SL/2017/0378 PARISH: Milnthorpe Land Adjacent to St Anthony's Close PROPOSAL

SL/2017/0378

PARISH: Milnthorpe Land adjacent to St Anthony's Close

PROPOSAL: Erection of eight dwellings with associated access and landscaping works

APPLICANT: Dallam Tower Estate and Brookhouse Group

Grid Ref: E: 349879 N: 481961

8 46

P 4

O 2

A 6 Hig hfield T 37.5m ower Bank

Manzel 0

3 15 23

S 5

L 19 I 20

H ST

ANTH 1 O NY'S

3 0 1

5 2 1

7 '

31.2m O

T 11 13 N 21 A 12

14 22 F T R pe S E stry Hillcrest V ottage A H Orchard Crest 1

7 2

1 2

8 2

5 4

3 Allotment Gardens 2

6 7

3 4

2 5

8 3

E Allotment

K Gardens

26.7m

2 1 2

23 T

25 r 24 3 a 26 5 37 c 36 k

2 38

0 k c a r

"T 3 1

a 3 2 2

9 0

2 8 3 8

Y 8

L 1

2 S

E 4

2 U 8 Y M SL/2017/0378 The material contained in this plot has been reproduced from an Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Land adjacent: Licence No. 100024277 © Crown Copyright Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright St Anthony's Close and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Milnthorpe

Scale: Not to scale

SUMMARY 1. Full planning permission is sought on the Land Allocation LA1.3 adjacent to St.Anthony’s Close. The site is identified as being 0.48 hectares, sufficient to accommodate up to 9 dwellings. Eight split level dwellings are proposed, 2 detached and 6 semi-detached. All are one and a half storey at the front, three storey at the rear which takes account of the sloping land levels. All have integral garage/store, bin store, two parking spaces and are finished externally with slate, render and reconstructed stone quoins and lintels. 2. The key issues that apply to this application are: • Impact on the setting of a listed building; • Surface Water and Foul Drainage; • Design; • Residential amenity.

3. The application is brought before planning committee because of the level of public interest.

RECOMMENDATION 4. Grant subject to a number of conditions which are set out at the end of the report.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL Site description 5. This allocated site is located in the south west corner of an agricultural field north of the centre of Milnthorpe between Haverflatts Lane and St.Anthony’s Close. North of the site is St.Anthony’s Tower, a Grade II listed Monument. Approximately 141metres east is Haverflatts Lane where the agricultural field access exists. The west boundary abuts the rear gardens of no’s 10, 11, 12 St.Anthony’s Close and the hammerhead at the end of St.Anthony’s Close. The south boundary abuts the side boundary of Hillcrest and Orchard Crest at the head of Summerville Road. 6. The site is currently agricultural pastureland used for grazing sheep. Boundary treatment on the south and west is a post and wire fence. There is a mix of stone wall and mature hedgerow behind. The land rises steeply north, falling away to the east and south forming a valley, then rising again towards Haverflatts Lane.

Proposal 7. The application seeks full planning permission for the construction of 8 dwellings, 6 three bedroom semi-detached and 2 four bedroom detached. The dwellings are 1.5 storey facing the street and 3 storey at the rear. All have integral garage/store plus two parking spaces. The external finish is with slate, render and reconstructed stone quoins and lintels. Gardens to the front and rear.

Access will be taken from an existing hammerhead on St.Anthony’s Close. Each dwelling has a private driveway providing 2 parking spaces.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT 8. The land was included in the South Lakeland Local Plan Local Land Allocations Document reference LA1.3 Land adjacent to St.Anthony’s Close. Pre-application advice was sought under IE/2014/0115. The general advice referred to the land allocation.

CONSULTATIONS Parish / Town Council: MILNTHORPE 9. The Parish Council welcomes this proposed development in terms of amenity and access, as it makes good use of a difficult site to provide family housing. However it is concerned about the proposal to dispose of foul sewage by connecting the development to the existing combined sewer in Summerville Road because of existing experience by residents of sewage overflow into gardens. As such adding a further 8 dwellings is unacceptable. There are no details submitted of the outcomes of consultations. The Parish Council feels that insufficient work has been done to accurately assess the capacity and capability of the sewer and on this bases objects to the application. An acceptable proposal would be to pump the foul sewage to the existing sewer in St.Anthony’s Close.

Cumbria County Council: Highways 10. The amended proposal includes changes to the drainage, footways and driveway access, and removal of a new field gate, all of which are acceptable. Construction should be to a standard suitable for adoption by the Highway Authority through the Section 38 (road) and Section 278(pedestrian) process.

11. Previously highways had ojected on grounds of parking provision layout and gradients, pedestrian connectivity in respect of permeability to the existing footway network on St.Anthony’s Close, vehicle access points and visibility splays, and the creation of an agricultural field access gate.

Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) 12. Following investigations by the applicant with the LLFA a Grampian Condition has been agreed. The LLFA accepts the changes on drawing CF7195 002 Revision ‘C’ and the report and is satisfied that the proposed drainage can be achieved once the identified blockage is removed. 13. Previously the LLFA had objected to the proposal on the grounds of inadequate information to address adequate surface water drainage. The site posed

significant obstacles to development; the steep gradients giving rise to existing surface water drainage issues. showing that percolation testing has been done to BRE 365 standards and does not show the locations of soakaways or gradients of access with related permeable surfacing,

Electricity North West : 14. No objection raised but found that the proposed development could have an impact on NW Electricity infrastructure. An application to divert the high voltage overhead power line can be made. A safe working distance must be maintained. If planning permission is granted the applicant should verify such details by contacting Electricity NW.

United Utilities: 15. No objection subject to the proposal draining surface and foul water on separate systems. Prior to commencement a surface water drainage scheme based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the national Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment shall be submitted and approved. The surface water drainage scheme must be in accordance with the non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards unless otherwise agreed. A management and maintenance plan should be submitted to allow adoption by the appropriate public body. It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate the connection between the proposal and United Utilities assets. Foul and surface water should drain separately in accordance with the NPPF and PPG.

South Lakeland District Council:

Conservation Officer 16. The Conservation Officer is unable to support the proposal and states “I would wish to make it clear that I recognise that for harm to occur any effects must be significant ones; and that simply being able to see any of the proposed development from these receptor sites would not necessary mean that a harmful impact would result. With regard to views out from the asset and from any land to the south and south west of the application site my advice is that any such impact would be neutral, and so the preservation of St Anthonys Tower would be secured because no harm would be caused. With regard to views that take in both the tower and the proposed development from the south east my advice is that the development would slightly compromise and diminish the characteristically rural and undeveloped setting of the grade II heritage asset and so cause harm to its significance. This harm would be tempered by the existence of housing in the background of such views but even so, I conclude that the proposal would have a minor adverse impact on the significance of the grade II listed building.” 17. The Conservation Officer concludes:

18. “In applying the tests of the 1990 Planning (LBCA) Act my advice is that the proposal would cause harm to the setting, and thus significance of the grade II listed St Anthonys Tower, and so fail to preserve its special architectural or historic interest . In calculating the impact of the proposal I conclude that the impact would be slightly harmful; and so, to use the terminology required by the PPF, it would less than substantial. 19. Having paid special attention to the desirability of preserving these various designated heritage assets; and taking into account of recent case law, it is important to be aware that despite finding the harm to be less than substantial, there remains a statutory presumption against granting approval for such development, and this should remain a compelling factor in your deliberations. However, the NPPF and other recent case law clearly advises that such harm can be offset by other material considerations, including any public benefits that might be delivered by the proposals, providing they are sufficiently powerful enough to outweigh the less than substantial harm that I have identified above. These gains can be environmental, social or economic but the NPPF advises that to secure sustainable development all three should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning process. 20. The application does not claim any public benefits for the proposal in terms of the historic environment, as it required by NPPF section 134. In weighing up the lack of any obvious public benefits that would arise from the scheme against the minor adverse aspects identified above, my advice from the perspective of the historic environment is that proposal would not provide a sufficient set of gains with which to outweigh the harm that would occur to these heritage assets, and so allow for a departure from the statutory duty of the 1990 Act, in accordance with sections 132 and 134 of the NPPF. 21. In conclusion, I must remind you that when subsequently undertaking the required planning balance, the key issue that needs addressing will be whether any public benefits that might be associated with the proposed development would be of sufficient and equivalent value with which to offset the harm that would occur to the historic environment. Accepting such harm without a persuasive case being made for such public benefits would be contrary to the Governments objective that the historic environment and its heritage assets should be conserved and enjoyed for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations. Accordingly, it will be necessary for you to examine the reasons put forward as to why the harm that is identified above should be found to be acceptable, and so outweigh the less than substantial harm that would be caused to this designated heritage asset.”

Arboricultural Officer 22. The proposal will require removal of a short section of hedgerow, though visually appealing, does not provide a significant contribution to the amenity of the site and its removal could be mitaged with replacement planting. The proposed addition of a native boundary hedge for external and internal boundaries is the most appropriate boundary treatment. Maintenance jobs for the landscaping are specified on the landscaping plan but no schedule of frequency is given. Maintenance frequency is particularly important if the planting takes place outside the recognised planting season. This information could be required by

condition. Providing the development is carried out in full accordance with the submitted tree survey and proposed landscaping plan, and a schedule of maintenance agreed I would have no objections. 23. On the Amended landscape plan: The revised landscaping plan, including maintenance regime is acceptable.

Public Protection Group 24. Drainage records show no information relevant with regards to drainage problems. No other observations to make.

Neighbours: 25. Objections: There have been 26 objections and 1 comment in which the key concerns relate to the principle of development on the site, the poor access and existing problems with sewage and surface water drainage. A key summary of those objections is as follows; • Road safety: Access to the site is poor; steep, blind bends and parked cars; this was acceptable when St.Anthony’s Hill was first developed but with additional housing and cars it is congested and dangerous. More houses will put more pressure on the access. • No, or incomplete pavements for residents from Hill Top, Hill Crest and St.Anthony’s Hill or connecting the site. • Summerville Road sewers have backed up and flooded parts of no.7 and 9. Sewage should be pumped to connect to St.Anthony’s Close. Residents have been told the existing system on the street is inadequate for the volume. Bin wagons have to mount the pavement to pass parked cars. • The soakaway / culvert in the field is not big enough and floods the allotments and the back of houses 20, 22 and 24. • Increased noise and disruption • The field access would cause conflict with existing cars and pedestrians and agricultural traffic. • Visitor parking adjacent the garden of no.10 and reduces the size of the buffer strip. • proposal has not met concerns by highways; pedestrian connectivity, field access, local traffic and public safety; • additional parking in the site narrows the access for Electricity Northwest • section plans are not a true representation of the impact on the adjacent single storey dwellings that will be enclosed by the development; • The dwellings should be single storey; the dwellings are to be built into the bank but still appear higher than originally intended • The proposal will enclose 10 St.Anthony’s Close between no.9 and the new dwellings which are 3 storey town houses. 26. Concerns:

• Risks to residents from construction traffic. The A6 junction and the two right angled bends in St.Anthony’s Hill all have restricted visibility. • Would like to negotiate the exact location of tree planting to minimize overshadowing of adjacent gardens.

POLICY ISSUES South Lakeland Core Strategy (CS): 27. Policies • CS1.1 Sustainable development principles • CS1.2 The development strategy • CS5 Spatial strategy for the east, including Milnthorpe and Kirkby Lonsdale • CS8.6 Historic Environment • CS8.8 Development and flood risk • CS8.10 Design • CS10.2 Transport impact of new development

Local Plan Land Allocations: Development Plan Document (DPD): 28. LA1.3 Adjacent to St.Anthony’s Close: • 0.48 ha site, could support 9 dwellings. Key issues include impacts on views, St.Anthony’s Tower, means of access, separation between Milnthorpe and Ackenthwaite, residential amenity particularly of those to the south west.

Saved Policies of the South Lakeland Local Plan (LP): 29. Saved Policies • S2 Design • S3 Landscaping Emerging Development Management Policies (DPD): 30. The DM DPD was submitted on 28 February 2018. The following policies received objections, therefore under provisions of NPPF para 216 limited weight should be given to them in decision making; • DM1 General Requirements for all development • DM2 Achieving Sustainable High Quality Design • DM3 Historic Environment • DM6 Flood risk management and sustainable drainage

Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990:

31. Under section 66 of the Act, the Local Planning Authority has to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building and its setting. Under section 72 of the Act, special attention must be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): 32. • Core Planning Principles including chapters on sustainable development and design and; • Chapter 12 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment (Paragraphs 132 – 134) • Planning Practice Guidance

Council Plan 2014 – 2019: 33. The broad aims of the five year Council Plan are to enable and deliver opportunities for economic growth; provide homes to meet need and improve residents’ health and wellbeing.

ASSESSMENT Principle 34. The key issues that apply to this application are: Impact on the setting of a Listed Building 35. The site is approximately 120 metres to the south of St Anthony’s Tower, Milnthorpe. The Tower is visible as a prominent landscape feature from some considerable distance all round. The proposed site falls within the setting of the listed building and the proposal is judged to have less than substantial harm to the resulting setting. Other than adjacent private residential views, the site is publicly visible in views approaching Milnthorpe from the south and along the high section of Haverflatts Lane by the allotments. The development will be seen, extending the existing vista of roof tops. The green space between the existing housing and the Tower will appear reduced, although a degree of separation will be retained 36. In applying the tests of the 1990 Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Conservation Officer concluded that the proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the listed building. The NPPF paragraphs 132 to 134 advises that harm can be outweighed by other material considerations. Whilst the Conservation Officer opines that from the original submission there are no obvious public benefits, meeting National and Local housing needs is considered to be the main public benefit that outweighs the less than substantial harm to the historic asset and its setting. The site is identified as providing an important part of the Council’s 5 year housing land supply; we are expected, as part of our duty, to plan positively and proactively to meet those identified housing needs.

37. To further elaborate on the local need for housing, Milnthorpe has significant importance as an employment and service centre for the southern part of the South Lakeland District, including the AONB. There are very few other suitably available and deliverable opportunities for housing growth in or around Milnthorpe. The consideration of this proposal is not just centred around housing need, more importantly consideration must be given to where that housing is needed. Whilst Milnthorpe is heavily constrained by heritage and landscape assets including the AONB, Dallam Park and Dallam Tower, St John’s Tower, St Anthony’s Tower and the green gap with Ackenthwaite. The sites chosen for allocation of much needed housing, were designated as a result of having been assessed as the least impact on these assets and, therefore, most acceptable in terms of allocation. Whilst acknowledging that this site appears to make a small contribution to the overall supply of housing, it is an important contribution safeguarding the local public benefit in the medium term as a result of the longer lead time for the larger allocated site to the South and East of Milnthorpe; the level of need justifies the recommendation for bringing this site forward at the earliest oppurtunity.

38. The table below sets the context for development: Estimated Developed Consented **Unconsented Total population since 2016 or under allocations within construction forming part of 5 development year supply boundary (2011)

Kirkby 1472 12 104 0 116 Lonsdale

Milnthorpe 1705 5 8 9* 22 including site

13 excluding site

Grange 3868 59 64 122 245

*St Anthony’s Hill **These figures are the numbers of dwellings allocated sites are expected to contribute within the 5 year period, not the full capacity of the site. 39. It is also considered that the economic benefits from the construction and additional Council Tax will contribute to public benefits. The proposal can only progress if the existing surface water problems are resolved, and it is considered that this is a public gain for neighbouring residents who experience an existing

problem with surface water drainage. It is considered therefore that this will also provide some gain. Therefore the application would accord with CS8.6 and the NPPF Chapter 12.

Surface Water and Foul Drainage 40. The site slopes steeply towards the rear of dwellings on Summerville Road and as such any proposal on the land would need to show that surface water generated from the development could be contained within the site, and manage existing surface water issues. Early on in the application process concerns were raised by residents regarding surface water and foul drainage. The local planning authority was told of foul sewage escaping from the existing system on Summerville Road. These concerns were raised with the applicant who was advised to explore connection to United Utilities through St.Anthony’s Close. 41. An amended scheme was submitted to construct a foul water pumping station in the north-east corner of the site. This will discharge via a pump into the public sewerage system in St Anthony’s Close. The pumping station will be put forward for adoption by United Utilities under a Section 104 of the Water Industry Act 1991. 42. The LLFA raised concerns regarding the ability of the proposal to manage surface water drainage and objected to the proposal. Meetings and discussions have since taken place over a number of months, the result of which is an amended surface water scheme 43. The amended scheme has been discussed at length between the applicant and the LLFA. The proposed drainage scheme is deemed acceptable by the LLFA in that it can accommodate the proposed development subject to the blockage being cleared. Cumbria County Council LLFA have therefore proposed a Grampian Condition that the proposal is acceptable subject to removal of the blockage prior to development. The applicant is in agreement with the Grampian Condition. All matters considered the proposal with associated drainage works accords with CS8.8.

Design 44. The original layout included a field access gate from the development to the adjacent field. The introduction of this field access potentially opened up the use of St.Anthony’s Close to agricultural vehicles. This was raised as a concern early on by Officers and residents alike. The field gate has been removed in the amended layout and a condition can be attached to prohibit the introduction of an agricultural access at a later date without prior notification to the local planning authority. 45. The amended layout has incorporated recommendations from Cumbria County Council Highways by improving turning areas, access and parking arrangements. 46. The proposal makes use of the topography to keep the height of the dwellings to a minimum. All the dwellings have street frontages with parking. There are no side elevation windows in the semi-detached dwellings which are closer together, and only one small cloakroom window in the side elevations of the detached dwellings. Distances between dwellings are acceptable providing the greatest distance between the existing dwellings on St.Anthony’s Close and Summerville Road to

maintain residential amenity. The two detached dwellings are positioned within the group of semi-detached dwellings. 47. The 4 bed dwellings have been designed with a ground floor living space therefore enabling the inclusion of a family member needing ground floor accommodation. The landscaping is designed to make use of native species whilst providing privacy without invasion to the landscape characteristics. 48. All matters consider the proposal accords with the aims of CS8.10 and S2.

Residential amenity 49. Concerns were raised by residents of Summerville Road regarding foul drainage. It is considered that this issue has been resolved with the pumping station to the main sewer through St.Anthony’s Close. In respect of surface water, this is resolved in principle and will be dealt with by condition. 50. Representations made by residents regarding traffic have been considered. However access onto the A6 and usage along St.Anthony’s Close were considered during the Land Allocation Process in which the site was found in principle suitable for development for up to 9 dwellings. The proposal is for 8 and therefore reduced traffic than the allocation. It is considered that the proposal provides sufficient residential parking and turning areas to avoid the need for new residents to park anywhere but within the site. 51. Concerns were raised regarding the overshadowing of the dwellings to the west of the site; numbers 10, 11 and 12 St.Anthony’s Close. At the nearest point between these dwellings and the development, the side elevation of plot 1 is 10m from the boundary with no.10 and 13.5m to the rear elevation of no.10. This increases to 11.5m from the rear of plot 1 to the boundary with these dwellings. The gable ridge is 7m diminishing to 4.5 at the front eaves. 52. It is considered that the distance and positioning will not have an adverse impact on daylight to the rear elevations of these dwellings. The lack of side windows will mean there is no introduction of overlooking. The definition of domestic curtilages is controlled by a condition and permitted development rights for plot 1 have been restricted by condition. 53. In respect of the two dwellings abutting the southern boundary, Hillcrest and Orchard Crest at the top of Summerville Road it is considered that the topography and positioning will diminish any overlooking impacts. The rear elevation of plot 4 is approximately 14m to the boundary with Hillcrest, 28m between rear elevations. Plot 5 is further away and positioned towards the south east therefore it is considered to have even less of an impact on Orchard Crest. 54. All matters considered the proposal accords with the aims of CS8.10 and NPPF Core Principles.

Highways issued raised by the public 55. There has been significant comment regarding the highway safety of the A6 / St Anthony’s junction. When considering to allocate the site, not only were Cumbria

Highways consulted but an independent Highway Consultant was engaged to advise on this aspect. 56. The original proposal was for an allocation of 36 dwellings; following the advice of both the independent Consultant and Cumbria Highways the allocation was reduced to a maximum of 9 dwellings. It was considered that the vehicular movements from this quantum of housing would not have an adverse impact on the A6 junction. Financial benefits to Local Authorities from the development 57. In accordance with the requirements introduced by Section 115 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The financial benefits of the proposed development are estimated below. Source Benefit Community Infrastructure Levy Type A (2 x 168.6sqm) CIL liability £20,613.99

Type B (6 x 146.4sqm) CIL liability £53,699.06

Council Tax £ 9,850 SLDC element £ 1,050 (based on 5.7 Band D Equivalents)( assumed a small number of the dwelling may be subject to reliefs and reductions. This has been assumed at 15%) New Homes Bonus New Homes Bonus £ 4,920 SLDC element £ 3,936 (based on 5.7 Band D Equivalents, 60% of 5.7) (New Homes bonus no only applies for 4 years and the first 40% of new dwellings are to be disregarded following the December 2016 autumn statement, with the money transferring to adult social care.)

58. It is considered limited weight should be attached to the financial benefits arising from the proposed development. 59. Council Tax is an ongoing annual income, new home bonus for four years (currently). 60. Any financial considerations would add to the overall benefits in contributing to the delivery of the five year housing land supply and identified housing need on this allocated site.

CONCLUSION AND PLANNING BALANCE 61. The planning consideration is finely balanced between potential harm to a listed asset and additional housing. The principle of the site as a sustainable location

for development and aforementioned balance was assessed during the land allocation process and the site was adopted for construction of up to 9 dwellings. The proposal is for 8 dwellings in which the design has been dictated by the topography of the land to address and minimise the potential harm to the listed asset. 62. The land allocation did not include investigations into the drainage issues. Such issues have been substantial and presented complications with the potential to undermine the development. However the County Council have worked with and agreed to a method to provide drainage for the development and remedy an existing situation. 63. The proposal has addressed concerns specific to the development. On balance the public benefits of addressing housing need, landscaping to increase biodiversity, improved drainage and the economic benefits will outweigh the less than substantial harm to the listed Tower. The proposal accords with the aims and objectives of the Land Allocation LA1.3, Policies CS1.1, CS1.2, CS5, CS8.6, CS8.10, CS10.2 of the Core Strategy, Saved Policies S2 and S3 of the Saved Local Plan, and the NPPF Core Planning Principles.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to:-

Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof. Reason To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Condition (2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 01 Rev.C – Site Layout (as amended)

C+A-001dK – Proposed Landscape Plan (as amended)

HT 03.1 Type B – V2 Elevations

HT 03.2 Type B – V2 Floor plans

HT 02.1 Type A – V1 Elevations

HT 02.2 Type A – V1 Floor plans

02 – Proposed site sections and street scenes

SSL:16201:200:1:1 – Topographical Survey

Reason For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Condition (3) No development shall commence until the obstruction to the culvert identified on 24th January 2018 as being under 31 Summerville Road is removed. The obstructions shall be removed to the satisfaction of Lead Local Flood Authority, Cumbria County Council and the Local Planning Authority. Reason The development is only acceptable with an adequate drainage scheme. To accord with the NPPF and Local Plan Policy CS8.8 and to protect adjacent residential amenity. Condition (4) a) The development shall not be occupied until details of surface water management have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. b) The development shall not be occupied until the approved surface water management works have been provided on the site to serve the development. c) Before any dwelling is occupied, a validation report (that demonstrates that the drainage scheme has been carried out in accordance with the approved plan) must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. d) The approved works shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason These details are required to be approved before the commencement of development to ensure surface water is managed in a sustainable way in accordance with Policy CS8.8 of the South Lakeland Core Strateg Condition (5) Construction works, including site preparation, earthworks, start- up of machinery, deliveries and unloading of equipment and materials shall not take place outside the hours of 08.00 - 18.00 Mondays to Fridays and 08.00 - 13.00 on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays, Public or Bank Holidays.

Reason To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework para 17 Core Principles and para 123. Condition (6) a) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Statement shall provide for:

i. the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials;

iii.storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;

iv. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate;

v. wheel washing facilities;

vi. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction;

vii. a scheme for recycling / disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; and

viii. measures to control noise and vibration.

b) The approved Construction Method Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.

Reason These details are required to be approved before the commencement of development to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework para 17 Core Principles and paras 121- 123. Condition (7) a) Development shall not begin until details of the junction between the proposed service road and the highway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

b) The building shall not be occupied / first brought into use until that junction has been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy CS10.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy. Condition (8) a) A sample panel of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the development hereby approved shall be erected at the application site and no superstructure shall be erected until written approval for the materials has been given by the Local Planning Authority. The sample panel shall be of sufficient size to indicate the method of jointing and coursing to be used.

b) Development shall be carred out in accordance with the approved details of materials unless otherwise agreed in wiriting with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason To ensure the development is of a high quality design in accordance with Policy CS8.10 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Condition (9) All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the Treescapes Consultancy Ltd. Pre- development Arboricultural Report dated 20 April 2017 and as per Plan number C+A-001dK Landscape Plan. The works shall be carried out before any part of the development is occupied or in accordance with a programme to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to any development commencing. Any trees / shrubs which are removed, die, become severely damaged or diseased within five years of their planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees / shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason To safeguard and enhance the character of the area and secure high quality landscpaing in accordance with saved Policy S3 of the South Lakeland Local Plan Condition (10) The Planting Specification and Maintenance shall be carried as per Plan number C+A-001dK Landscape Plan. Reason To safeguard and enhance the character of the area and secure high quality landscpaing in accordance with saved Policy S3 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Condition (11) The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the means of access for pedestrians has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy CS10.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy. Condition (12) Prior to first occupation of the development, the approved parking layout [and turning space] shall be constructed, marked out and made available for use and shall be retained as such thereafter. The parking spaces shall be used solely for the benefit of the occupants and visitors of the development hereby approved and for no other purpose. Reason In the interests of highway safety in accordance with saved Policy S10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Condition (13) There shall be no access from within the development site to the adjoining agricultural land.

Reason In the interests of residential amenity and highway safety. Condition (14) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development of the type described in Class A, B, C, E or F in Part 1 of Schedule 2 of that Order shall be undertaken without the express permission of the Local Planning Authority on Plot 1 as identified on Plan no. C+A- 001dK. Reason To protect the residential amenity of existing adjacent dwellings in accordance with the Core Planning Principles of the National Planning Policy Framework. Condition (15) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development of the type described in Part 1 of Schedule 2 of that Order shall be undertaken on land that is outside the curtilage boundaries of plots 1 to 8 inclusive but within the red line as identified on Plan no. C+A-001dK without the express permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason To protect the residential amenity of existing adjacent dwellings in accordance with the Core Planning Principles of the National Planning Policy Framework and to protect the Heritage Asset and Landscape Character in accordance with Core Strategy Policies CS8.6 and CS8.2 of the Local Plan.

P & P The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively Statement in determining this application by identifying matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and negotiating with the applicant, acceptable amendments to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. NOTE ADVICE FROM CONSULTEE TO BE SENT WITH THE DECISION NOTICE: The applicant’s attention is drawn to the advice contained within the attached letter from the ELECTRICITY NORTH WEST

NOTE NATURAL ENGLAND STANDARD INFORMATIVE: PROTECTED SPECIES: Should any protected species or evidence of protected species be found prior to or during the development, all works must stop immediately and an ecological consultant contacted for further advice before works can proceed. All contractors working on site should be made aware of the advice and provided with the contact details of a relevant ecological consultant. NOTE ADVICE FROM CONSULTEE TO BE SENT WITH THE DECISION NOTICE: The applicant’s attention is drawn to the advice contained within the attached letter from the UNITED UTILITIES