SL/2016/1109

PARISH: Land adjacent to Sir John Barrow Way

PROPOSAL: Residential development for 109 dwellings with associated vehicular and pedestrian access

APPLICANT: Oakmere Homes

Grid Ref: E: 329700 N: 477970 7

46 11

0 1

6 1 5 ESS 1

3

4

3 1 Depot 3 1 4

6 GRO LM VE 4 2 E

1 H

1

0

4 0 9 7 w do ea M w Vie

2

2 Y

A 5 W 2

6 2 W O R 5 R MO 9 A

N B

8 U 7 Lund

ME

N 1 5 Farm T W A R Y N o H C c

6 O l k Orchard Dene 7 i J ff

R I

S 8

8 5 Cherry Tree House

4

South Apple Tree House

3 8 0 Bank

2 1 3

2 Lund Hall

2 Orchard Wood 7

Playground

h t

a

P

FB

FB

L un d Be ck

e sid

ew Vi ill le da FB ng La n kly oo Br

ge od L nd Lu

Path

Ford

n i

a

r

D 7.6m Ro pe W Fitz Bridge alk Ford "

Cottages D FB ra 6.1m gl ey B k c e a c r k SL/2017/0534 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 to Licence No. 100024277 © Crown Copyright Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright Sir John Barrow Way and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings Ulverston

Scale 1:2500 SUMMARY 1. The application seeks planning permission to erect 106 dwellings on a site to the south east of the Lund Farm residential estate in Ulverston. The majority of the site is allocated for housing development in the Local Plan Land Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD). The proposal raises a number of planning issues relating to the Land Allocation, density, layout and design of the development, including landscape impacts, affordable housing provision and impacts on residential amenity, highway impacts and flood risk and the management of surface water drainage.

RECOMMENDATION 2. The application is recommended for refusal.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL Site description 3. The application site is located to the south east of Ulverston Town centre adjacent to the Lund Farm residential estate constructed approximately 12 years ago. It comprises a raised undulating area of pasture land containing a number of limestone outcrops and a lower lying area of land at the southern end. The application site amounts to approximately 4.6 hectares in area in total. The site is partially enclosed by hedgerows and a number of mature trees border onto or are located just outside the site boundaries. The north western side of the site adjoins a private unsurfaced drive which serves a number of residential properties at Lund Hall a prominent building located close to the north west boundary. The private drive is accessed from Morecambe Road to the south and connects through to North Lonsdale Road to the north. The drive separates the site from the existing residential estate which comprises of 116 dwellings arranged around a number of cul de sacs accessed from a single point on North Lonsdale Road. Four residential properties directly adjoin the site on lower lying land to the north and low lying open fields adjoin the site to the east and south. A popular recreational path known as the Rope Walk skirts along the southern edge of the site. 4. A watercourse, Lund Beck, runs along the southern boundary of the site close to where it joins Dragley Beck. The southern part of the site adjacent to the watercourse is set at a lower level. This part of the site is within flood Zone 2 and 3 with a medium to high risk. 5. The majority of the application site is allocated in the Local Plan Land Allocations DPD for residential development. Proposal 6. The proposal relates to the construction of a total of 106 dwellings and associated infrastructure arranged around a series of cul de sacs and loop roads from a single access point connecting to the head of Sir John Barrow Way on the existing Lund Farm estate. The proposed dwellings would be a mix of one and two storey properties, some of which would be of a split level design to fit in with the slope of the land along the eastern side of the site. A two storey apartment block comprising 10 one bedroomed flats is also proposed on the south eastern edge of the site. The 70 open market dwellings would comprise of three and four bedroomed detached and semi- detached houses and 3 bungalows. A total of 36 affordable dwellings are proposed comprising 10 one bedroomed flats, 6 one bedroomed houses, 6 two bedroomed bungalows, 10 two bedroomed dwellings and 4 three bedroomed dwellings. The affordable units would be positioned in two main groupings with 8 units located towards the northern end of the site adjacent to Lund Hall and the remaining 28 units in a group at the southern end of the site, although 3 of the units would be separated from this group within the open market housing. 7. The properties are of a conventional modern design and would be finished externally with a mixture of stone facing and render. The roofs would be covered with grey tiles. 8. Each of the detached properties would have off road parking provision of at least two spaces per dwelling and garage provision. The semi-detached open market properties would each have two parking spaces and the affordable units would have the equivalent of 1.25 parking spaces per dwelling. 9. The scheme has been amended during the course of the application with a reduction in the total number of dwellings from 109 to 106 and some changes to the layout, affordable housing and house types. 10. A new vehicular access to the site would be created from the end of Sir John Barrow way where there is currently a turning head. This would cross the private driveway serving Lund Hall at right angles with users of the drive giving way to the new access road. The 5.5 metre wide access road would include footpaths to either side of the carriageway with sections throughout the estate including a combined cycle footpath route. A footpath and cycle link is proposed on the western boundary to connect to the lower section of the private drive towards the Morecambe Road access point. 11. In terms of an emergency or secondary access, the applicants have stated that whilst the pedestrian/cycle links to the private track would allow access in an emergency they are unable to officially offer this as the lane is outside their control and the existing bridge across the back is unsuitable for heavier vehicles. 12. The submitted landscaping details include the provision of three informal amenity areas two of which would incorporate attenuation basins and other suds features. 13. No equipped play areas are proposed but the applicants have agreed to provide a commuted sum for the upgrade and maintenance of existing play areas on the adjoining estate. 14. Landscaping plans have been submitted which include the retention and additional planting to existing hedgerows around the periphery of the site and the planting of new hedgerow boundaries, shrubs and trees within the site. A new ‘wet woodland’ is proposed on part of the lower lying land to the south within the high flood risk zone. This would comprise of a mix of native species including birch, willow and hawthorn. A new stone boundary wall is proposed along the northern boundary of the site 15. A tree and hedgerow survey report has been submitted together with details of protection measures for existing trees and hedgerows during the construction phase. The submitted information indicates that two mature trees located outside the site boundary are proposed to be removed, a lime tree located at the head of Sir John Barrow Way and an Ash located within a group of trees alongside the private drive to the west of the site. The submitted report indicates that both trees are showing signs of decay. 16. A Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy has been submitted which details the potential Flood risk issues associated with the development of the site how surface water arising from the site would be managed. This is covered in more detail within the assessment part of the report. 17. The application is also accompanied by an Archaeological Geophysical survey, Geo -environmental Assessment Report, Ecology Report and Construction Management Plan.

CONSULTATIONS Ulverston Town Council: 18. Refuse. The Council together with many residents is concerned about flooding and highways issues which the developers reports do not address in the detail required. The council is aware that this site is allocated in the local plan and understands this was subject to extensive research at the time. The town council did not oppose any of the allocations within the local plan as it supported additional housing and especially affordable housing in the town and still does. 19. However, since the publication of the local plan the situation in the area of the proposed development has changed fundamentally. Flooding has occurred to a greater or lesser degree every year in South Ulverston and the council considers that this site in particular should be reviewed as to its suitability for housing development. The nearby footpath from Lund Farm has been underwater for weeks, and r esidents’ gardens, which would previously drained water away, remain flooded. This has happened in one of the driest winters for many years. 20. It is also important to point out that this site was to be developed originally by Persimmon homes, who only developed phase one. Phase two in their plan included access from Morecambe Road in addition to North Lonsdale Road. This new proposal from Oakmere Homes does not now incorporate any additional access and single access to this site is not acceptable to the residents in Lund Farm or to the council. 21. The council is very concerned that the additional pressure on the highways will be challenging without alternative access as North Lonsdale Road is one of the principal routes to the industrial areas of South Ulverston and is very busy. 22. SLDC is aware that the Environment Agency together with County Council is working on a major project to completely understand the complex issues surrounding flooding in South Ulverston as the area is subject to a combination of coastal, fluvial and pluvial flooding. At the very least the council requests that applications for development on this site are refused until such time as the outcome of this extensive report is known and the situation can be fully understood. 23. The Town Council have been consulted on the amended layout scheme and any further comments received will be reported to Members. Cumbria County Council: Highways 24. Transport Note: Initially the application was submitted without an assessment of the impact of the affected junctions, the County Council responded to state that the majority of the impact is going to be on HE network and discussions in relation to modelling the impact would need to be progressed with them. The County Council did however state that the following junctions on the local network should be included in the assessment:- Sir John Barrow Way / North Lonsdale Road Lund Terrace / Quebec Street The County Council has assessed the additional information and in relation to junction capacity perspective the County Council has no objection to that element. 25. Transport Assessment: It is considered that the TA is not correct in stating that the design complies with the ethos of Manual For Streets, the site is in essence a cul de sac and does not allow for permeability. 26. The site is proposing to give access to 109 further dwellings. The total dwellings from a single access will therefore be 200 dwellings. It is therefore of vital importance that the site provides for an emergency access as well as providing for additional pedestrian links to the surrounding network, this needs to be clearly demonstrated in the layout plans. 27. Travel Plan: The Travel Plan gives broad measures that could be used to encourage modal shift. It does however not include targets or agree a monitoring regime. 28. It is therefore proposed to require this element as part of a sec 106 agreement to create a TP with agreed measures as well as providing for the funding to monitor its working to the amount of £6600. 29. Detailed comments: It is noted that the access road crosses an existing track; the development will permanently affect this track. The applicant should provide a detailed plan showing how access into the site (over this track) is possible. 30. Further details of the permeability links and the crossing point at the entrance to the site have subsequently been provided and the Highway Authority has confirmed that there are no objections in principle to the application but recommend conditions requiring engineering details of the carriageways secondary emergency vehicle access and associated infrastructure to be submitted for approval and to be designed to an adoptable standard. 31. Subsequent to these comments, and following confirmation from the applicant that a formal secondary/emergency access is not to be provided, the Highways Officer has confirmed that this a vital part of the application and such resilience should be intrinsic in any design. If it is clear that such a condition cannot be complied with the application should be refused. Lead Local Flood Authority 32. The assessment by the LLFA is based on the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) V4 dated March 2017, Detention Basin Section dwg no.15169-C-SK09, Civil Report (maintenance details) dated December 2016, Topographical Survey April 2015, Flood Exceedance Plan Dec 2016, Catchment Area Plan 15169- C-SK03 Dec 2016, Drainage Calculations Dec 2016, that the application has recently submitted. It is noted that the applicant has updated the FRA following consultation with the Environment Agency (EA) due to the extensive flood risks that surround the site. The FRA has described the flood risks from river and sea, surface water, reservoirs, groundwater and sewers. The FRA has also included details of modelled flood levels for various scenarios and advised that minimum flood levels of 8.450mAOD are to be used. Confirmation from the EA should be sought to confirm that the modelled flood levels are acceptable. 33. These further comments have assumed that the EA have no further objections to the modelled flood details. The applicant has provided as part of the FRA details of the proposal for a drainage system which consist of a piped system collecting the surface water within the development being discharged to 2 no attenuation basins before flowing via swales into Dragley Beck. The principle of the drainage layout is accepted by the LLFA, however, there are some details regarding the calculations that are considered insufficient. The applicant appears to have used the default Cv values instead of the value of 1 when considering impermeable areas only (see Sewers for Adoption 7). Information has been provided to demonstrate that runs have been undertaken for return periods of 1, 2, 30 and 100 (plus 40% climate change) year events at durations of 15,30,60,120,240 and 360 minutes. 34. The applicant has also demonstrated that the lowest levels of the storage basins are above the predicted flood levels adjacent to the site. Environment Agency data indicates flood levels at 6.5mAOD during a 1 in 100 year event + climate change (Fluvial event) and the lowest level within the storage basins is to be 7.0mAOD. It is noted that during a predicted defended 1 in 200 year tidal event + climate change that flood water may reach the lowest point of the storage basins but any dwelling will be above the predicted flood level. 35. The applicant has also provided a catchment area plan and a flood exceedance plan which are welcomed as part of the submission. The flood exceedance plan demonstrates that any surface water flows will be away from entering dwellings. 36. Overall it is considered that a suitable drainage scheme can be achieved, however, it is considered that the calculations should be resubmitted using the correct Cv value of 1 and details of the maintenance regime for the site before planning permission is granted. If this is not possible it is considered that the following condition should be applied to any permission granted – · Prior to the commencement of any development, a surface water drainage scheme, based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions (inclusive of how the scheme shall be managed after completion) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. · 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 and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly. · The drainage scheme submitted for approval shall also be in accordance with the principles set out in the Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Statement dated March 2017 proposing surface water discharging to Dragley Beck. · The development shall be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details. The applicant will also be required to submit a construction management plan detailing how surface water will be dealt with during the construction phase, and it is therefore proposed the following condition should be included with any permission granted – · No development shall commence until a construction surface water management plan has been agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Historic Environment Officer 37. The geophysical survey of the site identifies a number of features of potential archaeological interest. I therefore recommend that an archaeological evaluation and where necessary a scheme of archaeological recording of the site be undertaken in advance of development. Highways : 38. No objection Environment Agency : 39. The Environment Agency initially objected to the proposal on the grounds that the submitted Flood Risk Assessment did not appropriately clarify the peak river flow allowance used and did not adequately demonstrate that the development would not increase flood risk elsewhere. 40. An amended Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy was subsequently submitted including up to date climate change allowances and modelling data and the Environment Agency provided the following response: We have reviewed the submitted information and consider the revised Flood Risk Assessment produced by pwa Geo-Environmental Ltd. (ref.5169/FRA/01V4, dated March 2017) overcomes our objection to the proposals. We therefore wish to withdraw our objection as referred to in our earlier consultation response ref. NO/2016/109461/01-L01 dated 20 January 2017. 41. Subject to planning approval, the associated works from the development will require an environmental permit for what we deem as flood risk activities, with ‘Dragley Beck’ and ‘Town Beck’ designated ‘Main River’. Flood Risk Activities can include any works located in, above or below the Main River or within a defined distance of the Main River. 42. Further Comments have been received following the receipt of the County Council response and officer comments regarding the site layout. The Environment Agency have stated that the proposed lowest finished floor level of 8.450 m AOD which is 1.77m above the design flood level more than adequately covers the climate change and freeboard requirements. They have commented that County Council should consider if this level is safe in terms of flood water exceedance/ failure of the site drainage details. In terms of raising ground levels at the southern end of the site they have confirmed that this would not affect flood plain storage. 43. The Environment Agency have been consulted regarding the most recent layout amendments including the wet woodland proposal and any further comments received will be reported to Members. United Utilities: 44. No objections to the proposal subject to the foul and surface water drained on separate systems and the agreement of a management and maintenance plan for the sustainable drainage infrastructure. South Lakeland District Council: Principal Housing Strategy Officer 45. I previously advised regarding the evidence of need for affordable housing and the breakdown between smaller 1 and 2 bedroom properties and 3 bedroom properties. I note that the mix of affordable units has improved and includes the provision of 6 bungalows and 4 no 3 bedroom houses. Arboricultural Officer 46. The submitted drawing needs to show the position of protective fencing for the retained hedges and trees. The tree protection method statement which references drawing number c-1366-01 rev A is acceptable in content, but we would need to condition the use of Heras fencing as a minimum specification. The tree protection method statement will also need to be updated. 47. We need confirmation of which trees they propose to have removed (arboricultural impact assessment), because layout plan number 033/P/02 rev K shows T14, T15, T16 and T17 as removed. As T14 the Lime is shown as removed I want to know for sure particularly since the landscaping plan drawing c-1336-02 dated Nov 16 shows T14 as category B and retained. The applicant has been asked to clarify which trees are to be removed. 48. Replacement tree locations and numbers/species/sizes/aftercare will also be needed and would be best incorporated into the tree protection and retention information. Options for landscaping planting include a wet wood in the south of the site within flood zone 3. The boundary hedge along the access lane to the north west of the site could be replanted with a replacement 5-6 species native mixed hedge from the turning head by unit 108 to the turning head by units 13 and 14, retaining the existing sections of hedge. Natural England: 49. No objection subject to appropriate mitigation being secured. These measures include the submission of a Construction Environmental Management Plan which contains appropriate pollution prevention guideline measures, the creation of a buffer zone of at least 10 metres on both sides of Lund Beck to prevent disturbance to foraging otters; any lighting on site should be directed away from Lund Beck Dragley Beck and the hedgerow boundary to prevent disturbance to foraging otters and bats; a licence should be obtained to close the badger sett on site prior to commencing development; and measures should be put in place to inform new occupiers of the sensitivities of the Morecambe Bay designated areas in the form of home owners information packs . Ulverston Civic Society : 50. Any planning permission for this site should be held until the full results of the Environment Agency model are available which would allow a fully informed decision to be made. The scale and appearance of the block of flats is out of character with this very rural setting and low cost housing should not be provided this way as it removes occupiers form being part of the wider development. Neighbours / Others: 51. The proposal has generated a significant number of neighbour representations which can be viewed in full on the application website entry. At the time of writing a total of 142 Letters of objection and comment have been received from local residents regarding the proposal. This includes additional comments made by residents regarding the amended scheme. The main concerns are as follows: Highway concerns · The increased traffic flow through the existing estate raises safety concerns for children who currently play around the estate and for all residents. There are three greens and a basketball court play area on Sir John Barrow Way which are all well used and the ability for children to play outside safely is important to the local community. · The additional traffic would affect the quality of life for existing residents due to the increase in noise and pollution. · The junctions between Monument Way and Helm Grove and Sir John Barrow Way are of particular concern and where congestion is likely to occur. It is partially blocked with parked cars and leads to a blind bend. These are not referred to in the Transport Assessment. · The roads through the existing Lund Farm estate are not wide enough to accommodate the additional traffic. Visibility is restricted and parked cars further impede safety. Sir John Barrow way is so narrow that it can hardly sustain the level of traffic that already uses it. · Access onto Morecambe Road to serve the development would be far safer and more appropriate. It would be logical to make access to the new site from Morecambe Road with the link to Sir John Barrow Way being made on completion. This would give residents the option of using both exits relieving further disruption at the junction of North Lonsdale Terrace and the A590. · An access to Morecambe road should not be created. There are already significant traffic problems on Morecambe road which is narrow, carries the vast majority of traffic to the industrial estates including heavy lorries avoiding the railway bridge, and residents visiting the waste disposal site and allotments who park on the road. · If planning permission is granted, assurance should be sought from the developer to be held responsible for any damage to roads, pathways and verges, to keep the estate roads clean during development and install better traffic calming measures along Sir John Barrow Way. · Using a single access to the site through the existing estate will make it impossible for emergency vehicles to gain entry should there be a problem on Monument Way. · The figures contained in the Additional Transport Assessment are questioned as the survey was undertaken when major road works at the Quebec Street junction and Lund Terrace were taking place. This would have disrupted normal traffic flows. · There is already a problem with the volume and speed of traffic using North Lonsdale Road. The junction of North Lonsdale road with the A590 struggles to cope with existing levels of traffic resulting in frequent delays. The proposed development alongside other planned developments in the area will exacerbate this. · Large vehicles often have to reverse into Monument Way to turn around to avoid the low railway bridge. Additional traffic from the development will make this situation more dangerous. · The site is not serviced by suitable public transport and local amenities and schools are not within appropriate walking distances as a consequence there would be greater reliance on car use. · During construction, as well as significant disruption and inconvenience, the risk to residents safety would be further compromised. A temporary access for construction traffic should be created from Morecambe Road. · A second access to the site can quite easily be provided by increasing the width of the present driveway to Lund Hall. The displacement of flood water could be compensated by removing the equivalent displaced volume from the site. An alternative would be to create a one way access along the drive. · Concern that a rat run would inadvertently be created along the driveway to Lund hall whereby residents would be able to gain access along this route through to Morecambe Road when the new access link to Sir John Barrow Way is created. · How is the access across the track to Lund Hall going to work –who has priority? What measures are going to be taken to protect the ball park area? The track to Lund Hall is a legal right of way for Lund Hall residents from Morecambe Road. Measures should be put in place to protect this during construction work and retain a safe access route form residents. · The amended plans do not address the objections previously raised by residents regarding the access to the site. Flood Risk & Drainage · All residents of Ulverston are very much aware of flooding issues. North Lonsdale Road and the South Ulverston area have experienced severe flooding problems with residents being forced to evacuate their homes for several months. Recent work does not seem to have resolved the problem with homes again being flooded more recently. It is a well-known fact that the smallest development of greenfield sites can adversely affect seepage and drainage and therefore any possibility of surface water being directed toward North Lonsdale Road should render this application unacceptable. Residents in this area already have problems securing household insurance. · Concern that the submitted Flood Risk Assessment is not sufficiently up to date to give an accurate prediction of the effect of such a large development. The western end of the site is within a designated flood risk area and the report makes no reference to this. · The recent works on Town Beck have increased the efficiency of the run off through the town as intended this however has resulted in the site becoming more prone to flooding. It has flooded twice in November 2016 on only moderate rainfall. The increase of impermeable surface will reduce the absorption of the site and increase the rate of run off, this in turn will accelerate and amplify the already documented flood history. · Development in an area that is prone to flooding will inevitably increase the risk on more people being flooded. The infrastructure in South Ulverston cannot cope with the existing properties let alone 109 new ones. · Although the development may be above the flood plain, the run off from the proposed scheme will flow straight into the adjacent area already known to be flood plain which floods on a regular basis. When the area last flooded in August 2016 two houses in Outcast were inundated with flood water despite the efforts of the Environment Agency to alleviate the flooding in the area. The properties in Outcast will be put at greater risk of flooding. · The Council should discuss the design and development of this area with the Environment Agency to check the impact of the new building on homes and businesses downstream which are always under a high risk of flooding. · The two detention basins and pumping station will drip feed water into the beck causing more risk of flooding downstream where there is already a high flood risk. What guarantees are there that the pumping station will not break down during heavy rainfall? · The inclusion of open water retention basins on a housing estate mainly filled with young children is a pointless and thoughtless danger to life. · The amended plans do not address the objections previously made regarding drainage and flood risk. Consideration of the development should be suspended until the Environment Agency’s report on flooding is submitted and fully understood. Impact on Residential Amenity · The present design shows four two storey houses close to the fence line boundary. It states that the finished floor level at the highest point would be significantly higher than the adjacent property at South Bank. In order to minimise the impact of the development it would be more appropriate to site bungalows in this area. The proposed boundary treatment is not clear. A new limestone boundary wall should be constructed in keeping with existing boundaries. · The development would result in overlooking and loss of privacy for houses adjacent to the site. · Oakmere Homes should compensate those residents most likely to be affected by the development including the provision of parking spaces for residents at Lund Hall and upgrading of the track. Visual Impact · The development will spoil the beautiful views from the Rope Walk across to the Hoad monument, causing visual impact upon the landscape. It is one of the few remaining green spaces in South Ulverston and it seems such a shame to fill it with more houses. · The proposed block of flats would be an eyesore. · Too many houses too close together. · The location spans a hilltop that is visible from miles around. There is no natural camouflage and it will stand out as an eyesore for at least 10 years until the trees grow Play areas · The plans do not include designated play areas. The two existing play areas are small and whilst there are no current issues with rowdiness/noise, doubling the population could affect this. The original purchasers of the houses indirectly contributed to the play areas, should Oakmere reimburse these householders with a proportion of the cost is they do not include these? Other Issues · The site has been used by badgers on numerous occasions and there may be a sett there- have appropriate steps/licences been approved? · Impacts on wildlife – the site and adjoining fields are visited by migrating geese and a wide range of wildlife including barn owls, kingfishers, bats etc. that would be affected by the development. Increasing wildlife and archaeological evidence should take precedence over a few houses. · The development would result in an increase of dog walkers through the estate exacerbating the issue with dog dirt. There are no litter bins on the estate. · The development will result in additional strains on local services including schools and health services. · Loss of prime agricultural land. · Proximity of the residential development to GSK which houses large quantities of toxic chemicals. Should a major incident occur, the lack of proper access/evacuation routes would cause issues from emergency services. 52. Six letter of support for the proposal have been received from local residents stating that Ulverston needs new houses, the site is designated for new houses and the access roads were designed with this as an objective. There are a number of grassed and play areas on the estate where children can safely play. The site is on a hill and the mitigation works will reduce the risk of flooding. Changes to the block of flats have addressed the concerns raised and the development will not affect wildlife as the ropewalk and surrounding fields will remain unaffected. The proposed garden areas will attract more wildlife especially bees.

POLICY ISSUES South Lakeland Core Strategy (CS): 53. CS1.2 The Development Strategy states that approximately 55% of new development in the district will be in the Principle Service Centres of Kendal and Ulverston, comprising 35% in Kendal. The Land Allocation DPD allocates sites for development fulfilling the requirement for a five year land supply and the aims of this policy. CS3.1 Ulverston and the Furness Area sets out the development strategy for the Furness area including the provision of dwellings within the urban areas and the provision of affordable housing. CS6.2 Dwelling Mix and Type seeks to ensure that development offers a range of housing sizes and types which is easily adaptable for everyone. CS6.3 Provision of Affordable Housing states that schemes in Ulverston must include a minimum of 35% affordable dwellings. The Council will ensure that any planning permission is subject to appropriate conditions and / or planning obligations to secure the provision of affordable housing in perpetuity. CS6.6 Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings states that the Council will seek to make effective and efficient use of land and buildings. The policy provides a target density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare. Higher densities will be sought on appropriate sites. Exceptionally, a lower density will be supported where there is a proven need and environmental constraints mean it is not suitable for a high density development.

CS8.1 Green Infrastructure Policy states that the Core Strategy will seek to:- · Ensure green infrastructure is incorporated into new developments, particularly where it can be used to mitigate the negative impacts of the development. · Protect and enhance important open spaces within settlements to contribute towards an improved network of green corridors of value for wildlife, recreation and the amenity needs of the community. · Protect species and habitats and create new habitats and wildlife corridors where biodiversity conservation and enhancement is affected by development. Ensure the protection and enhancement of watercourses and wetlands which are important contributors to the network of blue and green corridors for wildlife, recreation and the amenity needs of the community. CS8.2 Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character Proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect and conserve the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area. CS8.3a and CS8.3b Open Space, Sport and Recreation provide accessibility standards for the provision of facilities. CS8.4 Biodiversity and Geodiversity states that all development proposals should protect, enhance and restore the biodiversity and geodiversity value of land and buildings. CS8.8 Development and Flood Risk seeks to ensure most new development is located in Flood Risk Zone 1. New development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it would not have a significant impact on the capacity of an area to store flood water, measures required to manage any flood risk can be implemented, surface water is managed in a sustainable way and provision is made for long term maintenance of flood protection / mitigation measures. CS8.10 Design promotes good design which maintains or enhances the townscape, is in keeping with local vernacular and reinforces local distinctiveness. CS10.1 Accessing Services promotes the improvement of accessibility by improving bus and rail services, promoting a network of safe cycle and walking routes linking residential areas with employment areas, town and local centres, schools and recreational open space facilities. CS10.2 Transport Impact of New Development requires that development be designed to reduce the need to travel and to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport. Development proposals should provide for safe and convenient access and foot, cycle, public and private transport, be served by safe access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the locality, the expected nature and volume of traffic generated by the proposal can be accommodated by the existing road network without detriment to the amenity or character of the surrounding area, local air quality or highway safety Local Plan Land Allocations: Development Plan Document (DPD): 54. The DPD was adopted on 17 December 2013 and therefore forms an integral part of the development plan. Policy LA 1.3 of the DPD allocates Land to the South of Lund Farm for residential development within phase 2 of the plan period (2018 – 2023). The policy provides an indicative number of 90 dwellings assuming a density of 30 dwellings per hectare and a net developable area of 3 hectares. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): Achieving Sustainable Development 55. Paragraphs 7 and 9 refer to the social dimension of sustainable development and the aims to provide a high quality built environment reflecting the community’s needs . Promoting Sustainable Transport 56. Paragraph 32 – Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes 57. Paragraph 50 requires LPA’s to deliv er sustainable and mixed communities. Meeting the challenge of climate change and flooding 58. Paragraph 103 - When determining applications local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere. Council Plan 2014 – 2019: 59. The broad aims of the five year Council Plan are to:- · Enable and deliver opportunities for economic growth. · Provide homes to meet need. · Improve residents’ health and well -being. · Protect the environment.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 60. This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT The Principle of Development 61. The majority of the site is allocated for housing development in the Local Plan Land Allocations Development Plan Document. The principle of development on this site therefore accords with policies CS1.1, CS1.2 and CS2 of the Core Strategy and policy LA1.3 of the DPD. However, as detailed below the application site includes an area of land along the southern edge of the proposed development which does not form part of the allocated site as defined in the Land Allocations DPD. 62. The key planning issues arising from this proposal relate to: · Land Allocation, density, layout and impact on the landscape and setting; · Affordable housing provision; · Impacts on residential amenity; · Highway considerations · Flood risk and the management of surface water drainage. · Other matters Land Allocation, Density, layout and impact on the landscape and setting 63. The site allocation is not the subject of a development brief, but the Land Allocations DPD includes an overview of the planning considerations particular to the development of this site. In terms of density Policy LA1.3 states that states that the site can accommodate approximately 90 dwellings. This is based upon an indicative net developable area of 3 hectares. The accompanying text states that the elevated nature of the site gives it a prominence form the Outcast/Low Mill area and the Ropewalk Path, from which there are views towards the Hoad Monument. It also states that all development should be located within flood zone 1 with green spaces located towards the flood zones. The site allocation specifically excludes the limestone outcrop areas along the raised southern part of the application site and the lower lying land in high risk flood zones 2 and 3. 64. The proposed development area exceeds the allocated site boundary at its southern end, the total site area being 4.6 hectares, and as a result includes the construction of a total 106 dwellings which is 16 units higher than the number indicated in the allocation policy. 65. The overall site layout density of the northern part of the site is considered to be acceptable and the proposed landscaping and planting including the retention of boundary hedgerows would help to soften the impact of the development 66. However, the southern section of the development extends the allocated housing area and is of a noticeably higher density with a number of plots positioned on the edge of the raised escarpment and limestone outcrops and are set above the adjacent ground levels to achieve a level platform. Eight of these plots and the western edge of the apartment block are positioned or partially encroach outside the site allocation boundary. The boundary along the southern edge of the allocated site was deliberately and precisely defined to exclude the escarpment and limestone outcrop areas because of their landscape sensitivity. In this case such an encroachment would result in an overdevelopment of the site and harmful landscape impacts and is thereby considered to be contrary to policy LA1.3 of the South Lakeland Land Allocations DPD. 67. The layout has been amended in an attempt to reduce the impact of this part of the development through some lowering of finished floor levels, the introduction of two single storey units on the southern edge and the planting of a wet woodland on the lower land to the south. The apartment block which was originally three storeys in height has also been reduced to two storeys. 68. However when viewed form Morecambe Road and the Rope Walk, there is still concern that collectively these units would be seen as a prominent and elevated linear blocks of development with engineered finished floor levels up to 2 metres above the adjacent land levels and with rear garden areas facing towards the lower lying undeveloped area of land. It is considered that the development on this part of the site would not sit comfortably with the topography and landscape features. A number of the existing limestone outcrops, which are an important landscape feature, would also be removed and the land artificially raised and engineered to accommodate the dwellings. This would overall contribute to a harmful impact upon the landscape setting, key local views and features of local importance, contrary to land allocation requirements and policies CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the Core Strategy. Affordable Housing Provision 69. Policy CS6.3 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy requires no less than 35% of the dwellings proposed to be affordable units, unless clear viability evidence has been provided, and that these should be mixed within the development. 70. The proposal as amended includes the provision of 36 affordable dwelling units, equating to 34%, or one unit less that the policy requirement of 35%. The proposal does however provide for a good mix of affordable dwelling types in response to the comments of the Housing Strategy Officer, including the provision of 6 bungalows which by their nature utilise more land take. The tenure of the affordable units would be equally split between shared ownership units and affordable rental units. The external design of the affordable units would match the palette of materials for the open market units. 71. Members will note, however, that the affordable units are within two main groupings and are not dispersed throughout the site with the open market units . Policy CS6.3 of the Core Strategy states that, ‘affordable housing shall be mixed within the development’ and in this context the LPA seek s to ensure that affordable housing is unsegregated and combined within the development in a way that as a group they are not discernible as different. Mixed within the development means affordable dwellings should be mixed within the market housing. 72. Mixing affordable dwellings within a site ensures that there are no areas where a stigma may be attached to residents and enhances the mixture of the community. The remainder of the proposed layout of this site comprises of predominately detached homes. Part of the reasoning behind the LPA’s level of housing allocation was to ensure the delivery of affordable housing within open market sites, thus ensuring delivery of a mixture of housing to meet local need and to aid community balance and social integration. 73. Officers are mindful of recent residential schemes where the appropriate distribution of affordable units within larger developments has been a key issue. Combined with the fact that the required quantum of affordable units would not be fully met, the proposal does not accord with Policy CS6.3 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy. Impact on Residential Amenity 74. The closest residential properties likely to be affected by the proposed development are located adjacent to the northern boundary at Orchard View, and South Bank and Lund Hall to the north east which have aspects onto the site. 75. Following negotiations, amendments have been made to the layout, finished levels and house designs to address the concerns raised regarding unneighbourly impacts on these properties. A new stone boundary wall is also proposed along the northern boundary. The changes have largely achieved an improvement to the relationship between existing and proposed dwellings although there is concern that proposed plot 13 adjacent to 1 Lund Hall still appears to be unreasonably close, at 10 metres separation. Whilst the layout would not result in loss of privacy, the proximity and orientation (south) of the plot would have some impact on the daylight and aspect from the principle elevation of this property. Highway Considerations 76. A Transport Assessment and Travel Plan has been submitted with the application. The Assessment covers the access to the site and pedestrian/cycle routes, public transport, traffic generation and the impact on the immediate and wider highway network and safety. Access to the site 77. Members will note that one of the key concerns arising from neighbour representations is the use of the existing Lund Farm estate roads, Monument Way and Sir John Barrow Way, as the main and only vehicular access to the proposed development. The proposed development would effectively double the size of the current estate which would be served by a single access point. In terms of the allocation requirements, no reference was made to how the site should be accessed although the annotation within the Land Allocations DPD states that any new access should not increase flood risk elsewhere by altering flood routes. The traffic study that was undertaken in 2012 to inform the land allocations states that for this site a potential access could be achieved by extending the southern extent of Sir John Barrow Way, although such an access will require generated traffic to traverse the residential area. It also refers to a potential alternative/additional access which could be achieved from the southern extent of Morecambe Road. 78. The submitted Transport Assessment states that access to the development would be via Sir John Barrow way which meets with current design standards, has footpaths along its length creating safe routes around the estate. 79. Further information in respect of the permeability of the layout in response to the Highways officers initial comments includes information regarding footpath and cycle way connections from the development to existing routes, details of the new access road where it crosses the lane serving Lund Hall and emergency access details. In respect of the latter, the submitted information confirms that the fire access would only be from the end of Sir John Barrow Way with no secondary access being provided. 80. The County Council’s Highways Officer has concluded that he has no objections in principle to the proposed development subject to a number of detailed conditions. He considers that the use of the roads through the existing Lund Farm housing estate as the main access to the development is adequate to accommodate the additional traffic likely to be generated. 81. However he has referred to the need to provide a secondary emergency access and recommended conditions based upon the inference within the submitted highway information that this would be provided via the proposed pedestrian/cycle access onto Morecambe Road. The applicants agent has subsequently confirmed that they are unable to propose the use of this access as an emergency vehicle route as it is outside their control. 82. Subsequent to these comments, the Highways Officer has confirmed that this a vital part of the application and such resilience should be intrinsic in any design. If it is clear that such a condition cannot be complied with the application should be refused. 83. It is understood that the route is within the same ownership as the application site and is currently being used by the Environment Agency as a temporary construction access. 84. The establishment of a secondary emergency access to the site is also considered to be important in this case as it could also provide a temporary access during the construction phase of this development and so avoid harmful impacts upon the existing housing estate from construction traffic and deliveries. 85. Without the inclusion of an alternative emergency and construction access it is considered that the proposal would adversely affect highway safety and resilience contrary to Policy CS10.2 of the Core Strategy. Impact of traffic generated 86. An assessment of the impacts of the traffic generated by the proposed development upon the local road network has been undertaken. 87. The submitted Transport Assessment includes traffic count information for vehicles entering and leaving the existing estate at the junction of Monument Way and North Lonsdale Road during peak hours. The survey showed that there were 69 two way trips between 7.45 and 8.45am and 84 two way trips between 16.30 and 17.30 hours. Based upon this survey, the proposed development is likely to generate an additional 65 two way trips in the morning peak hour and 72 two way trips in the afternoon peak hour . The Assessment concludes that the junction is designed to current standards with no operational issues and would cope with the additional traffic even at peak times. 88. The Assessment concludes that the local road network would not be adversely affected by the generated flows taking a robust view. No additional mitigation measures would be required. 89. The County C ouncil’s Highways Officer has assessed the information which has been submitted in relation to junction capacity and has no objections to this element. 90. In terms of the impact upon the wider road network and the A590 in particular, Highways England have assessed the submitted survey information, against previous surveys at this junction obtained as part of the GSK proposal and have confirmed that they consider that the impacts of this specific development on the operation of the strategic road network would not be significant and have no objection to the proposal. Travel Plan 91. The submitted Travel Plan considers the accessibility of the site by non-car travel modes and refers to the proposed footpath and cycle links to be provided as part of the development. The nearest primary school is some 1.3km away and the secondary school is 2.1 km away. The nearest bus stop to the site is on North Lonsdale Road some 385 metres from the site. 92. The Highways officer has advised that the Travel Plan gives broad measures that could be used to encourage a modal shift however it does not include targets or a monitoring regime which would need to be encompassed within a S106 agreement. Drainage and Flood Risk 93. One of the key issues identified in relation to the development of this site is the need to establish an effective surface water management system and address any flood risk impacts both in terms of the development itself and particularly in respect of the adjacent land and properties located in high flood risk areas. 94. The Land Allocation DPD for this site states that all the development should be located within Flood Zone 1 and surface water drainage should be dealt with via SUDs if ground conditions allow. Development will not be permitted in Flood Zones 2 & 3a unless the developer can demonstrate through an acceptable Flood Risk Assessment that it would not be at an unacceptable risk of flooding or increase flooding elsewhere. Any surface water runoff should be collected and stored within the site, sufficient to cope with a 1 in 100 year-plus climate change event, and any discharge to Lund Beck should be equal to or an improvement on the run off from the site in its greenfield state. Special consideration should be given to the eastern part of the site if surface water flows towards North Lonsdale Road. Any development should ensure that the culvert under the Rope Walk footpath is upgraded to reduce the impact /incidence of flooding from Dragley Beck. The Flood Risk Assessment needs to demonstrate that development would cause no increase in flood risk downstream. Development should ensure that there is no loss of storage capacity in the flood plain. 95. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Drainage Strategy acknowledges that although there are no historic records of flooding on the development site itself, there have been flooding incidents in close proximity to the site associated with Dragley Beck to the south of the site at Fitz Bridge and Low Mill Bridge affecting fields to the south of the site and properties to the west of the site in the vicinity of Steel Street, North Lonsdale Road and Kennedy Street. In addition there have been historic flooding incidents associated with Town Beck (Lund Beck) to the north of the site. Given the close proximity of south Ulverston to the Coast at Morecambe Bay, the flood events can be exacerbated during high tide conditions. 96. The site is located within a designated ‘wet area’ which includes the area between Dragley beck and the Ulverston canal where low lying land has drainage problems often exacerbated by high tides and river levels in Dragley Beck. Drainage in these areas has been identified as requiring sensitive consideration within development proposals. 97. The FRA states that the proposed residential development would be confined to the part of the site within Flood Zone 1 with the southern lower part of the site remaining as open space. The development area of the site would be set at an elevation above the flood levels modelled by the Environment Agency and calculated levels with respect to climate change, the lowest finished floor levels being set at 8.45 m AOD. 98. In terms of the surface water drainage strategy, the use of soakaways for the dispersal of surface water is not a viable option for this site because of the underlying geology and high water table levels. It is therefore proposed to collect surface water within a piped system which would then be discharged into two attenuation basins. Flow controls would be incorporated to mimic existing greenfield runoff rates with a 40% allowance for climate change, discharging into Dragley Beck. A swale will also be provided as a secondary form of treatment and trapped gullies to drain the highways. 99. Foul drainage would be connected to the United Utilities combined sewer in Morecambe Road. Due to site levels a pumping station is required to pump foul water from the southern side of the site and this is to be located along the western boundary of the site. 100. A maintenance strategy for the surface water drainage has been submitted which identifies that the main foul and surface water drainage networks are to be offered to United Utilities for adoption, the road surface and associated drainage gullies would be adopted by Cumbria County Council and the land drainage and filter drains would be maintained by private management company. 101. The Environment Agency and Cumbria County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority have both provided detailed comments on the proposal. The Environment Agency who initially objected to the proposal because of inadequate information within the submitted FRA have now withdrawn their objection to the proposal following the submission of an amended FRA. They have confirmed that the modelled flood levels are now acceptable and the lowest finished floor level for the site would more than adequately cover the climate change and freeboard requirements. They have also confirmed that the proposed raising of the ground levels would not impact on the flood plain storage. The Lead local Flood Authority have confirmed that the principle of the drainage layout is acceptable, and the flood exceedance plan demonstrates that any surface water flows will be away from entering dwellings. They have however, advised that there are some details regarding the calculations that should be resubmitted using corrected values before planning permission is granted. The applicants have been asked to provide this information. 102. Members will note that the Town Council has requested that the consideration of any development on this site is deferred until the outcome of the current work and studies currently being undertaken by the Environment Agency in the South Ulverston area has been completed. The Environment Agency has been asked to comment on this response and any further response received will be reported to Members. Other material considerations 103. Ecology – the submitted Ecological Appraisal includes surveys of the site and impact assessments associated with the proposed development. A badger sett is located within the site and appropriate mitigation will need to take place before construction work. The sett will need to be partly or fully closed under licence from Natural England to prevent uncontrolled disturbance or any harm to the badgers. The two mature Ash trees adjacent to the site boundary which are proposed to be felled have features to provide potential roosts for bats and will require further inspection. There was no conclusive evidence of any other protected species on site which would be affected negatively affected by the site development. Natural England’s comments also refer to the need to create a 10 metre buffer zone adjacent to the watercourse to protect otters. The closest point of the proposed development from the watercourse would be the turning head in the south western corner which would be 10.5 m and as such does not raise any issues from this aspect. 104. Archaeology – the submitted Archaeological geophysical survey has identified that there are a number of features of potential local interest on the site. The County Archaeologist has recommended that should planning permission be granted an archaeological evaluation and recording should be undertaken in advance of any development. Financial benefits to Local Authorities from the development 105. 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 Market housing £483,316.36

Council Tax Income £147,467 SLDC element £15,775 New Homes Bonus £73,320 SLDC element £58,657

106. It is considered limited weight should be attached to the financial benefits arising from the proposed development. 107. Council Tax is an ongoing annual income, new home bonus for four years (currently). 108. Any financial considerations would add to the overall benefits in delivering the five year housing land supply and identified housing need on this allocated site.

CONCLUSION 109. Although the majority of the site is allocated and as such a residential development can be regarded acceptable in principle, there are a number of adverse aspects of the proposed development as presented which combine to make the development unacceptable. 110. The development encroaches beyond the allocated site boundary to the south incorporating the escarpment and limestone outcrops, which were specifically excluded from the allocation. These would be removed and the land artificially raised and engineered to accommodate a greater number of the dwellings. The number of dwellings proposed exceeds the number indicated in the land allocations policy by 16 units. It is considered that the proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy LA1.3 of the South Lakeland Land Allocations DPD. 111. The proposed dwellings on this part of the site would be of a relatively high density and set above the level of the adjoining land. This together with the removal of the limestone outcrops, which are an important landscape feature, would collectively result in a harmful impact upon the landscape setting, key local views and features of local importance, contrary to land allocation requirements and policies CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the Core Strategy. 112. The affordable dwelling units, whilst of an appropriate mix in terms of design and tenure are concentrated in two main groups and not integrated within the site. Combined with the fact that the required quantum of affordable units would not be fully met, the proposal does not accord with Policy CS6.3 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy. 113. Whilst the Highways Authority have confirmed that proposed vehicular access to the site via the existing estate is acceptable in principle, there is an outstanding issue with regard to the lack of provision of a secondary access for emergency and construction access purposes. As it stands therefore the proposal would adversely affect highway safety and resilience contrary to policy CS10.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy, or paragraph 32 of the NPPF 114. The Environment Agency and Cumbria County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority have confirmed that the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and surface water drainage strategy is acceptable in principle subject to a number of detailed conditions. Any further comments received in respect of the amended layout proposal and the Town council response will be reported to Members.

RECOMMENDATION It is considered that there remains a number of significant unresolved issues relating to the development in its current form and as such cannot be supported.

REFUSE for the reason(s) below:- 1. The proposed development would encroach beyond the allocated site boundary resulting in the removal of a number of the existing limestone outcrops, which are an important landscape feature. This encroachment represents an overdevelopment of the site. The land would be artificially raised and engineered to accommodate the dwellings which would overall contribute to harmful impacts upon the landscape setting and amenity, key local views and features of local importance, contrary to Policy LA1.3 of the South Lakeland Land Allocations DPD and policies CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy. 2. The proposed development does not provide a secondary emergency or construction access to serve the development, which would adversely affect highway safety and resilience contrary to policy CS10.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 3. The proposed development does not provide an appropriate proportion of the affordable housing required for the site. The proposal fails to appropriately integrate the affordable dwellings within the overall scheme, contrary to the aims of providing sustainable and mixed communities as set out in Policies CS1.1, CS6.3 and CS8.10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and paragraph 50 of the National Planning Policy Framework.