the site.
Page 18 Page 19 Page 20
Agenda Item 7
Allerdale Borough Council
2/2009/0725
Reference No: 2/2009/0725 Received: 2 October 2009 Proposed Conservation area consent for demolition of a derelict barn, Development: redundant livestock byres and large storage shed to allow redevelopment to include erection of 4 No. dwellings for letting Drawing Numbers: 3027 06 - Location plan 3027 01 A - As existing site plan (amendment received 23 November 2009) Location: Town Head Farm Greysouthen Cockermouth Applicant: Mr and Mrs W Roberts
Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Radon Assessment Allerdale Flood Zone 1 Conservation Area:,GREYSOUTHEN British Coal Area ASCA Area
Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy HS5 - New housing in settlements Policy CO2 - Design of alterations in Conservation Areas Policy CO10 - Highway standards in Conservation Areas Policy CO12 - Demolition in Conservation Areas Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law
Allerdale Local Plan, First Alteration June 2006 (Saved) Policy HS8 - Housing design Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing
Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001- 2016 Policy E38 - Historic environment
North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 Policy DP1 - Spatial principles Policy DP2 - Promote sustainable communities
Page 21 Interim Housing Policy Policy SH4 Policy SH5
Representations: Parish Council – No objections subject to hand basins in cloakrooms.
Cumbria Highways – Comment regarding substandard visibility and increased vehicle movements.
County Archaeologist – No objections.
Conservation Officer – No objections.
Environmental Protection – No objections. Desk top study regarding past contamination required.
English Heritage – No comment.
Natural England – Comment upon the habitat survey and confirm that the site is not of any significant interest.
The application has been advertised on site and within the local press. Adjoining owners have also been notified.
Five letters of support from nearest neighbours pre- application.
Report Conservation Area application for the demolition of redundant, semi-derelict farm buildings. A full planning application for residential development ref 2/2009/0726 also applies which is recommended for approval following Members agreement in principle at the previous meeting. Members will recall that this application was deferred in order that a habitat survey could be undertaken to assess the site’s importance as a habitat for bats and barn owls. That has been completed and Natural England’s response confirms that the site is of little significance in terms of nature conservation.
The application site comprises an open farm yard with existing, redundant farm buildings in a poor state of repair. A number of dwellings already converted from former farm buildings some years ago are noted and are accessed through the yard.
Page 22 The loss of these buildings that have no viable commercial use is acceptable and will improve general amenity standards and the setting of the Conservation Area.
This application can therefore be supported with a condition regarding the ‘making good’ of the farmyard prior to any future scheme for redevelopment being approved and implemented.
Recommendation: Approved
Conditions/ 1. The proposal shall not commence until details of the Reasons: farmyard following demolition is provided to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the site should redevelopment not take place in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policies CO2 and CO12 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved).
2. If demolition of the existing buildings does not commence before 1 April 2010 an additional survey should be undertaken to determine whether bats have moved into the site for the breeding season. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation, in accordance with Policy EN32 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).
Page 23 Page 24
Agenda Item 8
Allerdale Borough Council
2/2009/0726
Reference No: 2/2009/0726 Received: 2 October 2009 Proposed Phase two of site redevelopment involving the demolition of a Development: derelict barn, redundant livestock byres and large storage shed and erection of 4 no. dwellings for letting Drawing Numbers: 3027 06 - Location plan 3027 02 - As proposed site plan 3027 04 - Proposed plans and elevations two bed detached house 3027 03 Rev B - Proposed plans and elevations three bed terraced house (amendment received 20 November 2009)
Location: Town Head Farm Greysouthen Cockermouth Applicant: Mr & Mrs W Roberts
Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Radon Assessment Allerdale Flood Zone 1 Conservation Area:,GREYSOUTHEN British Coal Area ASCA Area
Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy HS5 - New housing in settlements Policy CO3 - New buildings in Conservation Areas Policy CO10 - Highway standards in Conservation Areas Policy CO12 - Demolition in Conservation Areas Policy CO13 - The setting of a Conservation Area Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law
Allerdale Local Plan, First Alteration June 2006 (Saved) Policy HS8 - Housing design Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing
Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001- 2016 (Saved) Policy E38 - Historic environment
Page 25 North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 Policy DP1 - Spatial principles Policy DP2 - Promote sustainable communities
Interim Housing Policy Policy SH4 Policy SH5
Representations: Parish Council – No objections.
Cumbria Highways – Comment regarding substandard visibility and increased vehicle movements.
County Archaeologist – No objections. Condition regarding archaeological investigations required.
Natural England – Comment upon the habitat survey and confirm that the site is not of any significant interest.
Environmental Protection – No objections. Desk top study regarding past contamination required.
Conservation Officer – No objections.
Fire Officer – No objections.
United Utilities – No objections with reference to a condition regarding surface water disposal.
The application has been advertised on site and within the local press. Adjoining owners have also been notified.
Five letters of support from nearest neighbours pre- application.
Report Application for the demolition of semi-derelict farm buildings and redevelopment to provide four dwellings. Conservation Area consent for demolition 2/2009/0725 also applies. Members will recall that this application was deferred in order that a habitat survey could be undertaken to assess the site’s importance as a habitat for bats and barn owls. That has been completed and Natural England’s response confirms that the site is of little significance in terms of nature conservation. At the last Development Panel Members also agreed that contrary to current housing policy the principle of affordable housing was acceptable and officer recommendation has therefore been changed to reflect this.
Page 26 The application site comprises an open farm yard with existing, redundant farm buildings in a poor state of repair. A number of dwellings already converted from former farm buildings some years ago are noted and are accessed through the yard.
The applicant has specified that the dwellings will be for affordable rent and is willing to enter into an appropriate Section 106 Legal Agreement.
The application is subject to the current Interim Housing Policy SH5 which restricts housing at this location to an essential or exceptional need. Greysouthen has not been identified as being appropriate for affordable housing under the Interim Planning Policy due to its remoteness from key service centres, lack of local employment and limited local facilities. The applicant has provided a brief statement from a local estate agent that rental properties are in demand in Greysouthen but with no specific details of house type or tenant. Allerdale Housing Services most recent survey only identifies a need for three small bungalows and two apartments to rent in the Parish which does not match the proposed scheme. Contact with the local Housing Associations has also proved there to be no interest in the development of social housing.
The applicant proposes four dwellings with a terrace of three 3 bedroom units and a detached 2 bedroom house. Demolition of the barns is welcomed; improving the area generally.
The house types are of a standard design with traditional detailing and materials. The siting succeeds in maintaining the courtyard setting and is compatible with the street pattern of the Conservation Area. The residential amenity of the adjacent dwelling known as ‘Northsouth’ has been of a little concern with issues of unreasonable overlooking. The small windows (as amended) in question are, however, serving small bedrooms to which the most affected neighbour has not objected and indeed signed a letter of support.
Page 27 Parking spaces within the development are adequately provided. The access to the site is wide but has restricted visibility. The Highways Authority has commented upon the access. An intensification of use and vehicle movements is recognised despite the existing residential use of the site. On balance the access is considered acceptable for the proposed development with regard to the generous width and minor nature of the public highway. Vehicle movements are obviously few with speeds estimated at less than 10mph due to the characteristics of the road. The relaxation of highway standards to facilitate development in Conservation Areas (Policy CO10) would seem appropriate on this occasion as visual amenity will be enhanced with this redevelopment and removal of the existing derelict buildings.
In conclusion, although there is no proven demand for affordable housing at this location, the regeneration of this brownfield site in the Conservation Area is considered a positive measure whilst the agreement of the applicant to enter into a Section 106 Agreement and restrict the housing to the affordable market is welcomed.
Recommendation: Approved
Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun Reasons: before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. A 1m square free-standing panel of the facing materials to be used in the proposed development shall be constructed on the site and the materials approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The panel shall be retained on site until such times as the development is completed. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area, in compliance with Policies CO3, CO13 and HS5 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alteration June 2006 (Saved).
Page 28 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to 'permitted development', no extensions or other alterations to the building or development within the curtilage of the building hereby permitted shall be carried out without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The Local Planning Authority wishes to retain control over any proposed alterations/extensions in the interests of the appearance of the site and the amenities of adjacent properties, in compliance with Policies CO2, CO13 and HS5 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alteration June 2006 (Saved).
4. As the desk study identified potential contamination. a detailed site investigation shall be carried out to establish the degree and nature of the contamination and its potential to pollute the environment and cause harm to human health. If remediation measures are necessary they shall be implemented before occupation of the develoment and in accordance with the assessment and to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. A validation report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority once all remediation works are completed. All works must be in line with CLR 11. Reason: To ensure a safe form of development that poses no unacceptable risk of pollution to water resources or human health.
5. An archaeological watching brief shall be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist during the course of the ground works of the permitted development. The archaeological watching shall be in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority in advance of the permitted development. Within two months of the completion of the permitted development, three copies of the report shall be furnished to the Local Planning Authority. 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 investigation and recording of such remains, in compliance with Policy CO22 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).
Page 29 6. Details of all measures to be taken by the applicant/developer to prevent surface water discharging onto or off the highway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to development being commenced. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained operational thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management, in compliance with Policy HS5 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).
7. The use shall not be commenced until the access, parking and turning requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan. Any such access, parking and turning provision shall be retained and be capable of use when the development is completed and shall not be removed or altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that proper access and parking provision is made and retained for use in relation to the development, in compliance with Policy HS5 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).
8. Details of the surface treatments of the courtyard and parking bays within the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The details so approved shall be completed prior to the use of the development hereby approved being commenced and shall be retained thereafter. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development compatible with the character of the surrounding area, in compliance with Policies CO13 and HS5 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alteration June 2006 (Saved).
9. The access and courtyard shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or otherwise bound and shall be constructed and completed before the development is occupied/brought into use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
10. Access gates, if provided, shall be hung to open inwards only away from the highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
Page 30 11. If demolition of the existing buildings does not commence before 1 April 2010 an additional survey should be undertaken to determine whether bats have moved into the site for the breeding season. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation, in accordance with Policy EN32 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).
Page 31 Page 32
Agenda Item 9
Allerdale Borough Council
2/2009/0738
Reference No: 2/2009/0738 Received: 23 September 2009 Proposed Flood lighting on northwest of building Development: Drawing Numbers: SP01 - Site location plan DR01 - Lighting details DR01A - Luminaire performance data DR01B - Lamp type DR01C - Data sheet DR02 - Block plan and elevations Location: A Steadman & Son Warnell Welton Carlisle Applicant: Mr Mike Steadman
Constraints: Radon Assessment Allerdale Flood Zone 1 British Coal Area ASCA Area
Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN5 - Pollution Control Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development Policy EN18 - Control of light pollution
North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 Policy DP7 - Promote environmental quality
Representations: Parish Council – The Parish have withdrawn their original objections but would strongly recommend that time restrictions are imposed on the lighting – not illuminated after 9pm and before 6am. If the hours are restricted they do not believe there would be a problem for the factory as they currently finish at 7pm; but would mean if the factory wishes to return to longer working hours at any time in the future they must apply to be able to use the lighting outside these times.
Page 33 Environmental Health – No objections, changes have been made to the lighting to reduce the impacts.
Cumbria Highways – No objections subject to appropriate highway condition.
The application has been advertised on site.
No representations have been received to date (22 January 2010).
Report The application seeks retrospective permission for the installation of floodlighting to an extension which was granted permission in 2004 at the Steadman’s factory at Warnell. The factory manufactures cladding products for the construction industry. The site is in a solitary position within an open countryside location, there is one dwelling located adjacent to the site. There is sporadic residential development of varying distances from the site.
The lighting has been installed to the gable elevation in order to provide light into the adjacent yard area. The yard area is a working part of the factory and is used for the storage of materials; in order to achieve safe working within this area the floodlighting has been provided.
There are a total of 16 lights to the end section of building to which this application relates. Verbal conformation has been given that the lights to the main building have been up for a period of approximately 20 years for the main office section of the building and approximately 15 years for the main factory section of the building. Due to the length of time of the other lighting that has been erected they are now lawful and exempt from enforcement action. Although not part of this application the applicant has altered the angle of the lights on the main section of building in order to reduce their impact.
The Environmental Health department has indicated that the lighting has been altered slightly to ensure that the light does not shine out of the site therefore reducing the light spillage from this part of the site.
The new lighting is less visually prominent than the lighting on the main building and has been angled to cover the yard area only therefore it is considered that measures have been taken to minimise light pollution arising from the proposal.
The lights would not cause a distraction to users of the highway.
Page 34 The Parish Council has requested that the lights are restricted in the hours of use. As the existing lighting on the main building (which is not part of this application), is now lawful and there are no restrictions on the hours of operation it is considered unreasonable to attach a condition restricting the hours of use.
It is considered that the lights to this section of the building do not cause significant light pollution and efforts have been made to reduce any light spillage from the development. The lights are considered satisfactory and would not cause significant light pollution over and above the lights on the existing factory and office therefore approval is recommended.
Recommendation: Approved
Conditions/ 1. The lighting units shall be erected so that no direct Reasons: rays of light from the source of illumination shall be visible to the drivers of vehicles using the highway, and shall be maintained in that respect thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
Page 35 Page 36
Agenda Item 10
Allerdale Borough Council
2/2009/0753
Reference No: 2/2009/0753 Received: 13 October 2009 Proposed Proposed broiler units. Development: Drawing Numbers: 158/01A - Elevations and floor plans 1a - Site location plan (amendment received 23 November 2009) E-mail (amendment received 23 November 2009) 2a - Block plan (amendment received 23 November 2009) Letter and plan - Turning and parking arrangements (amendment received 13 October 2009) E-mail traffic route (amendments received 21 & 22 January 2010) E-mail manure details (amendment received 21 January 2010)
Location: Balladoyle Farm Silloth Wigton Applicant: Mr George Whitfield R G & W Whitfield Ltd
Constraints: Allerdale Flood Zone 1 Allerdale Flood Zone 3
Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN3 - Landscaping Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development Policy EN12 - Safeguarding floodplains Policy EN19 - Landscape Protection Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside Policy REM6 - Agricultural development outside sensitive landscapes Policy REM7 - Design and location of agricultural buildings
Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan (2001- 2016) Policy E37 - Landscape character
Page 37 North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 Policy DP7 - Promote environmental quality Policy RDF2 - Rural areas and key service centres Policy EM1 - Integrated enhancement and protection of the region's environmental assets
National Planning Policy Guidance PPS7
Representations: Holme Low Parish Council – Refusal due to the units sited alongside the road. If sited in the other direction and was less obtrusive this would be more acceptable.
Cumbria Highways – No objections subject to conditions attached. Request details of the proposed haulage route (2 November 2009)
United Utilities – No objections.
Drainage Engineer – No record of the site flooding.
Fire Authority – No objections.
County Planning – Do not wish to comment.
County Archaeologist – No objections.
Natural England – Do not wish to comment.
Cumbria Highways – Haulage route is acceptable and should be tied in via a Section 106 Agreement (8 December 2009).
No objections subject to a condition attached (21 January 2010).
No objections to the amended haulage route subject to a commuted sum for up keep of the road (22 January 2010).
Environment Agency – Satisfied that applicant is aware of flood risk and frequency of flooding. Advise a permit is required.
Silloth Town Council – No representation has been received to date (25 January 2010).
Page 38 Aspatria Town Council – Object to route 2 through Aspatria. Road not suitable for HGV’s and would lead to increased congestion. Traffic through night would disturb the residential area and this route is not the direct route onto the A596. The direct route is from Balladoyle Farm past Blackdyke and onto the B5302 through Abbeytown.
Environmental Health – No objections.
The application has been advertised on site and within the local press. Adjoining owners have also been notified.
No representations have been received to date (25 January 2010).
Report Planning permission is sought for two broiler units, Balladoyle Farm, Silloth.
The application site is an agricultural field connected to an existing farm that lies in the open countryside on the outskirts of Silloth. The farm is accessed off the B5301 which runs along the application site. The site is reasonably flat with a slight slope towards the west. To the boundary is a post and wire agricultural fence with an established hedgerow located to the north and east boundaries. The hedge is approximately 2 metres, which is sparse in places.
In the supporting design and access statement the applicant advises that the farm is an established dairy farm that is looking to diversify the current farming practise to ensure long term stability of the overall farming practises. The size of the buildings was determined after assessing set up costs and the computerised system for the buildings.
The proposal is to seek the erection of two broiler units and associated buildings. The two proposed sheds measure approximately 106 metres in length, 21 metres in width and 5.1 metres to ridge height (approximately 2.6 metres to eaves).
The buildings will run parallel to each other with a control room located between the two buildings. A small generator room is located to the side of the northern building and gas tanks located to the side of the southern building. The site of the sheds is to the north of the existing farm buildings. Six feed stores will be located within the central passage in front of the control room.
Page 39 The sheds would have concrete block perimeter walls to a height of 0.45 metres, above these to eaves height will be box profile polyester coated steel sheeting finished in juniper green to match existing. The side cladding and roof sheets will also be juniper green.
Access to the site would be via an existing turn off the B5301 which is currently used to enter the farm buildings. No alterations are required to this access as it currently serves large agricultural vehicles. A plan showing the turning and parking area have been submitted and Highways are satisfied with the arrangements.
Deliveries of food stuffs would be during normal working hours, however, the collection of the broilers themselves may be at any time.
In terms of traffic there will be one articulated vehicle per 3 days delivering feed, 1 transit van after each cycle to wash the sheds out and propane approximately every 2.5 months.
Chick deliveries comprise of 4 wagons (2 per shed) per cycle.
After 39 days, 6 articulated lorries (3 per shed) will remove the first batch of finished broilers. After another week the remaining broilers are removed by an additional 12 articulated vehicles (6 per shed).
Whilst the applicant advises that the feed delivery and chick deliveries can be undertaken during normal hours, the two stages of the collection of the broilers have to be undertaken in the dark to avoid stress to the flock which are packed into crates and subsequently into the articulated vehicles. Given these circumstances, the applicant advises he is unable to change the hours.
Officers in assessing the merits of the proposal acknowledge that the site is located in the open countryside and relates to an existing farmstead.
Officers consider the principle of the development (especially as a form of farm diversification) is acceptable subject to addressing any physical constraints at the site.
Page 40 In the context of its physical visual impact it is felt the buildings are appropriately located close to existing buildings. The existing hedge provides screening to the buildings and officers consider that any views of the site would not have a significant detrimental impact to the visual amenity of the landscape in the locality of the site.
The siting of the buildings lies within flood zone 3a as defined in Table D.1 of PPS25. The applicant has submitted a plan that shows all the land in the applicant’s ownership and whether it falls within the flood zone. There majority of the applicant’s land falls within flood zone 3 with those outside this flood zone having no relationship to any other buildings.
Officers are satisfied that the proposed siting of the building is appropriately sited and the applicant is fully aware of flood risk and frequency.
The applicant has put forward their proposed preferred routes from the site which are split via two routes.
Traffic movements from the site during the day will follow the route from Balladoyle Farm along the B5301 through Silloth onto the B5302 through Abbeytown and join the A596 at Wigton.
Collection and delivery of the chickens which must be carried out during the night will follow an alternative route from Balladoyle Farm, through Blackdyke onto the B5302 at the Seaville crossroad junction and through Abbeytown.
The applicant has suggested their agreement to an alternative route which would be along the B5301 to join the A596 at Aspatria, should Members object to the preferred haulage routes they would be willing to accept the use of the secondary alternative route.
As a major highway within the Borough, officers do not consider the scheme will have any significant adverse impact on the traffic congestion on the highway and would highlight that the Highways Authority have raised no objections to the submitted scheme subject the applicant been tied into a S106 Agreement for the haulage route.
Page 41 The route along the Blackdyke road to the B5302 is a C class road, which is not designed to accommodate regular HGV through traffic, although the road is wider than normal for this class of road. The Highways Authority has no objections to the route along the Blackdyke road during the night only. They would however require the applicant to entering into an agreement to provide a commuted sum to contribute towards highway repairs caused by additional traffic along this specific route.
The applicant has stated that a maximum of 99 HGV vehicles will use this C-class road a year.
Whilst officers recognise the necessity to safeguard the tourist economy and its assets, given the absence of any Environmental Health objection it is considered the scheme will have little significant adverse impact on other premises in the locality of the site.
Natural England raise no concerns on any potential impact of wildlife.
Therefore, overall, subject to a S106 to secure the ‘haulage routes’, the merits of the scheme are acceptable and may be approved.
Recommendation: Approved
Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun Reasons: before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development shall not be commenced until a detailed landscaping scheme indicating the type, height, species and location of all new trees and shrubs, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be brought into use after the end of the first planting and seeding seasons following the approval of the landscaping scheme, unless those elements of the approved scheme have been implemented. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced with others of similar size and species. Reason: In order to enhance the appearance of the development and minimise the impact of the development in the locality.
Page 42 3. Prior to the commencement of works details of a manure spreading plan (including the precise means for the storage of manure) to ensure the satisfactory disposal of manure generated by the development hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall thereafter, upon commencement of the use hereby approved, be implemented in accordance with the approved (or any subsequent approved amendment scheme). Reason: To minimise the impact of the development on the surrounding landscape, in compliance with Policy EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).
4. Prior to the commencement of works details of all external lighting works for the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved works shall solely be in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To minimise the risk of light pollution in its rural locality and safeguard the amenity of nearby residential properties, in accordance with Policy EN19 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).
5. No audible external sirens for the sheds hereby approved shall be implemented unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of other residential properties in the locality of the site, in compliance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).
6. Details of all measures to be taken by the applicant/developer to prevent surface water discharging onto or off the highway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained operational thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management.
Page 43 7. Details showing the provision of a vehicle turning space within the site, which allows vehicles visiting the site to enter and leave the highway in a forward gear, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The development shall not be brought into use until any such details have been approved and the turning space constructed. The turning space shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose. Reason: To ensure that provision is made for vehicle turning within the site and in the interests of highway safety.
Page 44 Page 45
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 46 Agenda Item 11
Allerdale Borough Council
2/2009/0797
Reference No: 2/2009/0797 Received: 4 November 2009 Proposed Retrospective application to retain and alter an existing Development: building to be used for agricultural purpose (including the demolition of some existing buildings) Drawing Numbers: Drawing No. 1 - Site location plan Drawing No. 4 - Proposed site plan Drawing No. 5 - Elevations Agricultural assessment (amendment received 5 January 2010)
Location: Lingside Farm Ling Lane Welton Carlisle Applicant: The Executors of Christopher Harrison Deceased
Constraints: Radon Assessment Allerdale Flood Zone 1 British Coal Area
Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside
Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy REM6 - Agricultural development outside sensitive landscapes Policy REM7 - Design and location of agricultural buildings
Representations: Parish Council – Consider sufficient buildings at the farm and the proposed demolition will denude the farmstead in order for it to become a ‘necessity’. There are sufficient existing buildings for the type of farm and the agricultural need has not been proved by the agricultural need assessment. The cost of works to enable its alteration for agricultural purposes is disproportionate.
The repeated applications at the site undermine the planning process and seek a speedy conclusion in pursuing the Enforcement Order.
(Comments awaited on the agricultural assessment.)
Page 47 Cumbria Highways – No objections.
The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have been notified.
Four letters of objection have been received on the grounds of:
1 Previous refused planning applications on the site – no change of circumstances. 2 Applicant (as executor) has no agricultural need. 3 The building should be considered as a ‘liability’ rather than an ‘asset’ to the estate. 4 The building’s reduction in height by 1m would still remain high for their intended use. 5 Demolition of existing buildings would alter curtilage of farm and demonstrates lack of need if they reduce the overall floorspace. 6 Existing buildings used for existing alternative uses for stabling/arena with the tenant only using 29 acres with the rest (30+ acres) sub-let. 7 The consent for the additional livestock building has lapsed. 8 Seek enforcement proceedings. 9 The farm does not need new buildings as there are sufficient buildings at the site which are serviceable and many of them are not being used (including the new hay building). 10 Potential opportunity for reconsidering alternative future landuses. 11 Issues relating to the will and the potential of possible contests by partial sale of the holding. 12 Detrimental visual impact on its surroundings. 13 No guarantee that works would be implemented. 14 Existing tenant is a builder who erected it in the first instance. 15 Detrimental precedent for other unauthorised development elsewhere in the Borough. 16 The applicant as executor has granted a temporary tenancy to the previous applicant but have no control on the current or future farming policy at Lingside. 17 No robust evidence on agricultural need to demonstrate the requirements for a farm of this type or size, but relates to the previous application which was refused. (20 acres of the holding have been sold since the original application in 2008.) 18 The stocking levels proposed are unsustainable. 19 The former consent only uses the fields immediately adjacent to the farm to graze the sheep.
Page 48 20 No evidence on any recent change of circumstances at the farm since the erection of the unauthorised shed to require its retention. 21 Demolition of existing building would be wasteful. 22 Reduction of the building’s height by 1m will have little difference on its impact on the landscape and views from surrounding properties. 23 No details on the dumping of rubble at the site (officers consider this is a different planning issue which will be the subject of a separate investigation. 24 The building did not comply Building Regulation requirements (officers consider this is not a material planning consideration). 25 Seek the implementation of the requirements of the Enforcement Notice to be pursued to ensure the demolition of the unauthorised building.
Report The applicant seeks consent to retain and modify an existing unauthorised shed at the farmstead at Ling Lane, Welton.
The application site has a complex planning history.
A planning consent (2/2002/0592) was originally approved for a new barn building adjacent to the applicant’s current proposal.
However, as a result of investigations into the progressive construction of the applicant’s unauthorised shed it was also identified that the adjoining barn was also not in accordance with the former approved scheme and consequently was also unauthorised.
The applicant subsequently submitted an application (2/2006/1103) to seek retrospective consent for the barn, planning consent for the additional unauthorised shed building (as a workshop for the applicant’s timber joinery business) plus an additional detached livestock shed on the southern periphery of the farm complex. However, works continued towards completing the unauthorised workshop building. As the applicant became aware that officers would not support an industrial use at this location the workshop building was withdrawn from the proposal.
Page 49 The remaining barn and livestock building elements of the application were approved (regularising the unauthorised barn). However, given the ongoing unauthorised works at the site relating to the workshop in October 2006, the Council issued an Enforcement Notice on the grounds that the development was harmful as “non-essential, unsustainable development in the open countryside to the detriment of the visual amenity of its surroundings and noise adversely affecting the amenity”.
Following a subsequent informal hearing an Inspector dismissed the appeal and upheld the Council’s Enforcement Notice highlighting “There is no functional reason why the office and workshop could not be provided in an appropriate urban location” and “The building enforced against is large and readily visible from the public footpath that passes in front of it”.
The Enforcement Notice subsequently came into effect requiring the cessation of use and the demolition of the building within 6 months of the appeal decision (16 October 2007).
Unfortunately, following this appeal decision, in March 2008 the elderly farmer of the site holding died and the estate went into probate.
However, at the end of the compliance timescale the applicant submitted a further retrospective application (2/2008/0362) to retain the existing building but modify its openings for use as a livestock building. As a result of the lack of any demonstrable evidence on the agricultural need for the building (especially given the limited size of the agricultural holding) the application was refused in June 2008 on the grounds of: insufficient demonstrable agricultural need, resulting in non-essential development in the open countryside i.e. was the agricultural need solely claimed on the basis that it occurred as a result of having to have the unauthorised building demolished.
In addition, the grounds of refusal also related to the scale and massing of the building (5.8m to eaves, 7.6m to ridge) which at two storey height was considered excessive for a livestock building resulting in its prominence in its sensitive rural location.
The workshop itself had not been built by the elderly farmer, but by a local business that operated the farming activities on the site on the behest of the farmer.
Page 50 The Council, despite the continued presence of the unauthorised building on the site in breach of the compliance criteria at the date, ran into a legal obstacle in that it could not identify, by virtue of the probate situation, the responsible party to remove the building i.e. the business owner in the absence of any determined landowner could not necessarily be pursued. Thus a state of ‘limbo’ prevailed until the probate issue had been resolved.
The businessmen, however, agreed to the cessation of the unauthorised building’s industrial use. The workshop equipment has been removed with internal stripping of details within the building.
The probate scenario delayed the ability for legal proceedings for a significant period of time.
The businessmen reapplied (application 2/2009/0191) for the retention of the building for use as an agricultural building for the storage of machinery at the farmstead (seeking to overcome the former grounds of refusal).
The resubmission application was accompanied by a land surveyor’s assessment of the farmstead within an inventory of its farming activities and its associated agricultural equipment.
The resubmission acknowledged that the unauthorised building would be impractical for livestock purposes, but would act as a suitable building for the storage of materials, crops and equipment on the site and contests the farmstead’s existing buildings were unsuitable for this purpose. The assessment also contested the nature of the vehicles (and their maintenance) and crop storage justified the height of the existing building.
However, officers disputed the submitted evidence, highlighting that sufficient existing buildings remained on the site to potentially accommodate any agricultural storage at the site and therefore the development remained both non- essential and also did not necessitate its height i.e. the previous grounds of refusal prevailed.
Page 51 Following the refusal of this later application the Executors of the estate, in explaining the options relating to the shed (especially given their potential to be liable to prosecution in inheriting the responsibility of acting as the responsible party for the unauthorised building) wish to explore whether or not the former grounds of refusal on the earlier application can be overcome. The current application has therefore been submitted by the Executors of the estate of the late Mr Harrison.
They outline in the supporting evidence that their responsibilities are twofold.
1 To act on the administration of the estate in accordance with his will. 2 Preserving the assets in the estate.
The applicant highlights that the development was built in 2006 prior to Mr Harrison’s death and therefore is an asset of the estate. The application seeks consent to alter the building to enable its re-use as part of Lingside Farm as described in an Agricultural Statement.
The Statement advises the building is 12.6m x 18.6m (revised eaves height 6.6m, ridge height 4.8m), removal of blocks above 12 courses to allow for ventilation, removal of external windows and door and replacement of the unauthorised building with two roller shutter doors with hinged gates.
It is considered these works would enable it to be satisfactory for agricultural use.
The Statement also advises the applicant’s agreement to demolish a range of eight existing block/timber/sheeting building at the farmstead (removing 650sqm of floorspace).
The Statement advises the holding relates to 25.77ha with 14.57ha land for grass meadow/mowing land and 10.93 ha for permanent pasture/grazing.
The applicant contests the farm would be a candidate for the Environmental Stewardship scheme.
The applicant’s Statement outlines that there are three traditional stone buildings on site and 8 livestock/storage buildings, made of block sheet or stone, plus the approved hay/crop storage building.
Page 52 The Statement also advises the strengths of the holding are summarised as follows:
The steading is well related to the holding, it is suitable for livestock production including sheep, cropping for hay and silage, good access to markets, existing beneficial building for hay storage, potential for the farm to operate 300/340 hogs or 225 lambing ewes.
However, the weaknesses of the holding are stated as:
Lacks secure workshop/tools, maintenance facility, lacks secure machinery storage, lacks suitable accommodation for the temporary storage of sheep during lambing season, lacks secure storage area for fuel/fertiliser and the old buildings are of limited benefit in meeting modern animal welfare requirement and pollution standards (particularly liquid effluent).
The Statement advises the external alterations would make the building suitable for farming practices e.g. vertical boarding, removal of windows/doors and roller shutter doors.
The applicant’s Statement concludes that the erection of the building would enable its use for storage of fuel, fertiliser and machinery, workshop area and temporary livestock accommodation, complementing the adjoining modern hay storage building for the holding. This would also include the loss of 650sqm of the existing building plus the relinquishment of the former extant livestock building consent.
The applicant also agrees that if the current scheme were approved he would also revoke the 216sqm of the outstanding extant livestock building under the consent (2/2006/1103) which has not been implemented.
The applicant highlights the former refusal decision (2/2008/0362) for the agricultural building and the reasons on the most recent following refusal application (2/2009/0191).
The applicant contests the current resubmission would result in the loss of 650sqm of floorspace which is 433.8sqm more than the proposed building, it is modified for agricultural purposes, the revised size (given its siting adjacent to the neighbouring approved barn building is acceptable thus overcoming the reason for refusal relating to no agricultural need and non-essential development.
Page 53 It is also contested that the lowering of the height addresses the second reason for refusal of the previous application. The applicant considers the scheme will improve the appearance of the farmstead in the open countryside including the public footpath which runs through the site, plus environmental benefits from the removal of the building close to the watercourse.
In response to the objections the applicant has also submitted an Agricultural Assessment by Hopes Auction Company Ltd. The Assessment refers to the applicant’s documents, previous knowledge and a site visit.
The Agricultural Assessment refers to the location of the farmstead, details of the existing farmhouse and a schedule of the existing agricultural buildings and their materials.
The Assessment advises the holding relates to 14.57ha (36 acres) of meadow mowing land and 10.93ha (27 acres permanent grazing). All the land is sown down to grass for either cattle or sheep and is ideal to support a flock of breeding ewes up to 225.
The Assessment advises most of the existing buildings are at the end of their lifespan and considerable investment would be required to bring them up to a suitable state of repair so they were fit for purpose (indeed some are in a derelict state and beyond repair).
An inspection by the Environment Agency in May 2008 resulted in their representative being unhappy with the state of the old buildings and potential for pollution, giving deadlines for the cessation of the use of these buildings.
The Agricultural Assessment considers the way forward would be to demolish the existing block and sheeting buildings and retain the proposed building to meet the requirements of the farm. The proposed alterations will make the proposal suitable for agricultural use and appropriate for the size and nature of Lingside Farm.
The building is required for: fuel (5sq m), medicines (2sq m), machinery (including tractors (2), trailers (3), quad bike and trailer, telehandler, manure spreaders (2), pasture topper, roller and hay making equipment) (136sq m) and seasonal lambing (425sq m).
Page 54 The total requirement of 590 sq m exceeds the 234sq m proposed by the building. In Jan-March there would be overspill into the neighbouring storage shed. As fodder is used up it would be replaced by machinery which had been temporarily stored outside.
Officers, in assessing the merits of the proposal, consider the merits of the current proposal relates to a multitude of planning issues relating to both the principle and physical characteristics of the development.
Crucial to addressing these details are the planning and enforcement history of the former proposals at the site, and their respective grounds of refusal deriving from grounds that resulted in the development being materially harmful to its locality (indeed prompting the necessity for enforcement proceedings). Members must therefore give significant weight to the planning history, especially as to whether they consider the current scheme does or does not overcome the former grounds of refusal.
Although the site has been the subject of a series of differing applications, each one has been different in its details or content to that of its predecessor, endeavouring to respond to the reasons for refusal.
The current scheme has to be assessed on its individual planning merits.
The current proposed scheme retains the same footprint of the former refusal application but both its eaves and ridge height are proposed to be reduced by 1m resulting in a lower building to that of the neighbouring barn. Another main alteration to the former scheme is the applicant’s agreement to, if approved, remove a wide range of other modern sheds at the farmstead which, in their view, addresses the issue of agricultural need.
The final variation, as pointed out by the objectors, is that the current scheme, unlike its predecessors, has been submitted by Executors of the estate and not farmers which has prompted questions on agricultural need.
Officers in assessing these criteria consider the first issue relates to the principle of the development.
Page 55 The Inspector, in support of the Council’s case, dismissed the original industrial landuse as inappropriate and unsustainable development in the open countryside. Obviously an agricultural use, given its open countryside location, would be more compatible within its sensitive environment. However, albeit the proposed development is agricultural in nature, this does not necessarily mean that there is an automatic acceptance of the principle of all agricultural development in the open countryside.
PPS7 highlights the importance of protecting the open countryside from non-essential development.
Policy EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan seeks to safeguard the open countryside.
Therefore there have been some instances, such as large agricultural buildings on smallholdings, when justification has been requested to qualify the principle as development of the agricultural development i.e. is it essential. Subsequently, as exemplified by the former refusal decision, there should not be an automatic assumption that the principle of all agricultural related development will be accepted in this location.
This is of particular relevance to the current proposal, as concern was raised as to whether there was any demonstrable change of circumstances at the applicant’s farmstead, following the dismissal of the appeal decision which necessitated the need of an additional agricultural shed.
Indeed, in the absence of any qualified evidence, this warranted the refusal of the original application (2/2008/0362) for the agricultural use of the unauthorised shed, especially as the size of the building was also impractical for agricultural livestock use.
The subsequent resubmission application (2/2009/0191) did include a detailed appraisal for its future re-use, recognising its unsuitability for agricultural livestock purposes, but alternatively included an inventory of the existing agricultural equipment used on the site.
Officers recognised that this proposal did not necessarily contest a revision of the agricultural operations at the site, but alternatively provided an inventory of agricultural equipment already stored (both internally and externally) at the farmstead.
Page 56 Therefore the merits of the last application did not relate to any change of agricultural practices at the site, but reflected storage needs of existing agricultural equipment on the site.
Whilst recognising the potential issues of storage, officers considered the extent of existing agricultural buildings on the site could satisfactorily accommodate the equipment and operations within the inventory. This in turn affected the ‘need’ for an additional building which remained non- essential thus failing to address the original open countryside reason for refusal on the current application.
The current scheme attempts to counter this argument by volunteering the demolition of the bulk of the site’s existing shed structures, most of which are small in size and in poor condition.
Officers, whilst acknowledging the objections referring to the reduction of the size of the holding, did observe a proportion of agricultural related equipment stored both internally and externally at the site (some of the existing buildings are also used for small scale stabling purposes.) No livestock were observed on the site during the officer’s site visit.
Although accepting that there would be no planning requirement to demolish the existing buildings on the site, given their existing status and the reduction of overall agricultural equipment at the site which could continue to remain without the necessity of planning consent, irrespective of the size of the holding) there is an argument on the reduction of agricultural operation floorspace at the site. Indeed officers also understand that generally farmers seek the use of larger more modern sheds than that of older, smaller and impractical shed units.
Consequently, whilst the size of the smallholding is not disputed, weight has to be attached to the comparison of the floorspace of existing agricultural floorspace to the proposal i.e. it would be difficult to justify that the reduction in floorspace would result in material harm as it would act as a substitute for existing. Any subsequent application for future agricultural buildings may require supporting evidence to justify both the principle and the size of the development.
Page 57 Officers respect the objectors’ concerns relating to agricultural need, especially as the current scheme, unlike its predecessors, is by Executors rather than farmers. However, the merits of the proposal albeit speculative have been endorsed within an Agricultural Assessment by a qualified estate land agent. The agent accepts the submitted details as reasonable and practical for agricultural purposes for this size of holding.
(Any alternative landuse of the shed would in itself require planning consent.)
On the secondary issue of the height, scale and massing, it is recognised that the applicant, unlike the former schemes, has agreed to lower its height.
It is considered that the revised eaves height for its general agricultural use either as storage or livestock use is acceptable. Indeed, officers consider the removal of the existing poor quality shed will overall enhance the appearance of the setting of the building in the farmstead.
However, fundamentally Members should consider whether the significant reduction in agricultural floorspace at the site reasonably outweighs the criteria of need i.e. does this reduction result in material harm to its surroundings.
Similar to the former refused application, officers consider the agricultural activity at the site does not necessarily focus on any future agricultural project for the holding but relates to the existing agricultural activity at the site. It was accepted under the earlier refused application that there was inventory of existing agricultural equipment at the holding. This has been verified by an Agricultural Assessment justification relating to existing items at the site i.e. the containment of any storage solely within the building would be less visually obtrusive than that associated within internal storage in the existing sheds (which presently cannot be controlled) and external storage would be more visually obtrusive in its landscape than the current scheme.
Officers therefore consider that the verification of the agricultural need within the submitted Agricultural Assessment, the merits of the resubmission are acceptable addressing and resolving the former grounds of refusal and may be approved (subject to the loss of the existing and former approved sheds).
Page 58 Recommendation: Approved
Conditions/ 1. The building hereby approved shall be fully Reasons: implemented in accordance with the approved scheme within two months of the date of this consent. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of agricultural development, in compliance with Policies REM6 and REM7 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).
2. Within two months of the date of this consent all the existing agricultural buildings outlined in green on the applicant’s appendix and amended plan shall be demolished and removed from the site. Reason: To ensure an essential agricultural need for the proposed development hereby approved, in compliance with Policies REM6 and REM7 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).
3. The former detached livestock building approved under 2/2006/1103 shall not be implemented without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an essential agricultural need for the proposed development hereby approved, in compliance with Policies REM6 and REM7 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).
4. Upon completion of the demolition works under Condition 2 of this consent there shall thereafter be no outside storage of agricultural vehicles, materials or plant. Reason: To ensure an essential agricultural need for the proposed development hereby approved, in compliance with REM6 and REM7 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).
Page 59 Page 60
Agenda Item 12
Allerdale Borough Council
2/2009/0799
Reference No: 2/2009/0799 Received: 6 November 2009 Proposed Outline application for erection of one domestic dwelling Development: Drawing Numbers: 1 - Site location plan 2 - Siting of dwelling (amendment received 18 January 2010) E-mail (amendment received 22 January 2010)
Location: 287 Skinburness Road Silloth Applicant: Mr Philip Smith
Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Hadrians Wall Setting,CO24 Allerdale Flood Zone 1 English Nature Conservation Area ASCA Area
Policies: Allerdale Local Planning, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy HS5 - New housing in settlements
Allerdale Local Plan, First Alteration June 2006 (Saved) Policy HS8 - Housing design Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing
Interim Housing Policy Policy SH5
National Planning Policy PPS3
Representations: Town Council – No objections.
Engineer – No record of flooding and no comment in relation to coast protection considerations.
Cumbria Highways – No objections subject to conditions attached (19 November 2009)
English Heritage – Do not wish to comment.
Page 61 Environmental Health – No objections.
Fire Officer – No objections.
United Utilities – No representation has been received to date (22 January 2010).
Natural England – No representation has been received to date (22 January 2010).
Cumbria Highways – No objections subject to conditions (21 January 2010).
The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have been notified.
Five letters of objection have been received. The concerns raised are:
• A similar application was rejected under planning reference 2/1991/0244. • Application site is smaller than submitted under 2/1991/0244. • Private sewer requiring permission to connect into which would not be given. • Number of properties in Skinburness village of a similar design and size to the proposed building which are up for sale indicating no demand for dwelling. • Privacy to 285 Skinburness Road and 1 Dick Trod Lane would be adversely affected. • Insufficient land available to accommodate dwelling resulting in an undesirable group development. • Not in-keeping with the existing residential properties. • Will impede view of Scotland. • Concern with the proposed access onto Dick Trod Lane.
Report Outline planning permission is sought for the erection of one domestic dwelling, 287 Skinburness Road, Silloth.
Site history
Outline planning permission was sought in 1986 (reference number 2/1986/0220) to demolish the existing garage and erect a bungalow in the garden of 287 Skinburness Road. An indicative plan was submitted that showed the position of the dwelling. The application was approved. No works were started on site.
Page 62 A further outline application was submitted for the same proposal and layout (2/1991/0244) which was refused. The reasons for refusal on the decision notice were:
1. The proposal represents an undesirable form of development by reason of the restricted size of the site and would thereby be detrimental to the amenities of the adjoining building. 2. The close proximity of the adjoining property to the proposed dwellinghouse and the orientation thereof will cause an undesirable form of group development.
The site and surrounding area
The application site consists of a detached bungalow on the corner of Skinburness Road and Dick Trod Lane. To south of the bungalow is a detached two space garage and drive. The bunaglow is surrounded by garden area. The existing size of the plot is approximately 0.11 hectares with the proposed application site being 0.04 hectares.
The application site is surrounded by residential properties or differing sizes and design, with the immediate properties been bungalows.
Proposal
The proposal is to sub divide the existing property and erect a bungalow between 285 and 287 Skinburness Road. The existing garage will be demolished and new parking and turning arrangements will need to be considered for the existing dwelling.
The applicant applied for outline planning permission with all matters reserved and to be considered under the reserved matters. Due to the previous refusal on the site officers felt the siting of the bungalow should be considered under the outline application.
The applicant has confirmed that they are happy for the siting of the dwelling to be approved under this application.
Policy and material considerations
• Not in line with the Interim Housing Policy • Previous refusal on site • Parking • Drainage
Page 63 Assessment
The site is located within the defined settlement limits of Skinburness. The Interim Housing Policy, however, states that no housing in Skinburness will be supported.
However, an outline application for the demolition of a redundant chapel and erection of new detached dwelling in Fletchertown (2/2007/0688) was allowed at appeal. This particular application had been refused on the merits that the Interim Housing Policy prohibits the creation of new residential within the village, except where required to meet an essential need. The Inspector in allowing the appeal questioned the weight of the Council’s Interim Housing Policy and its context, other policy guidance (e.g. North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021).
Furthermore, he emphasised the importance of the site’s brownfield status, its location within a settlement (albeit outlining there was no evidence raised on the issue of sustainability) and that a single residential unit would not result in any significant underlining of the housing targets sought under the North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021).
Given the similar characteristics of this site to the appeal decision (i.e. brownfield, within Skinburness limits and a single property) especially as it occupies a sustainable location (access to services) the individual merits of the scheme may be approved without any harm to the overall objectives of the Interim Housing Policy.
Planning Officers feel that although the application is not in accordance with the Interim Housing Policy, the Planning Inspector’s decision on the application described above should add weight to the decision.
The indicative layout plan submitted with the application proposed the siting of the dwelling in the same location as the details refused under 2/1991/0244. The agent was notified that officers have concern with the proposed layout and that it did not overcome the original reasons for refusal.
An amended plan has been submitted with a revised layout for the plot. The layout has been altered to reduce the size of the dwelling, orientation and the position of the dwelling. The floorspace of the dwelling has been reduces from 119 square metres to 100 square metres.
Page 64 The position of the dwelling forms a stepped appearance between the existing bungalows with the orientation matching the existing adjoining bungalows. The dwelling has also been moved forward on the site to provide a garden area to the rear. There is adequate room to the front of the site to provide two off-street parking places and a turning area.
Officers feel the revised layout forms an acceptable form of development and overcomes the previous reasons for refusal.
The design of the dwelling will be considered under the reserved matters application.
The properties along Dick Trod Lane and Nos. 287, 285 and 283 connect into private sewer. There is a covenant in the deeds of the property that states that permission should be sought from the developer (Thomas Armstrong) prior to any commencement of the development. The applicant has written to Thomas Armstrong requesting permission.
Conclusion
Taking all of the above into account it is considered that the applicant has demonstrated that the reasons for refusal on the previous application can be overcome therefore Members are recommended to approve the application.
Recommendation: Approved
Conditions/ 1. Approval of the details of the scale and appearance Reasons: of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereafter called "the reserved matters" shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess all the details of the development.
2. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in Condition 1 above, relating to the layout, scale and appearance of any buildings to be erected, the means of access to the site and the landscaping of the site, shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority and shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess all the details of the development.
Page 65 3. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
4. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
5. The details required by Condition 1 above shall relate to the development of a single storey dwelling on this site. Reason: It is considered that this form of development is the most appropriate in this location taking account of the site conditions and surrounding area.
6. All matters relating to the layout of the site the means of access, parking and turning within the site shall be reserved for approval at the detail planning stage. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
7. Provision shall be made in the submission of reserved matters for a minimum of two parking spaces. Reason: To ensure that a minimum standard of parking provision is made for the development.
8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to 'permitted development', no extensions or other alterations to the building or development within the curtilage of the building hereby permitted shall be carried out without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The Local Planning Authority wishes to retain control over any proposed alterations/extensions in the interests of the appearance of the site and the amenities of adjacent properties.
Page 66 9. Details of the siting, height and type of all means of enclosure/screen walls/fences/other means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any such walls/fences etc shall be constructed prior to the approved building being brought into use/occupied. All means of enclosure so constructed shall be retained and no part thereof shall be removed without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area.
Page 67 Page 68
Agenda Item 13
Allerdale Borough Council
2/2009/0810
Reference No: 2/2009/0810 Received: 6 November 2009 Proposed Proposed new semi detached dwellings, with individual Development: parking and on site turning area Drawing Numbers: 1 - Site location plan 2 - Block plan 3 - Site layout 4 - Front elevation 5 - Rear elevation 6 - South elevation 7 - North elevation 8 - Ground floor plan 9 - First floor plan Location: Allotment Garden Church Road Broughton Moor Maryport Applicant: Mr Dennis Neale
Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Radon Assessment Allerdale Flood Zone 1 British Coal Area
Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy HS5 - New housing in settlements
Allerdale Local Plan, First Alteration June 2006 (Saved) Policy HS8 - Housing design Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing
Interim Housing Policy Policy SH3
North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 Policy DP4 - Make the best use of existing resources and infrastructure Policy DP7 - Promote environmental quality Policy L4 - Regional housing provision
Page 69 Representations: Parish Council – No objections.
Environmental Health – No objections subject to desk study in relation to potential contamination.
Drainage Engineer – No comments.
Cumbria Highways – No objections subject to appropriate highways conditions.
United Utilities – The site should be drained on a separate system, with foul drainage only connected into the foul sewer and surface water should discharge to the watercourse/soakaway/surface water sewer. If surface water is allowed to discharge to the public sewer attenuation may be required.
Fire Officer – No objections.
The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have been notified.
Three letters of objection have been received relating to:
• Infringement of privacy as the proposal would have windows overlooking properties and gardens. • Strongly object to two semi-detached properties should they not be in harmony with the current Persimmon housing development. • The site is quite small for two plots • As the proposal is sited next to the road it would seem quite dangerous for vehicles joining the road and access would be tricky to and from the site. • Mr Neal has removed a stock fence surrounding his property back to the solid wooden fence, gaining land that is not his.
Report The proposal relates to an application for the erection of a pair of semi-detached, two storey dwellings on a site located adjacent to the newly built residential housing estate Meadow Lands, Broughton Moor. The site has an existing approval for a two storey four bedroom dwelling and garage which was approved in September 2007 under reference 2/2007/0740; this application is still valid and could therefore still be built subject to satisfying conditions.
Page 70 Under Policy SH5 of the Interim Housing Policy new open market dwellings within Broughton Moor would not be acceptable unless it is to meet an essential need. A recent appeal decision at Fletchertown allowed the principle of a new dwelling within the defined settlement limit (this site is also covered by Policy SH5). The appeal at Fletchertown related to the demolition of a former Methodist chapel and the erection of one dwelling.
Members will recollect at recent Development Panel Meetings applications for other single dwelling units have been approved within settlement limits. Broughton Moor provides sufficient services which include a school, shop and public house.
The parcel of land to which the application relates gained outline planning consent for housing development in 2004 as part of a larger site which is now owned by Persimmon Homes. This part of the site is, however, not owned by Persimmon but Mr Neale is in fact the owner and the land therefore is being developed under a separate application.
The site as a whole is approximately 18.5m in depth by 18.9m in width measured at their widest points. The site is bound by residential dwellings to the north, west and south with the highway to the east. It is considered that the size of the site can accommodate two dwellings but also provide sufficient amenity space, parking and turning areas.
The site would be accessed by way of two new vehicular accesses into the site from the public highway. The Highways Authority has not raised objections to the proposal and it is considered that there is sufficient parking and turning within the site for both of the dwellings.
Disposal of foul sewage is proposal via the mains sewer. United Utilities has indicated that the site should be drained on a separate system with foul drainage only connected into the foul sewer and surface water should discharge to the watercourse/soakaway/surface water sewer. If surface water is allowed to discharge to the public sewer attenuation may be required. The applicant proposes that the surface water would go to the main sewer. As the surface area would not be any greater than as approved in 2007, it is considered that there would be no increase over and above what could be disposed of under the original application which can still be built.
Page 71 The proposal would be constructed with uPVC windows and doors, rendered walls and a slate roof, it is considered that these materials would be acceptable and would match dwellings within the vicinity of the site. It is considered that the design and materials of the proposed dwelling are acceptable and that it will be in-keeping with the character of the village and the Persimmon Homes on the adjacent site.
In relation to the objections relating to privacy and overlooking it is considered that the residential amenities of neighbouring properties would not be significantly affected by the development. The degree of overlooking from this proposal would not be any greater than the dwelling already approved on this site which has windows to the rear looking onto the dwellings/gardens within the adjoining housing estate. The proposal would not compromise daylight available to neighbouring properties.
Design and materials are satisfactory and there would be no significant harmful effect on the visual amenities of the immediate locality or amenities of surrounding residential properties.
Considering the previous decisions to approve single dwellings not in line with the policies set out within the Interim Housing Policy it would be unreasonable to recommend the application for refusal. In conclusion, it is judged that in the light of the Fletchertown appeal and other recent decisions approval is recommended.
Recommendation: Approved
Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun Reasons: before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. Details of the proposed crossing of the highway verge and/or footpath shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the details have been approved and the temporary crossing has been constructed. Reason: To ensure a suitable standard of crossing for pedestrian safety.
Page 72 3. The access drive shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or otherwise bound and shall be constructed and completed before the development is occupied/brought into use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
4. Access gates, if provided, shall be hung to open inwards only away from the highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
5. Details of all measures to be taken by the applicant/developer to prevent surface water discharging onto or off the highway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to development being commenced. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained operational thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management.
6. Before the development is occupied the existing access to the highway shall be permanently closed and the highway crossing and boundary shall be reinstated in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise highway danger and for the avoidance of doubt.
7. The dwelling shall not be occupied until the vehicular access and turning requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan and have been brought into use. The vehicular access turning provisions 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 a minimum standard of access provision when the development is brought into use.
Page 73 8. The development shall not be brought into use until visibility splays providing clear visibility delineated by straight lines extending from the extremities of the site frontage with the highway to points 2.4m along the centre line of the access drive measured from the edge of the adjacent highway have been provided. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grow within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
9. Before development commences a desk top study shall be undertaken and agreed by the Local Planning Authority to investigate and produce an assessment of the risk of the potential for on-site contamination. If the desk study identifies potential contamination a detailed site investigation shall be carried out to establish the nature and degree of the contamination and its potential to pollute the environment and cause harm to human health. If remediation measures are necessary they shall be implemented before occupation of the development and in accordance with the assessment and to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. A validation report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority once all remediation works are completed. All works must be in line with CLR 11. Reason: To ensure a safe form of development that poses no unacceptable risk of pollution to water resources or human health.
Page 74 10. Details of the siting, height and type of all means of enclosure/screen walls/fences/other means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any such walls/fences etc shall be constructed prior to the approved building being brought into use/occupied. All means of enclosure so constructed shall be retained and no part thereof shall be removed without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area.
Page 75 Page 76
Agenda Item 14
Allerdale Borough Council
2/2009/0811
Reference No: 2/2009/0811 Received: 22 October 2009 Proposed New build agricultural dwelling Development: Drawing Numbers: DS/HW/P/1 - Site location plan (amendment received 20 January 2010) DS/HW/P/1/B - Block plan (amendment received 20 January 2010) DS/AH/C/3/09 - Elevations DS/HW/P/1/FF - First floor plan (amendment received 20 January 2010) DS/HW/1-G - Garage details DS/HW/P/1/S - Section (amendment received 20 January 2010)
Location: Arkleby House Farm Arkleby Wigton Applicant: Mr H Wilkinson
Constraints: Radon Assessment Allerdale Flood Zone 1 British Coal Area
Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside
Allerdale Local Plan, First Alteration June 2006 (Saved) Policy HS4 - New housing in open countryside Policy HS8 - Housing design Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing
National Planning Policy Guidance PPS7
Interim Housing Policy Policy SH5
Representations: Parish Council – No objections to the dwelling but feel the size and style are not in-keeping with the existing nearby buildings and are very different to previous approval.
Page 77 United Utilities – No objections.
Cumbria Highways – No objections subject to conditions.
Environment Agency – Means of foul should be in accordance with guidelines.
Environmental Health – No representation has been received to date (25 January 2010).
Fire Officer – No objections.
The application has been advertised on site.
No representations have been received to date (25 January 2010).
Report Planning permission is sought for the erection of an agricultural dwelling, Arkleby House Farm, Arkleby, Wigton.
Previous consent has been sought on this site for an agricultural dwelling and full planning permission was approved (2/2007/0048) for the erection of an agricultural dwelling.
A subsequent application was submitted (2/2008/0761) to amend the design of the agricultural worker’s dwelling which includes the construction of two dormer windows. This application was approved.
The agent sought officer’s informal opinion on extending and enlarging the agricultural dwelling. Officers advised that an application would not be supported as they felt the revised design would be too large.
This proposal relates to a nucleated holding, with a number of traditional and modern buildings of varying sizes arranged around the farmhouse, lying in open countryside approximately 3 miles due south of Aspatria. The holding comprises of 133 hectares of owner-occupied non-LFA land and is managed by Mr H Wilkinson and his son Mr G Wilkinson.
The principle of an agricultural dwelling in this location has been accepted by previous approvals (2/2007/00048 and 2/2008/0761).
Page 78 The revised house design entails the erection of a two storey dwelling with the first floor been in the roof space. The dwelling will site a bedroom, lounge, office, shower room, utility, kitchen and dining room at ground floor level with 2 bedrooms, one with a dressing room and en-suite and a lounge at first floor level. A single storey detached garage is proposed.
The external appearance of the previously approved dwelling comprised of wet-dash rendered elevations and timber windows/doors underneath a slate roof. The elevations and roof materials proposed match those previously approved although the applicant now seeks to install brown uPVC windows/doors.
The original design submitted under application 2/2007/0048 illustrated an integral garage. Officers had concerns with this design as it was felt this constituted a dwelling of excessive site. The plans were amended to illustrate a detached garage, which officers considered reduced the massing to an acceptable scale.
The subsequent application (2/2008/0761) resulted in the addition of dormer windows to the north west elevation. The external floor space approved under this application is 204 square metres.
PPS7 states that agricultural dwellings should be of a size commensurate with the established functional requirement. Dwellings which are unusually large in relation to the agricultural needs of the unit, or unusually expensive to construct in relation to income it can sustain in the long term, should not be permitted. It is the requirements of the enterprise, rather than the owner or occupier, which are relevant to determining the size of the dwelling that is appropriate to a particular holding.
The current application seeks to increase and alter the design of the agricultural dwelling, with the proposed external floor space being 222 square metres.
The Council normally use as a rule of thumb for agricultural workers dwellings of approximately 170 square metres. The proposed floorspace is considered excessive and it is felt there is no justification for a further piecemeal increase in floorspace.
Page 79 The design of the proposal, in particular, the large picture window dormers raise concerns in both the additional scale of development that would result (in the open countryside) and the design and size of the agricultural workers dwelling is going beyond what is required as a functional requirements of the holding.
The dwelling would therefore be more expensive to construct in relation to the income it can sustain in the long-term, and indeed its enlargement hinders the consent ability to secure the long term maintenance of any agricultural workers occupancy condition i.e. is it affordable to any other agricultural farm worker if the dwellinghouse was marketed. This has been highlighted at a site on the outskirts of Wigton, which successfully sought the removal of the agricultural occupancy condition to the property as it had been marketed but no interest had been expressed and consequently the occupier’s condition was reluctantly removed.
The applicant previously submitted the original case in 2007 in that it reflected the needs of the farm at that point in time. Officers are unaware of any material change in circumstances to justify the further increase in floorspace, especially as the original approval was already in excess of the normal 170 square metres.
The agricultural appraisal for the holding was completed in March 2006 and submitted with the original application in 2007. The applicant was requested to submit an updated agricultural appraisal to allow officer’s to assess that circumstances have not changed and there is still a need for an agricultural dwelling. No report has been received.
All other aspects of the proposal remain as those approved under the previous application.
Therefore, overall whilst officers raise no objections to the merits of the scheme at the site itself, concern is raised with regards to the proposed size and design of the agricultural dwelling (Albeit the design of the enlarged dormers is not ideal, they are insufficient in merit to refuse the application).
Page 80 Recommendation: Refused
Conditions/ 1. The Local Planning Authority consider that in the Reasons: absence of any compelling need for the standard of accommodation proposed, the proposed dwelling is over-large relative to the functional needs. As such the proposal fails to meet the requirements of Policy HS4 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alteration June 2006 (Saved).
2. The proposed development, by reason of its form and massing, would form a visually obtrusive feature which would detract from the rural character and appearance of the area within which it is located. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alteration June 2006 (Saved) and Policy DP2 of the North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021.
3. In the absence of an agricultural appraisal, the applicant has failed to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the proposal constitutes an essential form of development in the open countryside.
Page 81 Page 82
Agenda Item 15
Allerdale Borough Council
2/2009/0855
Reference No: 2/2009/0855 Received: 30 November 2009 Proposed Proposed erection of detached dwelling Development: Drawing Numbers: 11.09a - Site location plan and block plan 11.09b - Layout plan 11.09c - Elevations and floor plans Location: Blencarn Station Hill Wigton Applicant: Mr Matthew Gibson
Constraints: 2/1990,A1 Settlement Limit HS5 Allerdale Flood Zone 1 Adv Control Exclusion - Wigton
Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy HS5 - New housing in settlements
Allerdale Local Plan, First Alteration June 2006 (Saved) Policy HS8 - Housing design Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing
Interim Housing Policy Policy SH5
National Planning Policy Guidance PPS3
Representations: Town Council – No objections.
Environmental Health – No objections subject to condition attached relating to a desk top study.
Cumbria Highways – No objections subject to conditions attached.
Fire Officer – No objections.
Housing Services – No representation has been received to date (25 January 2010).
Page 83 County Planning – No representation has been received to date (25 January 2010).
The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have been notified.
Three letters of objection have been received. The concerns raised are:
• The dormer bungalow will overlook properties on Belted Will Close. • Will be substantially higher than the surrounding single storey dwellings. • All surrounding properties are single storey. • Dwelling located close to boundary creating loss of privacy and sunlight. • Roof lights in the east elevation would result in loss of privacy. • The proposed solid fuel system would mean prevailing winds would bring smoke into properties to the rear. • Concern the position of the dwelling would affect the roots of the established hedge to No 9 removing the existing screening. • Existing trees on site protect privacy to properties on Belted Will Close. • Removal of trees could disturb wildlife. • Driveway has been moved from east of site to the west that included removal of trees. • Dwelling sited to the west of the site would be more acceptable in terms of protection of trees and privacy/overlooking and reduced to single storey bungalow. • A previous application was refused on the grounds of the Council’s Interim Housing Policy.
Report Planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached dwelling, Blencarn, Station Hill, Wigton.
Site history
An application was submitted in 2007 (reference number 2/2007/0578) for the erection of a dormer bungalow on the same site and design as this current application. The application was refused on the grounds that the proposal was against the Interim Housing Policy. There were no grounds for refusal on the design or siting of the dwelling.
Page 84 The site and surrounding area
The site lies within the residential area of Station Hill, Wigton. The streetscene is a mixture of house types and designs. This section of Station Hill is detached bungalows with large front garden areas. The eastern end of Station Hill is a cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac is tree lined and a key feature on the streetscene.
The application site lies within the front garden area of Blencarn, Station Hill. The property has a large front garden area, this measures:
57.5 metres (length) x 23.5 metres (width)
The garden currently has mature landscaping which borders the front boundary (facing onto Station Hill) and the side boundary (facing Belted Will Close). Some of the trees on the site’s frontage are to be removed.
Proposal
The proposal is for the erection of a detached dwelling. The dwelling is a dormer bungalow, the accommodation comprising of kitchen/dining area, bedroom, lounge, utility room and bathroom at ground floor and two bedrooms with shower room at first floor. The proposal has a footprint of:
14 metres (length) x 9.8 metres (width) x 6.8 metres (height)
Access to the proposed plot is via the existing driveway to the applicant’s plot.
Policy and material considerations
• Not in line with the Interim Housing Policy • Previous refusal on site • Design and siting of dwelling • Loss of trees
Assessment
The site is located within the defined settlement limits of Wigton. The Interim Housing Policy, however, states only affordable housing in Wigton will be supported.
Page 85 However, an outline application for the demolition of a redundant chapel and erection of a new detached dwelling in Fletchertown (2/2007/0688) was allowed at appeal. This particular application had been refused on the merits that the Interim Housing Policy prohibits the creation of new residential development within the village, except where required to meet an essential need. The Inspector in allowing the appeal questioned the weight of the Council’s Interim Housing Policy and its context, other policy guidance (e.g. North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021).
Furthermore, he emphasised the importance of the site’s brownfield status, its location within a settlement (albeit outlining there was no evidence raised on the issue of sustainability) and that a single residential unit would not result in any significant underlining of the housing targets sought under the North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021.
Given the similar characteristic of this site to the appeal decision (i.e. brownfield, within Wigton limits and a single property) especially as it occupies a sustainable location (access to services) the individual merits of the scheme may be approved without any harm to the overall objectives of the Interim Housing Policy.
Planning officers feel that although the application is not in accordance with the Interim Housing Policy, the Planning Inspector’s decision on the application described above should add weight to the decision.
The proposed property is a dormer style bungalow; the properties in this area are mixed houses and bungalows having different ground settings, i.e. Station hill having large front gardens and Belted Will Close having long rear gardens.
The dwelling will be finished in white wet dash render, under a grey concrete roof tile with brown uPVC windows and doors. The materials are considered acceptable and will tie in with the surrounding area.
The dwelling is proposed 1.65 metres from the rear boundary and 17 metres from the rear elevations of 8/9 Belted Will Close.
Page 86 The dwelling is to be set into the slope of the ground and retaining/screening walls to be provided to the north and east boundaries to provide an element of privacy at ground floor level. There are three roof lights proposed in the rear elevation, these serve the landing and shower room and are not classed as habitable rooms and therefore will not create loss of privacy to the properties on Belted Will Close. Details of the ground levels and boundary enclosures can be requested and agreed under condition.
The Local Authority’s tree specialist inspected the trees as part of the 2007 application and confirmed that those within the application site were not worthy of a Tree Preservation Order.
The parking and turning arrangements are considered acceptable.
Conclusion
Officers consider the design, siting and appearance of the property acceptable and the appeal decision offers considerable weight to the application which, therefore may be approved.
Recommendation: Approved
Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun Reasons: before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The access drive shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or otherwise bound and shall be constructed and completed before the development is brought into use. This surfacing shall extend for a distance of at least 5 metres inside the site, as measured from the carriageway edge of the adjacent highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
Page 87 3. Details of all measures to be taken by the applicant/developer to prevent surface water discharging onto or off the highway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to development being commenced. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained operational thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management.
4. The dwelling shall not be occupied until the vehicular access and turning requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan and have been brought into use. The vehicular access turning provisions 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 a minimum standard of access provision when the development is brought into use.
5. Before development commences a desk top study shall be undertaken and agreed by the Local Planning Authority to investigate and produce an assessment of the risk of the potential for on-site contamination. If the desk study identifies potential contamination a detailed site investigation shall be carried out to establish the degree and nature of the contamination and its potential to pollute the environment and cause harm to human health. If remediation measures are necessary they shall be implemented before occupation of the development and in accordance with the assessment and to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. A validation report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority once all remediation works are completed. All works must be undertaken in line with CLR 11. Reason: To ensure a safe form of development that poses no unacceptable risk of pollution to water resources or human health.
Page 88 6. The development shall not be commenced until a detailed landscaping scheme indicating the type, height, species and location of all new trees and shrubs, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be brought into use after the end of the first planting and seeding seasons following the approval of the landscaping scheme, unless those elements of the approved scheme have been implemented. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced with others of similar size and species. Reason: In order to enhance the appearance of the development and minimise the impact of the development in the locality.
7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to 'permitted development', no extensions or other alterations to the building or development within the curtilage of the building hereby permitted shall be carried out without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The Local Planning Authority wishes to retain control over any proposed alterations/extensions in the interests of the appearance of the site and the amenities of adjacent properties.
8. Details of the siting, height and type of all means of enclosure/screen walls/fences/other means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any such walls/fences etc shall be constructed prior to the approved building being brought into use/occupied. All means of enclosure so constructed shall be retained and no part thereof shall be removed without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area.
Page 89 Page 90
Agenda Item 16
Allerdale Borough Council
2/2009/0863
Reference No: 2/2009/0863 Received: 8 December 2009 Proposed Erection of a temporary building for use as a food store Development: Drawing Numbers: 397601/07 - Site location plan P02 Rev A - Proposed site layout P05 Rev A - Proposed elevations P04 - Proposed building plan 9021-E01 Rev C1 - External works car park VKE0329993-01 Rev A - F10 disaster recovery store plan
Location: Land to west of Siddick Road Workington Applicant: Tesco Stores Ltd
Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Industrial & Commercial Allerdale Flood Zone 1 British Coal Area Adv Control Exclusion – Workington
Policies: National Planning Policies PPS1 – Delivering sustainable development (2005) PPS1 – Supplement planning and climate change (2007) PPS4 – Planning for prosperous economies (2009) PPS6 – Planning for town centres (2003) PPG13 – Transport (2001)
North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 Policy DP1 - Spatial principles Policy DP2 - Promote sustainable communities Policy DP3 - Promote sustainable economic development Policy DP4 - Make the best use of existing resources and infrastructure Policy DP5 - Manage travel demand, reduce the need to travel and increase accessibility Policy DP6 - Marry opportunity and need Policy DP7 - Promote environmental quality Policy DP8 - Mainstreaming rural issues Policy DP9 - Reduce emissions and adapt to climate change
Page 91 Policy RDF1 - Spatial priorities Policy EM1(C) - Historic environment Policy W1 - Strengthening the regional economy Policy W5 - Retail development Policy CNL1 - Overall Spatial Policy for Cumbria
Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001- 2016 (Saved) Policy ST5 - New development and key service centres outside the Lake District National Park
West Cumbria Retail Study This document constitutes a supporting retail document towards the future Local Development Framework’s core strategy.
Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy RG1 - Maintaining the viability of town centres Policy RG2 - Location of future retailing proposals Policy EN9 - Contaminated/Derelict Land Policy EN38 - Protection of green wedges/corridors Policy EM2 - Renewal of industrial allocations in NALP and SALP
Representations: Seaton Parish Council – No objections, support for the population of Seaton Parish in availability of retail premises more readily accessible.
Broughton Moor Parish Council – No objections.
Cumbria Highways – No objections as all highway works are constructed or in the process of being constructed. However, the Highways Authority highlight that under no circumstances would the Highways Authority approve continued use of this store once there is a vehicular access across the Derwent, in whatever form, and there is any through traffic where traffic flows return to anywhere near previous flows. The Highways Authority would consider this store access as suitable only for the use while there is no vehicular access to Workington’s A596 (which should be conditioned).
County Archaeologist – No objections.
Environment Agency – No objections to the proposal subject to conditions. (There is insufficient evidence on the risk to controlled waters.) If it were a permanent proposal they would lodge an objection but given the exceptional circumstances, with no penetrative foundations, the proposal satisfies a short term development.
Page 92 Environmental Protection – No objections in principle but seek condition re validation of works relating to the remediation works. Under normal circumstances seek adherence to procedures in CLR 11, with a desk top study for site investigation before works commencing on site.
However, this is a unique situation and engineering solutions were identified and used to break any potential pathways on site. It should be noted that the recent site investigation undertaken by the applicant’s consultant did not comply with current guidance. Any future design alterations which alter the design or use of the site may create new potential pollution linkages. Any permanent proposal would require further work on the shallow soils which would necessitate additional planning conditions.
Health and Safety Executive – Confirm the amended option is unlikely to be opposed by the HSE (in response to proximity to hazardous installations).
Fire Officer – No objections.
Network Rail – No objections in principle subject to conditions (not all aspects can be secured as conditions).
United Utilities – No representation has been received to date (26 January 2010).
Natural England – No representation has been received to date (26 January 2010).
Ramblers Association – No representation has been received to date (26 January 2010).
County Planning – No representation has been received to date (26 January 2010).
Cumbria Wildlife Trust – No representation has been received to date (26 January 2010).
The application has been advertised on site and within the local press. Adjoining owners have also been notified.
No representations have been received to date (26 January 2010).
Report The applicant seeks temporary retrospective consent for the erection of a retail store on a former (former temporary) derelict 2.39ha site to the west of Siddick Road (just south of Dunmail Park on the opposite of the road).
Page 93 The development comprises of 1,272m (net 960m² retail) unit (approx 29m x 43m) located in the northern section of the plot, with an elevated car park (139 spaces and 10 disabled spaces), bus turning area (to be served by a new bus service) absorbing the majority of the southern section of the site.
The proposal utilises an existing junction onto the A596 to act as its vehicular access both by the public and its deliveries (served by a loading bat compound including generators, storage, a bowser and gas tank) on the western side of the store unit. An external plant store is also externally located within the curtilage of the site.
Pedestrian access is provided via a ramped walkway from the car park to the store with a pedestrian link along the eastern frontage to link up to the footway on the A596 (and its associated bus stop) opposite Dunmail Park.
The proposed store itself comprises of a flat roof structure finished in plastic of coated steel (in a cream colour and brown fascia. Glazed windows are inserted on part of the front and side elevations.
The proposed store would operate between the hours of 8am and 10pm Mon-Sat and 10am – 4pm Sundays. The proposal would employ 40 full time staff.
The supporting statement to the application advises the proposed foodstore is to provide a foodstore facility for those who cannot reach the main Tesco store in Workington due to the closed bridges. Its siting on the northern side of the River Derwent seeks to provide basic shopping facilities to Northside, Siddick and Seaton, who were formerly diverted via Cockermouth and Carlisle for their main weekly shop. The proposed store was carried out by local companies and is likely to be required until there are usable bridges over the River Derwent.
Given the ‘need’ element of these recent circumstances, the applicant considers no time limit should be set other than that recommended by the County Council (i.e. when the bridges re-open).
From a highway perspective, there is a reduction in traffic movements on Siddick Road, with most visitors arriving from the north.
Page 94 The applicant contests the store’s location is accessible with sufficient public transport links and planning provision to the benefit of the operator and the customer.
The applicant understands that there are no objections (subject to additional information) from the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency. Similarly, the Environmental Health Officer also considers the scheme is acceptable in principle subject to no disturbance of the spoil heap to the west of the site which has been avoided.
Overall, the applicant considers the proposal provides a vital retail facility for those to the north of the River Derwent which are presently unable to access Workington town centre and the proposed site is the most reasonable for the development’s temporary use.
A supporting access and design statement refers to the use, layout, scale, landscaping appearance and access to the site.
The statement advises the scale of the development is in- keeping with its surroundings. It will provide a temporary store with a limited range of goods until the bridge is re- opened.
The statement refers to the site’s proposed parking and delivery facilities, linking to the public transport network (both to bus services and the nearby new temporary railway station.
The report considers the scheme is of sufficient quality and architectural design given its temporary nature. It considers the scheme represents the best solution to provide a retail facility until the flood damage can be rectified.
The applicant has submitted a Phase 1 Environment assessment and transport statement in support of the proposal.
Page 95 The latter transport statement refers to the development’s new pedestrian links to existing bus stops on the A595 which are within walkable distance. The transport statement refers to the level of parking provision and the modification to the access onto the A596 via the introduction of a central right turn lane for southbound traffic travelling to the car park. Given the significant reduction in traffic movements since the collapse of the bridge, the applicant advises that the Highways Authority, in this instance, has not required any need for a detailed vehicle assessment seeking sufficient capacity for the development. The transport assessment concludes the Highways Authority has supported the store on the basis of: footpath convenient to the bus stops, no requirement for traffic analysis due to reduction of background traffic and existing public transport sufficient to cope with future patronage of the store. Subject to the proposed works, the statement considers the road network is adequate to support the development.
Although no formal retail impact assessment has been submitted the applicant has submitted a retail statement.
The retail statement repeats and outlines the temporary nature of the store (which will be terminated on the opening of the bridge), with the disaster recovery team opening the store on 14 December.
The applicant refers to the recent PPS4 which aims to focus on new economic growth and the development of main town centre uses in existing centres. The store was erected to deal with an emergency situation and there is no demonstrable harm identified in the short term to the vitality or viability of existing centres.
In reference to the requirement for the store the retail statement highlights PPS4 there is no requirement to conduct a capacity needs assessment. They consider that the need will be met by approx half the catchment of Workington’s main foodstores which cannot access due to the loss of the bridges on the River Derwent.
Page 96 (40% of the store’s customers addresses on the club card data come from north of Workington). The proposed diversion results in a significant detour with considerable distances to other stores; 6 miles to Maryport (Co-op), approx. 10 miles (via diversions) to Cockermouth (Sainsbury/Aldi), 30 miles to Carlisle (Tesco, Morrison and Asda) resulting in unsustainable car trips. The proposed store is approx. half (960m²) the size of the existing Tesco store and will only offer convenience goods for sale during the emergency situation. The requirement for comparison goods is not the same for a normal site.
The applicant considers the store links in with the role and function of this part of town (including car park and servicing area). Its single storey scale does not dominate its surroundings, especially given the larger store on the opposite side of the road.
In reference to alternative sites, the applicant advises they explored a thorough site search and the usual sequential test could not be applied in ensuring accessibility north of the River Derwent.
Dunmail Park was investigated but dismissed as the floorspace of the store and its parking and serving area could not be accommodated (as the store would take up a significant proportion of the car park).
The proposed site was therefore considered the best solution.
In terms of impact, the applicant’s store’s average weekly sales have been reduced by a third through the loss of customers north of the river.
Whilst some residual trade will be diverted to Maryport/Cockermouth due to the flooding areas, the proposal will in effect re-balance the changes with no adverse impact from the temporary store due to its scale and location within the catchment of the original store.
Therefore the applicant considers the impact will be minimal and will not draw trade from stores in the wider area, and provide essential shopping needs to the communities on the northern side of the River.
The temporary foodstore is accessible to Northside, Siddick and Seaton, avoiding excessive travel journeys to Maryport, Cockermouth and Carlisle.
Page 97 The proposal uses an existing access and has good links to both bus and train public transport services.
The report therefore overall concludes the scheme provides a vital retail facility and represents a reasonable location with good accessibility. Although not is a town centre it will not adversely affect other retail facilities. Although unallocated, the scheme, especially being short term, will not be detrimental to the viability or vitality of other retail locations.
Officers in evaluating the submitted evidence consider the planning merits