Date: 7 March 2018

Town Hall, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7QF Tel: 01768 817817 Email: [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam Planning Committee Agenda - 15 March 2018 Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Planning Committee will be held at 9.30 am on Thursday, 15 March 2018 at the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Penrith.

1 Apologies for Absence

2 Minutes

To sign the minutes Pla/154/1/18 to Pla/170/1/18 of the meeting of this Committee held on 18 January 2018 as a correct record of those proceedings (copies previously circulated).

3 Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of the existence and nature of any private interests, both disclosable pecuniary and any other registrable interests, in any matter to be considered or being considered.

4 Appeal Decision Letters (Pages 5 - 10)

To receive the decision letters from the Planning Inspectorate for the appeals relating to: Application Applicant / Appeal Appeal Number(s) Decision 17/0432 Mr Boulton The appeal is Land opposite Ivy House, Ousby CA10 1QA allowed and The appeal is made under section 78 of the planning Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against permission granted subject a refusal to grant planning permission. to conditions The development proposed was originally described as residential development for up to five dwellings with all matters reserved.

5 Planning Issues (Pages 11 - 18)

To note the attached lists of the Deputy Director Technical Services.

Matthew Neal www.eden.gov.uk Deputy Chief Executive a) Applications determined under office delegated powers for the month of February 2018. b) Reasons for refusal on delegated decisions for the month of February 2018.

6 Planning Issues - Applications for Debate (Green Papers) (Pages 19 - 134)

a) To consider the reports of the Deputy Director Technical Services on the following applications:

Item Officer Page Application Details No Recommendation Number 1 Planning Application No: 17/1000 Recommended to: New Dwelling REFUSE 21 Scalehouse Farm, Scalehouses, Renwick With Reasons Mr R Graham & Ms P Bonnick 2 Planning Application No: 18/0001 Recommended to: Erection of detached live/work unit. REFUSE Land adjacent Rose Garth, opposite With Reasons 33 White Gate Caravan Park, Milburn Road, Long Marton S Burke Consulting

3 Planning Application No: 17/0771 Recommended to: Demolition of existing buildings and APPROVE erection of 54 retirement living Subject to apartments, including commercial Conditions facilities, car parking and landscaping. 42 Armstrong and Fleming Garage, Roper Street, Penrith Churchill Retirement Living

4 Planning Application No: 17/0988 Recommended to: Replacement of three windows to front REFUSE upper elevation with double glazed With Reasons UPVC. 60 Parkin End, 5 Low Wiend, Appleby Mr C Whitehall

5 Planning Application No: 17/1072 Recommended to: Outline application for residential APPROVE development with all matters reserved Subject to 66 Land at garages and former joiners shop, Conditions Calthwaite www.eden.gov.uk 2 Mr J Harris

6 Planning Application No: 17/1062 Recommended to: Proposed two storey side extension APPROVE 78 33 Holme Riggs Avenue, Penrith Subject to Mr & Mrs Benson Conditions

7 Planning Application No: 17/0527 Recommended to: Proposed residential development for 28 APPROVE dwellings and associated infrastructure Subject to 85 Land to the North of Hackthorpe Hall, Conditions Hackthorpe Esh Homes Limited

8 Planning Application No: 17/0836 Recommended to: Outline permission for residential REFUSE redevelopment of land and former With Reasons agricultural buildings for residential 119 development with all matters reserved. Brougham Hall Farm, Brougham Mr and Mrs P Harden

7 Confirmation of Site Visits (if any)

To confirm the date and location of any site visits that may have been agreed.

8 Any Other Items which the Chairman decides are urgent

9 Date of Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting is 19 April 2018.

Yours faithfully

M Neal Deputy Chief Executive (Monitoring Officer)

Democratic Services Contact: Vivien Little

Encs www.eden.gov.uk 3 For Attention All members of the Council

Chairman – Councillor J G Thompson (Conservative Group) Vice Chairman – Councillor W Patterson (Independent Group)

Councillors A Armstrong, Conservative Group V Kendall, Conservative Group I Chambers, Conservative Group J C Lynch, Conservative Group M Clark, Independent Group R Sealby, Conservative Group M Eyles, Liberal Democrat Group H Sawrey-Cookson, Independent Group D Holden, Liberal Democrat Group

Standing Deputies D Banks, Independent Group J Raine, Conservative Group A Hogg, Conservative Group V Taylor, Liberal Democrat Group M Smith, Independent Group M Rudhall, Liberal Democrat Group

Please Note: 1. Access to the internet in the Council Chamber and Committee room is available via the guest wi-fi – no password is required 2. Under the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 this meeting has been advertised as a public meeting (unless stated otherwise) and as such could be filmed or recorded by the media or members of the public

www.eden.gov.uk 4 Agenda Item 4

Report No TES17/18

Eden District Council

Planning Committee 15 March 2018

Appeal Decision Letters

Report of the Deputy Director Technical Services

Attached for Members’ information is a list of Decision Letters received since the last meeting:

Application Applicant Appeal Decision Number(s)

17/0432 Mr Boulton The appeal is Land opposite Ivy House, Ousby CA10 1QA allowed and planning The appeal is made under section 78 of the permission Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a granted subject refusal to grant planning permission. to conditions

The development proposed was originally described as residential development for up to five dwellings with all matters reserved.

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Page 5

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 December 2017

by Katie McDonald MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 12 January 2018

Appeal Ref: APP/H0928/W/17/3183181 Land opposite Ivy House, Ousby CA10 1QA  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Boulton against the decision of Eden District Council.  The application Ref 17/0432, dated 25 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 21 August 2017.  The development proposed was originally described as residential development for up to five dwellings with all matters reserved.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a residential development for up to five dwellings with all matters reserved at land opposite Ivy House, Ousby CA10 1QA in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/0432, dated 25 May 2017, subject to the following conditions set out in the attached Schedule.

Application for costs

2. An application for costs was made by Mr Boulton against Eden District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Procedural Matters

3. The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. However, in Part E of the appeal form it is stated that the description of development has changed. Whilst I have seen the letter sent to the appellant from the Council, neither of the main parties has provided written confirmation that a revised description of development was actually agreed. Accordingly, I have used the one given on the original application.

4. The application is in outline with all matters to be reserved for later approval and I have dealt with the appeal on that basis. An illustrative site plan has been submitted with the proposal and I have had regard to it in so far as it is relevant to my consideration of the principle of the proposal at the site.

Main Issues

5. I consider the main issues to be; i) The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and ii) Whether the proposed development would be accessible via sustainable modes of transport.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 6 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/17/3183181

Reasons

Character and appearance

6. Situated on part of a triangle of land surrounded by rural roads in the small village of Ousby, the proposal is for a residential development of up to 5 houses. The land is undeveloped, previously agricultural and sits next to a development site under construction for 6 dwellings. The application was in outline form, with all matters reserved.

7. Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (March 2010) (CS) identifies Ousby as a Local Service Centre, detailing that small scale development to sustain local services, support rural businesses and meet local needs, including housing would be appropriate. The Council raise no conflict with this policy, and I have no reasons to disagree.

8. The proposal would introduce built development onto what is currently an undeveloped, relatively open gap of land. However, the site is located within a triangle of land that, with the exception of the village play area and this site, is developed on all 3 sides by modern and traditional dwellings and their gardens.

9. Thus, whilst this proposal is outline only, and matters regarding the actual physical effect could not be assessed at this stage; the site is centrally located within the village, and the introduction of housing development would be in context with this particular setting. Thus, the change to the landscape, character and appearance of the village would not be harmful or detrimental.

10. The density of the site would be low, yet this would be in context with the surrounding residential houses and the adjacent development under construction. Policy CS8 of the CS sets out that lower densities may be considered where there is a need to preserve the character of the area, and in this village context, the density would be appropriate.

11. Consequently, the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area would be acceptable and I find no conflict with Policies CS1, CS3, CS8 or CS16 of the CS. These policies require developments to be sustainable, reflecting and enhancing landscape character and to make efficient use of land. I also note, that whilst not referenced in the decision notice, the site is located in a Landscape of County Importance by the saved Policy NE3 of the Eden Local Plan (December 1996). Based on my findings above, the proposal would also be in compliance with Policy NE3, which seeks to have due regard to the distinctive character of the landscape.

Sustainable modes of transport

12. The site is located in a rural setting and it would not be unreasonable to assume that access by non-car means is limited. However, based on undisputed submissions, there is a bus that operates 4 days a week, and a rail station is reasonably close at around 3.5 miles away. Furthermore, access by bicycles would not be inconceivable. Thus whilst access via sustainable modes of transport would be less than that in a more densely populated area, I do not find that the site is inaccessible via non-car means.

13. Additionally, the village is served by a public house and features a play area, providing some services close by. Consequently, I find no conflict with Policy

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Page 7 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/17/3183181

CS1 of the CS that requires, amongst other things, development is located in order to minimise the need to travel.

Other Matters

Emerging Local Plan

14. Draft Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan – 2014-2032 (LP) is referred to by the Council. This policy would require the development to meet local housing demand, and would also designate Ousby as a ‘Small Village and Hamlet’. As the proposal is for general market housing, there would be a conflict in this regard.

15. The Council also identify the site as now being of ‘limited sustainability’ due to its downgraded designation from a Local Service Centre.

16. The draft LP is at an advanced stage and I note that the Examining Inspector is not seeking any further changes to this policy. Nevertheless, it is not adopted development plan policy, and this limits the weight it can be attributed. Yet full weight can be given to the compliance I have found with the adopted development plan. In terms of the planning balance, the conflict with draft Policy LS1 would not be sufficient to outweigh the development’s compliance with adopted policy.

17. Additionally, I have found the site to be sufficiently accessible via non-car means, and its change in status from a Local Service Centre to a Small Village and Hamlet would not result in the site suddenly becoming a less accessible location.

18. Furthermore, whilst I recognise that the adoption of the draft LP would result in the area having a 6.41 year supply; the current supply of housing is less than 5 years. Therefore, the delivery of up to 5 houses, in the context of the considerable current shortage of the housing supply at 3.35 years, would be a benefit.

Public objections

19. I have had careful regard to the numerous submissions by interested persons.

20. The appeal decision referred to was determined in 2005. National and local policy has changed in the interim, and the adjacent site has been developed. Thus I find the previous decision has little bearing on this proposal.

21. I acknowledge that the draft LP has yet to be adopted, and earlier adoption may have been anticipated. However, I am duty bound to consider the proposal against the adopted development plan and any other material considerations. This is what I have done here.

22. Although there may be an identified need; there is no development plan requirement to provide affordable housing in this particular instance.

23. Details relating to drainage, lighting or ecological matters are not before me. This proposal is an outline application and such matters would be assessed in a subsequent reserved matters application. However, I have had regard to the lack of objection by the Highways Authority, the Local Lead Flood Risk Authority and United Utilities and applied conditions as necessary.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Page 8 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/17/3183181

24. No harm has been demonstrated in relation to the effect upon neighbouring living conditions from noise or light. Based upon the evidence presented, the land ownership is separate to that of the site under construction and could not be treated as piecemeal development of one planning unit in order to avoid planning obligations.

25. The length of time it takes to sell a property and the condition of the roads are not matters that are material to this appeal.

Conditions

26. I will attach a condition ensuring the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans as this provides certainty. A condition relating to the parking of site operatives during construction is required to ensure that there is no inconvenience caused to road users. A condition relating to surface water drainage is necessary to ensure the proposal manages the risk of flooding and pollution. Conditions 5 and 6 are required to be pre-commencement conditions as it is fundamental to have the details approved prior to the development commencing on site.

27. I have not imposed a condition relating to the specific access details as this is already required by condition 1. I have also not included the conditions which require the access drive to be surfaced in specific materials or the access and turning requirements. These are also matters that would be subject to the reserved matters application.

28. I have found it unnecessary to include the condition requiring the reserved matters to propose no more than 5 dwellings as this is detailed in the description of development.

29. Finally, I have not imposed the condition requiring the development to be occupied by persons with a local connection, as the proposal is acceptable without this requirement.

Conclusion

30. For the reasons above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

Katie McDonald

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Page 9 Appeal Decision APP/H0928/W/17/3183181

Schedule of Conditions 1) Details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development takes place and the development shall be carried out as approved. 2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than 3 years from the date of this permission. 3) The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. 4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans being Location Plan and Block Plan. 5) No development shall commence until a plan that details adequate land for the parking of vehicles engaged in construction operations associated with the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to construction of the development, and the land shall be used for or be kept available for the parking of vehicles engaged in construction operations at all times until the completion of the construction works. 6) No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until surface water drainage works shall have been implemented in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Before any details are submitted to the local planning authority an assessment shall be carried out of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system, having regard to Defra's non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems (or any subsequent version), and the results of the assessment shall have been provided to the local planning authority. Where a sustainable drainage scheme is to be provided, the submitted details shall: i) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; ii) include a timetable for its implementation; and, iii) provide, a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 Page 10 PLANNING COMMITTEE Agenda Item No. APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER OFFICER DELEGATED POWERS FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2018

App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

17/0226 Reserved by Appleby Discharge of condition 14 (noise and vibration) LAND ADJACENT TO CROSS Mr Adam McNally - APPROVED Cond attached to approval 15/1097. CROFT, APPLEBY, Story Homes

17/0265 Reserved by Kirkby Stephen Discharge of conditions 3 (foul and surface water), 4 EDENSIDE GARAGE, NORTH James Hall and Co - Mr APPROVED Cond (risk assessment), 5 (foul and surface water), 6 ROAD, KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 A Bangs (drainage management), 7 (environmental site 4RP assessment), 8 (stonework) and 9 (access ramps) attached to approval 16/0606.

17/0833 Reserved by Lazonby Discharge of condition 3 (surface water drainage) EDENHOLME BAKERY, LAZONBY, Bells of Lazonby APPROVED Cond attached to approval 17/0348. PENRITH, CA10 1BG

17/0892 Full Application Dacre Proposed demolition of existing buildings and QUARRY GARAGE, SLAPESTONES, Leo Sawrij Limited APPROVED construction of Class B2 industrial building. REDHILLS, PENRITH, CA11 0EB

17/0897 Full Application Shap Proposal to create first and second floor flats from THE FLAT, VERDUN HOUSE, SHAP, Miss E Topping APPROVED existing single living accomodation. New external PENRITH, CA10 3NG access/escape metal stairway to side and rear elevations. Demolish rear ground floor buildings for parking arrangements.

17/0966 Full Application Penrith Proposed side extension. 42 NETHEREND ROAD, PENRITH, Mr T R Nicholson APPROVED CA11 8PH

17/0975 Full Application Ainstable Proposed new dwelling. SITE ADJAENT TO COPPER HALL, Mrs M. Shortman APPROVED CROGLIN, CARLISLE, CA4 9RZ

17/0981 Full Application Dacre Construction of B1/B2/B8 mixed use industrial 5B NORTH LAKES BUSINESS Foretract Engineering APPROVED building within existing compound. PARK, FLUSCO, PENRITH, CA11 Ltd 0JG

17/0991 Outline Langwathby Outline application for 2no. dwellings with all matters LAND OPPOSITE 1 & 2 MOSS SIDE Mr J Walmesley REFUSED

Application reserved. COTTAGES, EDENHALL, CA11 8SU Agenda Item 5

17/1009 Full Application Yanwath & Proposed agricultural building. LAND ADJ TO B5320 OPPOSITE A Brooks APPROVED Eamont Bridge YANWATH GATE INN, YANWATH, PENRITH,

17/1011 Listed Building Penrith Listed Building consent for two storey extension with FERN BANK, GRAHAM STREET, Massingham APPROVED internal alterations. PENRITH, CA11 9LB

Page 11 Page 17/1018 Listed Building Temple Sowerby Listed Building consent for internal alterations. ACORN BANK, TEMPLE SOWERBY, National Trust APPROVED PENRITH, CA10 1SP

05 March 2018 Page 1 of 6 Page 12 Page App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

17/1020 Full Application Penrith Variation of condition 3 (windows) to change from BLAIN HOUSE, BRIDGE LANE, Mr E Robson APPROVED non-opening windows to restricted opening, attached PENRITH, CA11 8QU to approval 13/0804.

17/1031 Full Application Skelton Change of use of barn to dwelling. WIGTON ROAD BARN, NR Mr G Ostle APPROVED SKELTON, PENRITH,

17/1034 Reserved Matters Bolton Reserved matters application for scale, layout and LAND AT VIOLET BANK FARM, Mr & Mrs D Baxter APPROVED external layout of 4no. Dwellings attached to BOLTON, APPLEBY-IN- approval 14/0795. WESTMORLAND, CA16 6AW

17/1037 Full Application Dacre Variation of condition 2 (plans compliance) EAMONT CROFT, STAINTON, CA11 Mr D Brass APPROVED comprising of revised design attached to approval 0DQ 17/0185.

17/1039 Reserved by Kirkby Stephen Part discharge of conditions 3 (affordable housing), 5 WHITE HOUSE FARM, HIGH Mr Mark Cairns APPROVED Cond (noise), 11 (materials) and discharge of condition 13 STREET, KIRKBY STEPHEN, CA17 (highways) attached to appeal approval 4SH APP/H0928/A/14/2220094. Discharge of condition 7 (highways) attached to appeal approval APP/H0928/E/14/2220099.

17/1042 Full Application Bolton Proposed erection of dwelling with integral garage . NEW NORTH END, NORTH END, Mr Bainbridge APPROVED BOLTON, APPLEBY-IN- WESTMORLAND, CA16 6AX

17/1049 Full Application Castle Sowerby Creation of access. HOW HILL, HUTTON ROOF, Carrock Design & Build APPROVED PENRITH, CA11 0XY

17/1050 Full Application Castle Sowerby Change of use of attached barn to additional HOW HILL FARM, HUTTON ROOF, Mr & Mrs M Iredale APPROVED residential accommodation and extensions to the PENRITH, CA11 0XY original dwelling.

17/1054 Full Application Alston Change of use of outdoor activity centre to family HIGH PLANS LODGE, ALSTON, CA9 Mr D Walters APPROVED dwelling and holiday cottage. Resubmission of 3DD approval 17/0617.

17/1055 Full Application Long Marton Proposed general purpose agricultural building. BRAMPTON HALL FARM, Mr R Bellas APPROVED BRAMPTON, APPLEBY, CA16 6JS

17/1056 Full Application Culgaith Variation of condition 2 (plans compliance) to alter PLOTS 58 - 62, OTTERS HOLT, Mr S Edwards - APPROVED house type specifications attached to approval CULGAITH, PENRITH, Cumbrian Homes Ltd. 09/0881.

17/1058 Full Application Hunsonby Conversion of garage to holiday letting MOUNT PLEASANT, HUNSONBY, Ms D Logan APPROVED accommodation. PENRITH, CA10 1PN

17/1059 Full Application Greystoke Retrospective application for external porch. THE SWALLOWS, BLENCOW, Mr J Digedan APPROVED PENRITH, CA11 0DF

05 March 2018 Page 2 of 6 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

17/1060 Full Application Greystoke Proposed conversion from barn to dwelling - THE COTTAGE, MILL FARM, Mr J Digedan APPROVED amendments to permission re 03/0944 - BLENCOW, PENRITH, CA11 0DF retrospective.

17/1061 Full Application Kirkby Thore Retrospective permission for a replacement garden GLEN FIELD, KIRKBY THORE, Mr B Horn APPROVED wall. PENRITH, CA10 1XF

17/1063 Full Application Alston Change of use of coach house to guest suite and WHITE HOUSE, FRONT STREET, Mr R & Mrs L APPROVED reinstatement of garden room. ALSTON, CA9 3HU Hampshire

17/1065 Full Application Penrith Side extentions and front porch. 47 BARCO AVENUE, PENRITH, Mr M Mills APPROVED CA11 8LY

17/1071 Full Application Penrith Retrospective application for the retention of 17m of 7 MANOR PARK, PENRITH, CA11 Mr M Hodgson APPROVED 1.8 high fencing between points A and E as 8AL illustrated on Plan no1.

17/1074 Full Application Langwathby Replacement of existing modular units with new UNIT 1 UNDERLYNE, STATION Great North Air APPROVED modular units. ROAD, LANGWATHBY, PENRITH, Ambulance Service CA10 1NB

17/1076 Full Application Penrith Retrospective application for the retention of 31m of 8 MANOR PARK, CARLETON, J Prodger APPROVED 1.8 high fencing between points B and C as PENRITH, CA11 8AL illustrated on the Site Plan.

17/1082 Full Application Sockbridge & Extension and renovation. THE MEETING HOUSE, QUAKERS Mr I Graham APPROVED Tirril LANE, SOCKBRIDGE, CA10 2JR

17/1083 Listed Building Sockbridge & Listed Building consent for extension and renovation. THE MEETING HOUSE, QUAKERS Mr I Graham APPROVED Tirril LANE, SOCKBRIDGE, CA10 2JR

17/1084 Full Application Alston Reinstatement of historic shopfront and first floor HARVEST HOME, FRONT STREET, Mr C Redshaw APPROVED windows. ALSTON, CA9 3QH

17/1087 Full Application Ousby Demolition of existing bungalow and construction of IVY HOUSE, OUSBY, PENRITH, Murphy APPROVED new bungalow. CA10 1QA

17/1088 Full Application Penrith Sub division of apartment into 2 no. apartments. 14A LITTLE DOCKRAY, PENRITH, Mr D Johnston APPROVED CA11 7HL

17/1089 Full Application Greystoke Extension to dwelling. 24 JEFFERSON GARTH, Mr N Smith APPROVED GREYSTOKE, PENRITH, CA11 0UA

17/1091 Full Application Hesket Variation of condition 1 (approved drawings) BEWALDETH, PLUMPTON, Mr Graham - E Graham APPROVED attached to approval 13/0829. PENRITH, CA11 9PA & Sons Ltd

Page 13 Page 17/1093 Full Application Penrith Change of use of industrial building (use classes B1c UNIT1 SWAINSONS YARD, MYERS Mr S Hardy APPROVED and B8) to tyre fitting establishment (use classes B2 LANE, PENRITH, CA11 9DP and B8).

05 March 2018 Page 3 of 6 Page 14 Page App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

17/1095 Outline Catterlen Outline application for 4 No. dwellings. LAND ADJACENT TO BANKFOOT Mr A Robson APPROVED Application FARM, NEWTON REIGNY, PENRITH, CA11 0AP

17/1098 Householder Penrith Proposed rear extension. 22 WILLOW CLOSE, PENRITH, Mr S Sisson APPROVED PD/PN CA11 8TH

17/1100 Full Application Langwathby Proposed residential dwelling LAND ADJACENT HOLME EDEN, Mrs Ridley APPROVED LANGWATHBY, PENRITH, CA10 1LW

17/1101 Listed Building Hesket Listed building consent for proposed refurbishment LOW HOUSE, BOWSCAR, Mr + Mrs Stephenson APPROVED and alterations. PENRITH, CA11 9NW

17/1102 Tree Works Appleby Remove two mature twin stemmed Ash that show HYCUP HOUSE, STATION ROAD, Mrs S Parkin APPROVED (TPO) evidence of declining, un-natural lean and poor APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND, rooting environment, with a particular emphasis on CA16 6TX poor structural form weak co-dominant fork; Signs of movement at the base; Risk to driveway and neighbouring property; Tree Preservation Order No 35, 1991, Station Road, South side, Appleby.

17/1104 Full Application Newbiggin Alterations and renovations to residential dwelling. UPPER HILLSIDE, MILBURN ROAD, Mr & Mrs Lightburn APPROVED NEWBIGGIN, TEMPLE SOWERBY, PENRITH, CA10 1TE

18/0004 Full Application Glassonby Proposed dwelling. SWEET WELL, ROBERTLANDS Mr & Mrs Chapelhow APPROVED LANE, GAMBLESBY, PENRITH, CA10 1JA

18/0005 Full Application Penrith Erection of single storey rear extension, conversion 16 RYDAL CRESCENT, PENRITH, Mr & Mrs Connor APPROVED of existing attached garage with extension to the CA11 8PL front elevation to create additional living accommodation.

18/0007 Screening Brougham Screening Opinion for an Environmental Impact WHINFELL FOREST HOLIDAY Center Parcs APPROVED Opinion Assessment for 4 no. treehouse lodges. VILLAGE, WHINFELL, PENRITH, CA10 2DW

18/0008 Full Application Dacre Demolition of former agricultural buildings and LAKES FREE RANGE EGG Mr D Brass - Lakes APPROVED change of use of land to residential curtilage for Meg COMPANY LTD, MEG BANK, Free Range Egg Bank. STAINTON, PENRITH, CA11 0EE Company Ltd

18/0009 Notice of Intention Hunsonby Proposed demolition of former factory buildings and WORKSHOP AND PREMISES, Mr D Montgomery - APPROVED associated structures. LITTLE SALKELD, PENRITH, CA10 Citadel Estates Ltd 1NJ

05 March 2018 Page 4 of 6 App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

18/0014 Reserved by Hunsonby Discharge of condition 4 (archaeology) attached to WORKSHOP AND PREMISES, Mr D Montgomery APPROVED Cond approval 14/0354. LITTLE SALKELD, PENRITH, CA10 1NJ

18/0019 Full Application Shap Change of use of single dwelling to two dwellings. EAST HOUSE, MAIN STREET, Mr David Hudson APPROVED Including removal of single storey rear extension and SHAP, PENRITH, CA10 3NU conversion of 2 windows to doors.

18/0022 Tree Works (CA) Penrith 1) Remove 4 Spruce trees (trees 2, 3, 5, 12); 2) FELLSIDE, NICHOLSON LANE, Mr K G Dudson APPROVED Crown raise Lime (tree 1) to 3m; 3) Remove two PENRITH, CA11 7UL hanging branches from Pine (tree 4); Penrith New Streets Conservation Area; (No works proposed to trees protected by Tree Preservation Order No 175).

18/0032 Reserved by Glassonby Discharge of conditions 9 (sample materials) OLD ST JOHNS CHURCH, Mr Philip Evans APPROVED Cond attached to approval 08/1073 and 4 (sample GAMBLESBY, PENRITH, CA10 1HR materials) attached to approval 10/0023.

18/0036 Non-Material Penrith Non Material Amendment comprising of increase in OMEGA PROTEINS PENRITH LTD, Omega Proteins APPROVED Amend height of the approved class B2 industrial building. PENRITH, CA11 0BX

18/0062 Tree Works (CA) Kirkoswald Prune Holly to remove approximately 1/3 crown THE MANSE, KIRKOSWALD, Mr J Slee - Kirkoswald APPROVED height/width as shown in photograph provided; PENRITH, CA10 1EW & Alston Moor Kirkoswald Conservation Area. Methodist Circuit

18/0063 Tree Works (CA) Appleby T1 and T3 Copper Beeches: crown reduce by 2-3m ELM BANK, GARTH HEADS ROAD, Mr Barry Broadhurst APPROVED on extended laterals; T2 Beech: Remove due to APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND, shading and replant with suitable species; Appleby CA16 6TR Conservation Area.

18/0064 Tree Works (CA) Penrith Remove epicormic shoots from Ash tree to level with 15 ARTHUR STREET, PENRITH, Mr and Mrs Harding APPROVED Ivy; Penrith New Streets Conservation Area. CA11 7TU

18/0065 Tree Works (CA) Penrith 1) Remove Sycamores less than 7cms diameter; 2) PINFOLD, NICHOLSON LANE, Mr Thomas Niedt APPROVED Remove mutli-stemmed Cypress; 3) Target prune PENRITH, CA11 7UL Cherry overhang back to wall; 4) Remove 4 Cypress stems; Penrith New Streets Conservation Area.

18/0066 Tree Works Penrith T9: Crown clean and remove branch over adjacent PUBLIC OPEN SPACE BORDERING Mr Paul Emmerson - APPROVED (TPO) shed; Group 3: 1) Thin scaffold limb of Sycamore 4, 5 AND 6 BECKSIDE, PENRITH, Eden District Council over 5 Beckside up to 30%; 2) All trees: Crown clean CA11 8RW and remove eipicormic shoots; Tree Preservation Order No 125, 2006, Carleton Heights, Penrith.

18/0070 Non-Material Kirkoswald Non Material Amendment comprising of changing DOCTORS SURGERY, Drs Sharpe APPROVED Amend the roof material attached to approval 16/0151. RAVENGHYLL, KIRKOSWALD, PENRITH, CA10 1DQ Page 15 Page

05 March 2018 Page 5 of 6 Page 16 Page App No App Type Parish Description Location Applicant Decision

18/0073 Cert. of Lawful Orton Certificate of lawfulness for installation of telecoms ELECTRICITY SUBSTATION TO Electricity North West APPROVED pole braced on wall of existing substation with THE NORTH EAST OF SELSMIRE associated antennas, dish and ancillary equipment, FARM, ORTON, PENRITH, CA10 3SA

18/0081 Notice of Intention Bolton Proposed agricultural building. LAITHA, BOLTON, APPLEBY-IN- Mr R Ashley Jr - APPROVED WESTMORLAND, CA16 6AY Messrs Ashley

18/0093 Tree Works (CA) Langwathby Remove 1 Cherry tree (T2) from the garden of THE OLD VICARAGE COTTAGE / Mr James Pyrah - APPROVED Vicarage Cottage and 1 Sycamore (T1) from the ROADSIDE NEAR ST CUTHBERT'S Robson & Liddle roadside opposite St Cuthbert's Place; Edenhall PLACE, EDENHALL, PENRITH, Conservation Area. CA11 8SX

In relation to each application it was considered whether the proposal was appropriate having regard to the Development Plan, the representations which were received including those from consultees and all other material considerations. In cases where the application was approved the proposal was considered to be acceptable in planning terms having regard to the material considerations. In cases where the application was refused the proposal was not considered to be acceptable having regard to the material and relevant considerations. In all cases it was considered whether the application should be approved or refused and what conditions, if any, should be imposed to secure an acceptable form of development.

05 March 2018 Page 6 of 6

Notice of Decision

Carriage Return

To: Ms J Liddle - Robson & Liddle (Rural) Ltd Mansion House, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7YG 10 The Courtyard Tel: 01768 817817 Edenhall Fax: 01768 212320 Penrith Cumbria CA11 8ST

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015

Application No: 17/0991 On Behalf Of: Mr J Walmesley

In pursuance of their powers under the above Act and Order, Eden District Council, as local planning authority, hereby REFUSE outline planning permission for the development described in your application and on the plans and drawings attached thereto, viz:

Application Type: Outline Application Proposal: Outline application for 2no. dwellings with all matters reserved. Location: LAND OPPOSITE 1 & 2 MOSS SIDE COTTAGES EDENHALL CA11 8SU

The reasons for this decision are:

• The proposed development does not reflect or enhance the local landscape character contrary to Policy CS16 of the Core Strategy and draft policy DEV5 of the draft local plan (2014-2032) ;

• The proposal would have an unacceptable and harmful impact on the character of the local landscape contrary to Policies CS18 of the Core Strategy and draft Policy DEV5 of the draft local plan (2014-2032) ;

• The proposed development by virtue of its location and siting does not accord with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy and draft policy LS1 of the draft local plan (2014-2032).

• The adverse impacts of the proposed development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposed residential development in accordance with paragraphs 14 and 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Where necessary the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application and to implement the requirements of the NPPF and the adopted development plan.

Date of Decision: 21 February 2018 www.eden.gov.uk Jane Langston BEng (Hons) CEng MICE Deputy Director Technical Services Page 17

Signed:

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

www.eden.gov.uk 2 Page 18 Agenda Item 6 Agenda Index REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Eden District Council Planning Committee Agenda Committee Date: 15 March 2018 INDEX

Item Officer Application Details No Recommendation

1 Planning Application No: 17/1000 Recommended to: New Dwelling REFUSE Scalehouse Farm, Scalehouses, Renwick With Reasons Mr R Graham & Ms P Bonnick

2 Planning Application No: 18/0001 Recommended to: Erection of detached live/work unit. REFUSE Land adjacent Rose Garth, opposite White Gate With Reasons Caravan Park, Milburn Road, Long Marton S Burke Consulting

3 Planning Application No: 17/0771 Recommended to: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 54 APPROVE no retirement living apartments, including Subject to Conditions commercial facilities, car parking and landscaping. Armstrong and Fleming Garage, Roper Street, Penrith Churchill Retirement Living

4 Planning Application No: 17/0988 Recommended to: Replacement of three windows to front upper REFUSE elevation with double glazed UPVC. With Reasons Parkin End, 5 Low Wiend, Appleby. Mr C Whitehall

5 Planning Application No: 17/1072 Recommended to: Outline application for residential development with APPROVE all matters reserved Subject to Conditions Land at garages and former joiners shop, Calthwaite Mr J Harris

6 Planning Application No: 17/1062 Recommended to: Proposed two storey side extension APPROVE

Page 19 Agenda Index REPORTS FOR DEBATE 33 Holme Riggs Avenue, Penrith Subject to Conditions Mr & Mrs Benson

7 Planning Application No: 17/0527 Recommended to: Proposed residential development for 28 dwellings APPROVE and associated infrastructure Land to the North of Hackthorpe Hall, Hackthorpe Subject to Conditions Esh Homes Limited

8 Planning Application No: 17/0836 Recommended to: Outline permission for residential redevelopment of REFUSE land and former agricultural buildings for residential development with all matters reserved. With Reasons Brougham Hall Farm, Brougham Mr and Mrs P Harden

Page 20 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 15 March 2018

Planning Application No: 17/1000 Date Received: 27 November 2017

OS Grid Ref: NY 358754, Expiry Date: 16 March 2018 545107

Parish: Kirkoswald Ward: Kirkoswald

Application Type: Full

Proposal: New Dwelling

Location: Scalehouse Farm, Scalehouses, Renwick

Applicant: Mr R Graham & Ms P Bonnick

Agent: Mr A Yeats, EcoArc Ltd

Case Officer: Caroline Brier

Reason for Referral: Recommendation contrary to that of the Parish Council

Page 21 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 22 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons: 1. The application proposes a new house in an unsustainable location in the open countryside which is poorly related to local services without a demonstrated need contrary to Core Strategy policies CS1, CS2, CS3, CS7 and CS9, emerging Local Plan Policy LS1 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The application is seeking full planning permission for the erection of a dwelling on the garden area of Scalehouse Farm, Scalehouses, Renwick. 2.1.3 The site is considered to be brownfield land. In a recent appeal case CO/4129/2015 (Dartford Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government), the High Court judge ruled on the definition of brownfield land in the NPPF, noting that previously-developed land excludes land in built up areas such as private gardens. He held that the wording of the exemption to previously developed land, within the NPPF was significant. It reads "land in built-up areas such as: private residential gardens". As such, the Deputy Judge found that only residential gardens within the "built-up area" were exempt from the definition of previously developed land whereas, residential gardens outside "built up areas" were "brownfield". It falls therefore that garden land in rural areas (in this District, that is everywhere outside Penrith) shall be considered as previously developed land. 2.1.3 The proposed dwelling has an internal floor space of approximately 130m2 over two floors. It is of a basic modern design with textured rough cast render in an off white colour. A natural slate roof is proposed with 10 PV panels along the front south west facing slope. The front door would be vertical boarded timber in a butinox moss green painted finish. The back door and windows are to be triple glazed timber units all in a butinox moss green painted finish. 2.1.4 A bin and recycling store is proposed at the entrance of the site measuring approximately 1.4m2 and would be constructed of pre-weathered natural silver/grey timber boarding under a natural slate roof. 2.1.5 The proposal would be accessed via the existing gate to the garden area and makes provision for two car parking spaces and a car turning area. 2.1.6 The application is supported by an Environmental Design Statement which indicates that the proposed dwelling would be an Eco Passive House for the applicants who are looking to retire from their current Bed and Breakfast business due to age and health and wish to stay in Scalehouses. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site is located in the settlement of Scalehouses approximately 300 metres from the road which runs between Renwick and Croglin and just over 1 mile from the village of Renwick. Scalehouses is a ‘Rural Area’ under policy LS1 of the emerging Eden Local Plan as it does not contain a coherent and close knit grouping of ten or more dwellings.

Page 23 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2.2.2 The site does not affect the setting of any Listed Buildings and it is not located within a Conservation Area, it is however within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 2.2.3 The application site measures approximately 0.06ha. To the south west of the site is the access track which leads to this site and other properties and beyond the track an agricultural building. To the north west the site is bound by a high stone wall, part of which is the gable end of the neighbouring property Middle Farm. To the north east, directly behind the application site is garden area in the ownership of the applicant and beyond that is open countryside. To the south east the site is bound by the rear of Scalehouse Farm, the applicant’s current dwelling. 2.2.4 The site is located within a Flood Zone 1 and there are no known surface water flooding issues. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority No objection Lead Local Flood Authority No objection The following are detailed responses as outlined above: 3.1.1 Highway Authority – ‘It is considered that the proposal will not have a material effect on existing highways conditions. I therefore confirm that the Highway Authority has no objection to the proposal from a Highways perspective. However, a PROW (public footpath) number 337020 lies adjacent to/runs through the site, the applicant must ensure that no interference and obstruction occurs to the footpath during, or after the completion of the site works’. 3.1.2 Lead Local Flood Authority – ‘The Leal Local Flood Authority surface water map show that there is no flooding and/or surface water issue in the locale. As such it is believed that the risk of surface water flooding will not be increased and therefore I have no objections from the LLFA perspective’. 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Environmental Health - Object Housing United Utilities No objection Coal Authority No objection Planning Policy Object The following are detailed responses as outlined above: 3.2.1 Environmental Health - Housing – ‘The proposed development site is a rural exception site and would be considered under ‘Other Rural Areas’; whereby development will be restricted to the re-use of traditional buildings or the provision of affordable housing as an exception to policy only (LS1 & HS1). As this is an application for market led housing it is therefore contrary to the above policies in the emerging Local Plan.

Page 24 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE To qualify for rural exceptions housing the site must be in a location considered suitable for the development of affordable housing. I am not convinced that this is a suitable or sustainable location for affordable housing – given that it is not within easy access to services such as a shop, school or public transport. The emerging Local Plan states that ‘evidence will need to be given as to why the scheme’s benefits to the locality are such that it justifies an exception to policy’. The onus is on the applicant to provide this information and it should include evidence of affordable housing need for the location in question. If the proposal was to deliver the proposed dwelling as an affordable self-build, the applicant would be required to complete an affordable self-build application (which I can provide should the applicant wish to go down this route). An assessment of whether the applicant is in housing need, has a local connection and is unable to afford a suitable home in the locality would be made by the Council’s Housing Services Team. Restrictions relating to both the size of the dwelling and the future re-sale value would be imposed if planning permission were to be granted for an affordable self-build dwelling. However, as stated above, the current planning application is not for an affordable dwelling and it may be the case that a new application would need to be made if the applicant wishes to go down this route’. 3.2.2 United Utilities – In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), the site should be drained on a separate system with foul water draining to the public sewer and surface water drainage in the most sustainable way. The NPPG clearly outlines the hierarchy to be investigated by the developer when considering a surface water drainage strategy. The level of cover to the water mains and sewers must not be compromised either during or after construction. A separate metered supply to each unit will be required at the applicant’s expense and all internal pipe work must comply with current water supply (water fittings) regulations 1999. 3.2.3 Coal Authority – ‘I can confirm that the planning application has been sent to us incorrectly for consultation. The application site does not fall within the defined Development High Risk Area and is located instead within the defined Development Low Risk Area. This means that there is no requirement under the risk-based approach that has been agreed with the LPA for a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to be submitted or for The Coal Authority to be consulted’. 3.2.4 Planning Policy – ‘The application - The site comprises garden ground to the rear of Scale house farm. Scale house farm together with the adjoining farm and buildings constitutes a significant and primarily traditional/vernacular group of agricultural buildings, together with several dwellings, lying in relative isolation 450m to the east of the B6413 and 1000m to the north west of Renwick village. The site is in the located in the North Pennines AONB. The proposal is for full planning permission for a single dwelling, described as an Eco Passive House, the form and design of which comprises a large rectangular building orientated across the rear of the side facing south west, incorporating a green oak garden room to the north west elevation. Unspecified Slate roof, rendered walls with banding surrounds and painted doors and windows with solar array to roof. Overall design incorporates non-traditional fenestration, eaves and verge detailing.

Page 25 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Policy background a) As you are aware the development plan comprises of the core strategy 2010 and saved policies of the Eden local plan 1996 (includingNE2: development in the North Pennines AONB), together with the housing SPD 2010. b) The NPPF provides for a national perspective on planning policy. c) Since November, the majority of the emerging local plan 2014-2032 can now be given substantial weight, as it can be considered sound following the main modifications consultation being undertaken in summer of 2017. It is therefore the case that the emerging local plan can now take precedence over the former core strategy and the current raft of policy, as it can now demonstrate that once adopted it will be able to provide for a five year housing land supply. d) Within the former core strategy the building group was not confirmed to be a local service centre and was the site located in the countryside where under CS2 locational strategy, smaller villages, hamlets and open countryside: development was limited to meeting and identified need and limited to those criteria specified in CS3: rural settlements and rural areas. e) Within the emerging local plan which can now be given substantial weight, policy LS1: locational strategy confirms the site to be within ‘other rural areas (outside key hubs and smaller villages and hamlets), where new development would provide for the provision of affordable housing as an exception to policy only. Also, to qualify as rural exceptions housing site must be in a location considered suitable for the development of affordable housing. PolicyHS1: affordable housing, confirms that ‘in other rural areas, new housing will be restricted to affordable housing, in an existing settlement comprised of a coherent group of three or more dwelling.’ Policy DEV5: design of new development, confirms that ‘the council will support high quality design, which reflects local distinctiveness. All development proposals will be expected to perform highly when assessed against best practice guidance and standards for design, sustainability and place making.’ DEV5 requires that new development will need to demonstrate that it meets each of the 10 criteria contained within the policy. Policy ENV3: the North Pennines area of outstanding natural beauty confirms that your development will only be permitted where a proposal meets each of three criteria revolving around ‘adverse impact upon the special qualities or statutory purposes of the AONB’, ‘does not lessen or cause harm to the distinctive character of the area, the historic environment, heritage assets and their setting’, ‘and adheres to any formally adopted design guards or planning policies..’.. Assessment - affordable housing In respect of the current proposal, the application is made in full for a market led dwelling and not for an affordable dwelling required under policyLS1. The application is not supported by an affordable housing statement, or the heads of terms for the conclusion of a section 106 agreement which would tie the development to affordable housing in perpetuity. In addition, there has been no assessment of this being in an appropriate location for an affordable house all that it meets the affordable criteria in all other respects. In the absence of this information it is recommended that the application is refused over this ground. Assessment - design

Page 26 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE The requirement for high quality design has been a central theme in respect of the core strategy, the NPPF, DEV5 and ENV3 and the emerging local plan. In this respect, the current proposal provides for an ’eco passive house’, which although commendable in terms of sustainability, falls well short of the requirement for a high quality design within this important and sensitive location, and particularly within its location within the North Pennines AONB. Policy DEV5 and ENV3 are unequivocal in their support for high quality design requiring adherence to the 10 criteria listed within DEV5 and the North Pennines building design guide. The existing proposal does show a simply rendered building under a slate roof, but the elevational treatment, the absence of coin stone details, the accentuated overhang and detailing to the eaves and verge in the format shown are inappropriate, all of which failed to show a clear understanding of the form and character of the District's built environment which neither complements nor enhances the existing area and it fails to reflect the existing street scene through form, high quality architectural design and use of materials, all of which cannot be addressed by the use condition. In the absence of meeting the requirement for high quality design, it is recommended that the application is refused on this ground. Notwithstanding that the proposal is for an eco-passive house, there is no reason why the building structure cannot incorporate highly insulated structure with eco-credentials, but is dressed to reflect and show a clear understanding of the District's built environment and the AONB which are notably evident in the majority of the surrounding buildings’. 4. Parish Council Response Please Tick as Appropriate No View Parish Council Object Support No Response Expressed Kirkoswald  4.1 ‘Councillors resolved that they would like the application to be passed to the committee for assessment. They wanted to support it as they believe that it will result in an affordable property, it is being developed as a self-build and is being built by residents who do much to support the local community’. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 12 December 2017. No of Neighbours Consulted 1 No of letters of support 15 No of Representations Received 17 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 2 5.2 Letters of support were also received which provided the following comments:  Applicants have lived in Scalehouses for 23 years.  Community has grown from 2 properties to what it is today over this time.  Applicants have provided a service to visitors (walkers, cyclists & workers) through the bed and breakfast.  Contributed economically to the locality.  Provided skilled services.

Page 27 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Proposal to be eco-friendly.  No opposition from the community.  Doesn’t impact on any other properties.  Releases a larger home for family use if it doesn’t continue as a bed and breakfast.  Applicant is a riding instructor and teaches local children to ride in her arena.  Applicant teaches yoga and exercise classes locally.  Impact will be minimal as it is an infill site.  Exciting opportunity for one of the first green buildings in the area.  Small affordable house on an infill site.  A passive house is innovative.  Every aspect of the plans is environmentally sound, cohesive, holistic and laudable.  The hamlet of Scalehouses is invisible from the B6413 road.  The applicants are valued members of the community. 5.3 Letters of objection raised the following material considerations to the application:  The garden wall also forms the gable end of Middle Farm. The ground levels of the two gardens seem greater than shown on the survey. Middle Farm is set down, well below the garden level which causes 2 areas of concern: 1) No proposed floor or roof levels have been provided. No sections showing how the properties would interact making it difficult to assess the visual effect of the new house and if it would be much higher. 2) Can house be pushed back to be in line with Middle Farm. 5.4 Following the Applicant contacting Rory Stewart MP for Penrith and the Border, Mr Stewart advised that whilst he doesn’t generally get involved in planning matters, he has agreed to highlight this application with the Local Planning Authority and asks that the strong merits of the applicant’s case are carefully considered. 6. Relevant Planning History There is no relevant planning history. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Saved Local Plan Policies:  NE1 - Development in the Open Countryside  NE2 – Development in the North Pennines AONB Core Strategy DPD Policy:  CS1 - Sustainable Development Principles  CS2 - Locational Strategy  CS3 - Rural Settlements and the Rural Areas  CS7 - Principles for Housing  CS9 - Housing on Rural Exception Sites  CS10 – Affordable Housing  CS18 - Design of New Development

Page 28 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Emerging Eden Local Plan 2014-2032:

 LS1 - Locational Strategy  LS2 – Housing Targets and Distribution  DEV1 – General Approach to New Development  DEV5 - Design of New Development  ENV3 – The North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Due to the advanced stage of adoption of the emerging Local Plan and following confirmation from the Planning Inspector, substantial weight is now afforded to the above draft policies in the determination of this planning application. Supplementary Planning Documents:  Housing (2010)  North Pennines AONB Planning Guidelines (July 2011)  North Pennines AONB Building Design Guide (2011) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes  Requiring good design National Planning Practice Guidance 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Landscape and Visual Impacts  Residential Amenity 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply and as such the housing policies within the Core Strategy are considered to be out of date. However, the emerging Eden Local Plan is at a stage where due to its closeness to adoption it can be afforded substantial weight. 8.2.2 Policy LS1 of the emerging Local Plan classes Scalehouses as ‘Other Rural Areas (outside the Key Hubs and Smaller Villages and Hamlets)’ which restricts developments to the re-use of traditional buildings or the provision of affordable housing as an exception to policy only. The policy goes on to advise that some market housing may be acceptable in accordance with the criteria in Policy HS1 only in instances to cross subsidise the delivery of affordable housing (which this application does not). Also to qualify as a rural exception housing the site must be in a location considered suitable for the development of affordable housing. 8.2.3 Policy HS1 states ‘in Other Rural Areas (outside the Key Hubs and Smaller Villages and Hamlets), new housing will be restricted to affordable housing, in an existing settlement comprised of a coherent group of three or more dwellings. In addition, small

Page 29 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE numbers of market housing aimed at enabling the delivery of affordable homes to meet local need may be acceptable in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets named in Policy LS1’. 8.2.4 This proposal is made in full for a market led dwelling. The application has not been supported by an affordable housing statement and is not in accordance with emerging Eden Local Plan Policy LS1. 8.2.5 Although forming part of a small cluster of buildings within the settlement, the application site is not considered to be a sustainable location for residential development due to being remote and isolated from basic services, shops, facilities and any mode of public transport. 8.2.6 Notwithstanding the fact that an affordable dwelling is not being applied for, the Housing Officer has expressed concerns that they are not convinced that this would be a suitable or sustainable location for affordable housing even if this was to be proposed given that it is not within easy access to services such as a shop, school or public transport. 8.2.7 As such, the principle of erecting a dwelling in the proposed location is not supported by the Development Plan. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 This proposal would be located on an infill site between Scalehouse Farm and Middle Farm on brownfield land. 8.3.2 The proposal site is not within a conservation area; it is however just within the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). 8.3.3 Due to the location of the site being between two properties and with agricultural buildings opposite, it is not considered to have an adverse impact on the character or appearance of the AONB. 8.3.4 It is considered likely that the dwelling would reflect its surroundings and would not detract from the existing character of the area. As such, the impact on the landscape and amenity of the area is considered to be acceptable. 8.4 Scale and Design 8.4.1 Notwithstanding the comments received from Planning Policy with regards to the design, guidance offered within the NFFP advises that high quality design goes beyond the aesthetic appearance of buildings. In particular, paragraph 60 of the Framework notes that ‘Planning decision should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to confirm to certain development forms or styles’. 8.4.2 The scale of the proposal is considered to be proportionate for the area of land and sited in the most appropriate location for the least impact on the neighbouring properties and given the topography at the rear of the site which falls away quite steeply. 8.4.3 The design of the proposal is uncomplicated and whilst not of the highest architectural merit or quality, it is equally not poor. There are a variety of different types of property within this area, including farmhouses, bungalows and barn conversions. There is also a variety of finishes seen including stone faced, painted and rendered. As such, a

Page 30 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE textured rough cast rendered property in this location is not considered to create a demonstrable harm within the area. 8.4.4 The proposal is not considered to be refusable on terms of scale and design and is in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS18 and emerging Local Plan policy DEV5. 8.5 Residential Amenity 8.5.1 The proposal site has a high wall to the north west between the site and the neighbouring property. There is a further garden area to the north east and the rear of Scalehouse Farm to the south east. The garden area is relatively flat. 8.5.2 The proposed dwelling would be located to the back of the garden area and at its closest would be within approximately 3 metres of the barn attached to Scalehouse Farm. The barn does not have any openings and the south east side elevation of the proposal shows one window at ground floor level and two windows at first floor level. 8.5.3 Forward of the proposed dwelling, where the car parking and garden area would be, Scalehouse Farm has one door and six windows which open/look out directly onto this area. 8.5.4 To the north west of the proposal is Middle Farm of which the principal elevation would site in line with the rear of the proposed dwelling. The closest corner of the proposed ground floor garden room is approximately 3.5 metres from the corner of the gable end of Middle Farm. Whilst the proposed dwelling would be sited forward of Middle Farm, due to the oblique angle and high stone wall it is not considered that there would be a loss of light or privacy to Middle Farm. There are no first floor windows proposed to the new dwelling on this elevation. 8.5.5 The Housing SPD gives a general guide to privacy and separation distances and refers to directly facing windows to another property and the main face of a dwelling to a blank gable wall. As it is the side elevations of the proposal that are in close proximity to the neighbouring properties, the separation distances do not apply. 8.5.6 A cross section plan has not been provided with the application and as such an assessment of the height of the proposal against the neighbouring properties cannot be carried out. The proposed dwelling would have a height of approximately 7.4 metres, which is considered to be a standard height for a dwelling; however this should be shown on a plan against the other neighbouring buildings to allow for the impact to be assessed. 8.5.7 From the information provided, it is not considered that the residential amenity would be negatively impacted upon. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision

Page 31 Agenda Item 1 REPORTS FOR DEBATE on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal does not accord with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations:  The development is considered to be unacceptable on the grounds that the proposal would result in a residential use in an unsustainable location outside of a settlement and within the open countryside, contrary to Policies CS1, CS2, CS7 and CS9 of the Core Strategy, emerging Local Plan Policy LS1 and the National Planning Policy Framework.  The creation of one additional dwelling, with no affordable provision does not provide sufficient benefit towards the Council’s housing supply shortfall to outweigh the lack of policy support for the development.  No material considerations have been justified to an extent that outweighs the cumulative impacts of the development and that the proposal would be contrary to the Development Plan and the NPPF.

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

Page 32 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee : 15 March 2018

Planning Application No : 18/0001 Date Received : 02/01/18

OS Grid Ref : 3536 5262 Expiry Date : 27/02/18

Parish : Long Marton Ward : Long Marton

Application Type : Full

Proposal : Erection of detached live/work unit.

Location : Land adjacent Rose Garth, opposite White Gate Caravan Park, Milburn Road, Long Marton.

Applicant : S Burke Consulting

Agent : Holt Planning Consultancy Ltd

Case Officer : D Cox

Reason for Referral : Recommendation is contrary to the views of the Parish Council.

Page 33 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

That the application is Refused for the following reasons: 1. The live/work unit as proposed would be located in countryside outside of the village-hamlet of Long Marton, and in a poorly related location where the Local Planning Authority, in the absence of a strong, logical and defensible boundary, would wish to avoid new development occurring unless special and/or exceptional justification and circumstances were to be demonstrated. It is not considered that there is a strong defensible or an overriding justification in this case, either in terms of rounding off, and the criteria concerns of relevant Policy LS1, or exceptionally otherwise for the applicant to live/operate in this location or operate as proposed as an addition/re-location to an already established Flood Risk advisory company and premises already in operation elsewhere in the region covered. 2. In the absence of sufficient, strong, logical and defensible rounding off boundary argument and provision or locational, site based justification, a proposal for a live/work unit of this nature and in this elevated and prominent location, in relation to the siting and landscape impact, and for the “needs” of the existing “regionally operating” enterprise concerned, would be contrary to the aims and criteria concerns of both proposed Policies LS1 – Locational Strategy, which seeks to protect the undeveloped countryside for its own well- being and in its own right, and RUR4 – Employment Development and Farm Diversification in Rural Areas of the Eden Local Plan – Proposed Submission Version 2014-2032 (as amended) which acknowledges and supports the need for relevant safeguards to be in place to achieve the above.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 This application is made further to Refusal and as a re-submission of previous application Ref No 17/0779. Full detail approval is again being sought for the erection of a two storey, two bed detached live-work unit comprising an attached soil and hydrology laboratory and machinery test/calibration workshop, with first floor stair accessed loft workshop within a single planning unit, split operationally on a 60-40% (C3-B1/B2) basis. 2.1.2 Additional supporting detail submitted by the applicant (who currently runs the relevant environmental consultancy business from the Sheffield area, and operates both generally and geographically in the north of England region), outlines a wish to locate and establish a base in this region, and specifically in the (Eden) area for his business, as:  The application site is a suitable location for the provision of a Live/Work unit under the provisions of proposed Eden District Council Local Plan Policy RUR4, and  The application site is both well related to and can effectively be seen as a rounding off to the settlement of Long Marton, and  The area, in contrast to others, lacks such consultancy provision, and

Page 34 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  A base in this locality would help build on his existing contract work, parts of which have previously and are currently undertaken in the Eden Valley/ North Cumbria area since 2001, and  Would be of continuing benefit to the “community” in terms of this type of provision and advice service. The existing consultancy and enterprise/business involves both practical and physical on-site investigation, and advises relevant clients on issues such as groundwater pollution, land management, contaminated land, sustainability and flood risk issues and solutions. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application site, on an elevated part of a larger agricultural grazing field (with part currently in use for inert infill of subsided land (County Minerals Application Ref No. 12/9005). The nearest dwellings, Rose Garth and Long Marton House, are located respectively to the north and south of the application site. (being separated to the south from the enclosed, walled and landscaped grounds of Long Marton House and by the presence of a public footpath and an enclosed hard-core surfaced kitchen garden/car parking area (93/0418) associated with Marton House, and to the north, from Rose Garth, by the intervening part of the remaining balance of the applicants field. Access to the application site would be via and off the existing infill site shared track, off the C3004 Long Marton-Milburn Road. To the west of the application site, and separated by the above intervening C Road, is the “Whitegates” Caravan Park, sited in a shallow fold in the neighbouring landscape. Where boundary fences exist to the application site, they are a mix of post and wire re- enforced with small trees and managed hedge planting. There are however no existing geographical features or physical boundaries (hedge/fence) on the north or east of the actual application site red line boundary. From the site there are distant views out to towards the east and the North Pennines, as well as to a lesser extent towards the west, with glimpses, across the nearby caravan site (Whitegates) ( through breaks in semi mature hedge planting) and towards the line of the Settle-Carlisle railway. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway/LLF Authority No objection subject to conditions. United Utilities In accordance with NPPF and NPPG guidance, the site should be drained on a separate system with foul water draining to the public sewer and surface water draining in the most sustainable way, and in accordance with a Hierarchy identified by United Utilities. 4. Parish Council Response Please Tick as Appropriate

Page 35 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Parish No View Object Support No Objection Council/Meeting Expressed Long Marton Parish X Council. Long Marton Parish Council Response is as follows: The parish council discussed the re-submission at length. Two councillors objected as they agreed with the second refusal reason of the original application that the site is considered outside Long Marton, and in the open countryside. Two further abstained as they had declared an interest, three councillors noted that they had no objections, this is therefore the agreed observation of the council. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 11 January 2018. No of Neighbours Consulted 3 No of letters of support No of Representations Received 1 No of neutral representations No of objection letters 1 One neighbouring letter of objection received, with concerns/objections summarised as follows:  loss of neighbouring amenity.  a (commercial) development of this nature should be located on a (commercial) estate.  Development on the site may increase problem with “existing site run off” and neighbouring flooding/drainage issue and experience. 6. Relevant Planning History App Ref No 12/9005 – (Minerals) – Inert infill of subsided land – County Approval – 19/06/2012. 15/4020 – Pre-application Advice. App Ref No 17/0779 – Full Application – Erection of detached live/work unit – Refused 17/11/17. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Eden Local Plan – Proposed Submission Version 2014-2032* Proposed Plan Policy LS1 – Locational Strategy Proposed Plan Policy RUR3 – Employment Development and Farm Diversification in Rural Areas Proposed Plan Policy DEV5 – Design of New Development. Eden Local Plan - Main Modifications (MM) June 2017.

Page 36 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Eden Local Plan – Additional Modifications (AM) June 2017. Proposed Plan Policy LS1 – Locational Strategy Proposed Plan Policy RUR4 – Employment Development and Farm Diversification in Rural Areas Proposed Plan Policy DEV5 – Design of New Development. *(..as at 10 November 2017.) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) : • Building a strong, competitive economy • Supporting a prosperous rural economy • Promoting sustainable transport • Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes • Requiring good design • Promoting healthy communities • Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Small scale “defensible” rounding off as opposed to poorly related development  Exceptional nature of justification for development, including live/work units in the countryside outside of and poorly related to settlements, villages and hamlets.  The status and significance of weight to be attached to the relevant policies of the proposed Eden Local Plan. 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The application is to be considered against the relevant backdrop, status and policy standing of (.. and, as confirmed by the Inspectorate, the significant weight to be attached to) the evolving Eden Local Plan, Submission Version, including Main Modifications (MM) (June 2017), and Additional Modifications (AM) (June 2017), as at the 10th November 2017. 8.2.2 As considered, the relevant Policies of the above as Modified Local Plan Submission are:  Proposed Plan Policy LS1 – Locational Strategy (as Modified), and  Proposed Plan Policy RUR4 – Employment Development and Farm Diversification in Rural Areas (as Modified) and  Proposed Plan Policy DEV5 - Design of New Development. 8.2.3 In consideration of this application, and in general, relevant proposed Eden Local Plan Policy RUR4, which refers to developments including live/work units, expects that new development comply with the locational strategy LS1, and wherever possible “involves

Page 37 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE the re-use of suitable redundant traditional rural buildings”. The current application does not:  involve the re-use of (a) suitable redundant traditional rural building,  is considered outside the village boundary and therefore is effectively “in the countryside”,  is not exceptionally justified otherwise, and would simply be a duplication of the applicants existing (regionally based) premises and advisory provision. 8.2.4 On the basis of the information and detail re-submitted, it is to be noted that the applicant already operates in the region, with a regionally based (North of England) Flood Risk advisory company. The company gives such suitable Flood Risk advice to relevant clients across the whole of the northern region (and as has been confirmed), is currently based and operates from the Sheffield Area. 8.2.5 In terms of justification, an operation and undertaking of this nature is undoubtedly of value to both the region and its constituent communities. However, even though the applicant has some clients in this area, and though possibly convenient as such, there is no site specific need for the development to be located specifically on this site, in Long Marton or Eden District generally or necessarily in Cumbria overall, given the following:  the “regional” nature of the enterprise concerned,  the applicants’ “regional” customer and client base..  and, the applicants’ existing regional (Sheffield) operational base. 8.2.6 The justification given by the applicant, for the operation of the application site, is not considered “site specific” in this case, and in terms of a locational need for such an “already up and running” regionally based operation. 8.2.7 The application site is located to the north of, peripheral to but outside the settlement of Long Marton, which in terms of the Proposed Plan Policy LS1 – Locational Strategy (as Modified), is a settlement designated as being a “Smaller Village and Hamlet”, and where: “ All Development must be of a high quality design and will be restricted to infill sites, which fill a modest gap between existing buildings within the settlement; or rounding off, which extends the edge of the settlement within a logical, defensible boundary ” The application site is considered to be:  Greenfield and agricultural, (notwithstanding the “Inert infill” nature of adjacent associated temporary land use and access provision) and in otherwise adjacent open countryside,  Neither a practical “infill” nor logical, defensible “rounding off” site in terms of the requirements of Policy RUR4. Rose Garth to the north is not part of, or within the settlement of Long Marton, but a continuation of sporadic linear, scattered, poorly related and otherwise limited residential development in the more open countryside alongside the Long Marton - Milburn road, and,  Though peripheral to the settlement of Long Marton, elevated and crucially lacking any “ logical and defensible boundary” on at least two sides of the

Page 38 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE application site, effectively comprising adjacent largely undeveloped and relatively open countryside, effectively outside the settlement of Long Marton. 8.2.8 The application therefore in its’ siting, location and with the justification as submitted, is not considered to comply, even on an exceptional basis, with the criteria concerns and aims of Proposed Eden Local Plan (as modified) Submission Policies LS1 “Locational Strategy” and RUR4 “Employment Development and Farm Diversification in Rural Areas”. As a full detail submission, the re-submitted application is however accompanied by layout and plan detail which show for the provision of a two storey, two-bed dwelling, with canted link-detached machinery test/calibration garage workshop. Clad in local sandstone, with blue-grey natural slate roof and light oak upvc window surrounds, the scale, design (including cladding materials) and layout of the actual building is, in this “design detail” aspect, not considered at odds with the aims of Proposed Eden Local Plan (as modified) Submission Policy DEV5 – “Design of New Development”. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 The application site is located on an elevated, greenfield site, effectively as a site in the open countryside, adjacent and albeit peripheral to, the designated smaller village/hamlet of Long Marton. There are distant views from and across the site towards the North Pennines and East Fellside. Whilst there are existing post and wire (re-enforced with mixed hedge) field and site boundaries to the west and south of the application site, there is at present no such provision, existing defensible boundaries, hedges or fences either to the north or east of the site, and where the land and topography falls away into a shallow fold (the location and subject of the adjacent partial infill site.) The provisions and criteria concerns of relevant proposed Policy LS1 identify the requisite need for rounding off sites to be “to a logical, defensible boundary” 8.3.2 Given the sites elevated position within the surrounding topography, general lack of effective or established screening and overall existing defensible boundaries (particularly in relation to the north and east), then development in the location, of the type and scale envisaged would have potential for a significant and (in the absence of clear overriding justification) unacceptable visual impact and consequential harm on the landscape and sensitive visual amenity of the area, notwithstanding its peripheral relationship to the adjacent settlement. 8.3.3 Proposed Eden Local Plan Policy LS1 “Locational Strategy” advocates that outside the hierarchy of settlements identified (Long Marton being designated as a “Village and Hamlet”), new housing development will be limited to sensitive re-use of existing traditional buildings, essential agricultural workers dwellings or for 100% affordable “exceptions” housing only. The Policy aims to recognise that sporadic and otherwise poorly related development in the countryside must be avoided. 8.3.4 Lacking both adequate overriding justification and effective overall existing defensible boundaries, the prominent and elevated site does not represent, in this location, an obvious rounding off of the village, and being otherwise in the countryside would represent an unacceptable continuation of the linear, sporadic development (such as the nearby Rose Garth and Beach Villa which has taken place to the north of the village), but which should not be seen as providing any justification for further such development of this type, especially if unjustified, in the vicinity. The application is not sought against the backdrop of an exceptional justification, however, noting the nature of the supporting detail accompanying the application, the

Page 39 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE proposal in its’ siting, location and even with the nature of the “justification” as submitted, is even in this aspect not considered to “exceptionally” comply with the criteria concerns and aims of Proposed Eden Local Plan (as modified) Submission Policies LS1 “Locational Strategy” and RUR4 “Employment Development and Farm Diversification in Rural Areas”. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 A neighbouring objector has expressed concern about ongoing and possible further run off water from, and in the vicinity of the application site. No request has been received to be heard at Committee along such lines. The United Utilities have (previously under original application 17/0779) recommended that any development approved be the subject of and implemented in accordance with an identified surface water drainage hierarchy. Given the sites degree of separation from existing settlement and associated residential development in the locality, it is unlikely that there will be any significant or unreasonable impact on the living conditions/amenity of neighbouring residents in this aspect otherwise. 8.5 Infrastructure/Highway Safety 8.5.1 Access to the site as proposed would be via, and off the existing gated entrance to the field/inert infill facility from the adjacent C3004, Long Marton, Milburn Road. The Highway and Lead Local Flood Authority have confirmed that they have no objection to the application subject to standard condition. 8.6 Built Environment 8.6.1 Long Marton House, and its’ associated walled (kitchen) garden and parking area, are located to the south of the application site, and are considered to be both within and effectively (in terms of proposed Policy LS1 consideration) define the edge of the village of Long Marton in this vicinity and on this east side of the C3004 Long Marton- Milburn Road. Though the walled grounds and well screened house are somewhat imposing, they are not a designated heritage asset in themselves. To the west of the application site, separated by the C3004 road, is the set down (within a natural fold in the landscape) and therefore well screened topographically “Whitegates” caravan park, with beyond and further to its’ west, the linear track and embankment of the Settle- Carlisle Railway line, a designated Conservation Area. The location of the application site is considered sufficiently remote from the above designated heritage assets to either relate visually too or have any significant or specific visual impact upon either, other than in the broadest sense of development in the adjacent countryside. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment

Page 40 Agenda Item 2 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10. Conclusion 10.1 The proposed development is considered to not be in accordance with the proposed Eden Local Plan (as amended) as part of the development plan and which is not outweighed by material considerations and therefore the application is recommended for refusal.

Jane Langston Assistant Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers : Planning Files 18/0001 & 17/0779.

Page 41 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Date of Committee: 15 March 2018

Planning Application No: 17/0771 Date Received: 07 September 2018

OS Grid Ref: 351873 529895 Expiry Date: 26 December 2018

Parish: Penrith Ward: Penrith East

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 54 no retirement living apartments, including commercial facilities, car parking and landscaping.

Location: Armstrong and Fleming Garage, Roper Street, Penrith

Applicant: Churchill Retirement Living

Agent: Planning Issues Ltd

Case Officer: Nick Atkinson

Reason for Referral: The application is a major development and the recommendation is contrary to the views of Penrith Town Council

Page 42 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 43 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

That the application is recommended for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved:  Application Form dated 06 September 2017, received ; 29 September 2017  Site Location Plan (ref: 30036PR/P001) received 29 September 2017;  Site Layout Plan (ref: 30036PR/P002) received 29 September 2017;  Ground Floor Plan (ref: 30036PR/P003) received 29 September 2017;  First Floor Plan (ref: 30036PR/P004) received 29 September 2017;  Second Floor Plan (ref: 30036PR/P005) received 29 September 2017;  Third Floor Plan (ref: 30036PR/P006) received 29 September 2017;  Third Floor Plan (ref: 30036PR/P007 received 29 September 2017;  Elevations Sheet 1 (ref: 30036PR/P008) received 29 September 2017;  Elevations Sheet 2 (ref: 30036PR/P009) received 29 September 2017;  Elevations Sheet 3 (ref: 30036PR/P010) received 29 September 2017;  Landscape Strategy, received 29 September 2017;  ECOSA Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, (ref: 3107.F0) received 29 September 2017;  MM Transport Statement (ref: 364622/073/B) received 29 September 2017;  PBA Drainage Strategy Report (ref: 30481/4052) received 29 September 2017;  Orion Heritage Statement (ref: PN1480/HS1) received 29 September 2017. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. 3. No demolition or construction works shall take place except between the following hours: Monday to Friday – 08:00-18:00hrs Saturday: 09:00-13:00hrs And at no times on Sundays or Bank (or Public) holidays. Reason: In the interest of protecting local residential amenity. Prior to Commencement

Page 44 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 4. No development shall commence within the site until a programme of archaeological works including a written scheme of investigation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The written scheme shall include the following components: i) An archaeological evaluation; ii) An archaeological recording programme, the scope of which will be dependent upon the results of the evaluation; iii) Where appropriate, a post-excavation assessment and analysis, preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store approved by the Local Planning Authority, completion of an archive report, and submission of the results for publication in a suitable journal. Thereafter, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To afford reasonable opportunity for an examination to be made to determine the existence of any remains of archaeological interest within the site and for the preservation, examination or recording of such remains. 5. Prior to the commencement of any development, a surface water drainage scheme, and maintenance arrangements for the lifetime of the development, based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions 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. No surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly. Thereafter, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. 6. No development shall commence until a construction surface water management plan has submitted to and approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard against flooding to surrounding sites and to safeguard against pollution of receiving surface water systems or watercourses downstream of the site. 7. The development shall not commence until visibility splays providing clear visibility of 60 metres measured 2.4 metres down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the major road have been provided at the junction of the access road with the county highway. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grown within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general

Page 45 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 8. The vehicular crossing over the footway, including the lowering of kerbs, shall be carried out to a specification submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a suitable standard of crossing for pedestrian safety. 9. Any existing wall boundary shall be reduced to a height not exceeding 1.0m above the carriageway level of the adjacent highway in accordance with details submitted to the Local Planning Authority and which have subsequently been approved before the development is brought into use and shall not be raised to a height exceeding 1.0m thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 10.Before any development takes place a plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority reserving adequate land for the parking of vehicles engaged in construction and demolition operations associated with the development hereby approved, and that land, including vehicular access. Thereafter, the approved land shall be used for or be kept available for these purposes at all times until completion of the construction works. Reason: The carrying out of this development without the provision of these facilities during the construction work is likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users. Prior to Occupation 11.The units shall not be occupied until the vehicular access and turning requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan and has been brought into use. The vehicular access turning provisions shall be retained and capable of use at all times thereafter and shall not be removed or altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of access provision when the development is brought into use. 12.Prior to the occupation of the units, a report detailing that the minimum of 300mm of topsoil/subsoil is in place in all areas of soft landscaping across the site is submitted and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Documentation of the quantity and quality of the soils imported should be included within the report. Reason: To ensure that the development is not put at unacceptable risk from, or adversely affected by unacceptable contamination sources at the development site. Ongoing Conditions 13.Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems. Reason: To secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. 14.The kitchen and living room window openings on the south elevation of the

Page 46 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE building only, for flats 25, 39, and 53 as shown on the plans ‘First Floor Plan (ref: 30036PR/P004), Second Floor Plan (ref: 30036PR/P005) and Third Floor Plan (ref: 30036PR/P006) all received 29 September 2017’, shall be obscure glazed. Reason: In the interest of protecting local amenity. 15.If during the development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development shall be carried out until a remediation strategy detailing how this contamination will be dealt with has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved strategy. Reason: To ensure that the development is not put at unacceptable risk from, or adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of water pollution from previously unidentified contamination sources at the development site.

1. A private culverted watercourse crosses the site. Contact should be made with the riparian owner who is responsible for the watercourse.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The proposal seeks full planning permission for the demolition of existing garages and show room and the erection of 54 retirement homes on land at Roper Street in Penrith. 2.1.2 The proposed new building would be a longitudinal building surrounded by landscaped amenity space on all sides. The building would be a large four storey building containing retirement home flats. The building would be red brick faced intermittently broken up by a render finish. The window and door openings would be white UPVc, as would the fascias, soffits and barge-boards. The building would have a main pitched roof, with hipped gable ends. The roof would be finished with grey Ashmore tiles. 2.1.3 Vehicular access to the site would be obtained via an access point off Roper Street, utilising the existing access arrangements for the site. Pedestrian access would also be available to the north of the site off Old London Road. Pedestrian access could therefore be achieved to the shops and services within Penrith town centre, without the need to rely on the use of a car. The application proposes 23 car parking spaces located to the eastern end of the site. The car parking area would also include a buggy store. 2.1.4 The development would include landscaping works throughout the site, creating an area of green space with intermittent trees and shrubs. At the current time there is no greenery within the site. 2.1.5 The development will use Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDs), using soakaway drainage for storm water disposal if viable. The paths and hardstanding around the site is proposed to be permeable. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application site is located within a central location in the town of Penrith, covering an area of approximately 0.9 hectares. The site is currently used as a car sales

Page 47 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE forecourt, dealership and garage (Armstrong & Fleming). The application site currently accommodates a single storey car show room, external car sales area and a number of industrial workshop buildings. 2.2.2 Immediately to the east are a row of 4 dwellings which have frontages with Roper Street with yards at the rear side. The nearest dwelling ‘Romanby’ has some side facing windows including a secondary kitchen window, a staircase window and a bathroom window. Immediately to the west is the car sales area with 3 - 4 storey residential flats beyond - Whelpdale House. Opposite, on the other side of Roper Street is a row of two storey dwellings and on the opposite side of Old London Road is a commercial premise. 2.2.3 The surrounding area is made of a range of building types, uses and finished in a range of materials. The site is positioned on an ‘island’ between to secondary routes into and out of the town centre. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response

Highway Authority – Responded on the 15 November 2017 raising no objection to Cumbria County Council the proposal. It was noted that the application site is sited in close proximity to the town centre of Penrith within easy and safe walking distances to shops and services. The proposed development would not result in a significant increase in the traffic levels currently generated by the existing use of the site. The development has identified a suitable sized parking area.

Environment Agency Responded on the 18 October 2018 noting that planning permission should only be granted for the proposed development if a number of planning conditions are included within the decision notice to avoid the development resulting in an unacceptable level of risk to the environment.

Local Lead Flood Authority Responded on the 15 November 2017 raising no objection to – Cumbria County Council the proposal. The use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems on site would require the submission of additional information on how the site is currently drained and will be drained at a later stage. It is recommended that conditions are attached to any decision notice as may be issued in relation to the surface water drainage.

Page 48 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

3.2 Non-Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response

United Utilities Responded on the 23 October 2017 raising no objection to the proposal. A number of conditions were recommended to be attached to any decision notice as may be issued relating to foul and surface water drainage

Environmental Health Responded on the 12 October 2017 and the 16 November 2017 raising no objection to the proposal. It was recommended that conditions be attached to any decision notice as may be issued to control noise impacts upon amenity.

Historic Environment – Responded on the 15 November 2017 raising no objection. It Cumbria County Council was noted that the site is located within an area of archaeological potential. In particular the construction of the proposed development has the potential to disturb buried archaeological assets. In the event that planning permission is granted, an archaeological evaluation and recording should be undertaken in advance of the development, secured through the inclusion of a condition.

Conservation Officer Responded on the 24 October 2017 raising no objection to the proposal. It was noted that the development would have a low potential to disturb unknown archaeological remains. It is considered that the proposed development is in-keeping with the character of the surrounding urban environment, and the height and massing of adjacent buildings. The proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan in that it would conserve and enhance the setting of the Penrith Conservation Area.

Arboricultural Officer Responded on 27 October 2017 raising no objections to the proposal. It was noted that the development would make a considerable improvement to green infrastructure as there is currently only one small shrub located on the site. On the basis that the landscape plantings are maintained, the development would have a significant improvement to the local amenity and landscape.

Page 49 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response

Contaminated Land Officer Responded on the 16 November 2017 raising some concerns in relation to the proposal. There were no contaminated land concerns raised on the basis that a condition was included in any decision notice as may be issued. However, in relation to air quality concerns have been raised in relation to the potential impact of the development upon the local area. This relates to concerns over the likely trip generation model provided by the applicant and whether this represents an accurate reflection of the likely use of the site by future residents. It was noted that there is concern that the development would not necessarily result in a reduction on traffic on the immediate road system. As such there is concern that the development is in close proximity to an area that is already monitored for elevated NOx levels and the traffic generated could have the potential to impact on the air quality in this locality. Following receipt of the above consultation response, further information on the existing trips generated from the site has been provided by the applicant in addition to an Air Quality Assessment which notes that the future residents of the retirement home will experience acceptable air quality. This information has been assessed by the Contaminated Land Officer who although is not satisfied with the additional information provided to date by the applicant in relation to air quality, they do not consider the impacts to sufficiently adverse so as to warrant an objection to the proposal.

4. Parish Council Response Please Tick as Appropriate Town Council Object Support No Response No Objection Penrith Town X Council 4.1 Penrith Town Council responded on the 08 November 2017 raising an objection to the proposal. The objection was made on the following grounds:  ‘The design does not accord to CS18 in that the design is not felt to be high quality and due to its massing, scale and layout will be overbearing and create overshadowing and overlooking to the detriment of the residential amenity of residents in the older properties next to the site, most newer developments nearby are three storey;  The visual appearance of the building, although it may match The Foyer adjacent, does not match the local vernacular of red sandstone and render, brick cills, heads and jambs are totally out of keeping with the stone surrounds that are part of the character and charm of Penrith;

Page 50 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Roper Street currently experiences serious traffic issues with cars often backed up beyond its junction with Old Scotland Road due to the traffic lights at the junction of Roper Street with Victoria Road can cause difficulties for customers visiting the timber merchants and vehicles exiting Scotland Road to head towards Victoria Road. Because of this there are increased fumes in this area already and the vehicular access of this development will add to difficulties for local residents and those travelling along this road, therefore the development will not protect air quality;  Car parking on the site is inadequate for the scale of the development. It is already known that the development at Pele Court has insufficient parking and this application has more units and less parking. Staff, residents and visitors will require parking and inevitably, if the proposal is approved, add to existing parking problems on streets in the town. There is no affordable long-term parking nearby. It is wrong for the developer to assume that older people living in a location close to the centre of town won’t be car owners/drivers evidenced by the waiting list for parking spaces at Pele Court. This is a rural area with little or no public transport; the population is living longer and wishes to be self-reliant getting out and about and visiting family and friends. Cumbria County Council is currently consulting on a design guide and we understand that their recommendation for this many units would be commensurate with the number of units although they haven’t confirmed the number to date despite being requested to do so.  The initial consultation for the Neighbourhood Plan identified that although accommodation for older people was a requirement of the town it was not by the provision of developments such as these (there are still vacant units in Pele Court) but by the provision of bungalows within developments or in assisted developments to allow those in larger family homes to downsize but retain their own ‘front door’.’ 5. Representations 5.1 The application was advertised by means of a site notice posted on the 17 October 2017, a press notice and the following neighbour notifications: No of Neighbours Consulted 75 No of letters of support 0 No of objection letters 2 15 No of letters of observation

5.2 The letter of objection received, raised the following points:  There are concerns that the proposed development might have an impact upon the domestic and commercial waste collection business opposite the site. The development may result in complaints about the site in the future and mean that the business cannot operate as it currently does;  If complaints are received in the future, would there be money available to make alterations/adjustments to the business;  The proposed development would look directly into No.6 Roper Street resulting in over-looking occurring;  The development may result in a loss of light to No.6 Roper Street, making it feel even smaller than it is;  The development would result in a loss of view from my property;

Page 51 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  The development would create difficult driving conditions due to the proposed access point and cars parked outside of the building;  There are concerns in relation to where surface water will drain to once the development is completed;  There are concerns that the cellar of No.6 Roper Street would become flooded and unusable due to drainage/flooding problems that may occur.  The existing showroom is my boundary wall although it looks like there are no plans to replace it which will leave my property open except for a hedge which is not acceptable. 6. Relevant Planning History 6.1 16/1071 – Proposed demolition of car show room and the erection of 6 no. residential dwellings. Approved by Planning Committee 16 March 2016. 7.0 Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan  There are no ‘Saved’ policies contained within the Eden Local Plan considered relevant to the determination of this planning application. Core Strategy DPD Policy:  CS1 Sustainable Development Principles  CS2 Locational Strategy  CS3 Rural Settlements and the Rural Areas  CS4 Flood Risk  CS5 Transport and Accessibility  CS7 Principles for Housing  CS17 Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment  CS18 Design of New Development Emerging Local Plan:  LS1 Locational Strategy;  DEV1 General Approach to New Development  DEV2 Water Management and Flood Risk  DEV3 Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way  DEV5 Design of New Development  ENV10 The Historic Environment Due to the advanced stage of adoption of the emerging Local Plan, in line with paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework, substantial weight is afforded to the above ‘draft’ policies in the determination of this planning application.

Page 52 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  The presumption in favour of sustainable development  Core planning principles  Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes  Requiring good design  Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change;  Conserving and enhancing the historic environment  Annex 1 – Implementation 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Design and Scale  Highways Impacts  Drainage  Residential Amenity  Affordable Housing Contribution 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The principle of the residential development of part of this site has partially been established through the previous grant of planning permission (ref: 16/1071). However, due to the increase in the size, scale, height and footprint of the now proposed building, the principle of the development is sufficiently different so as to warrant the principle of the proposal to again be assessed. 8.2.2 The proposed development seeks the erection of 54 retirement living apartments within a relatively central location within the town of Penrith. As such, it is considered that the development would represent an appropriate use of land within Penrith and considered to be an appropriate location for residential development. 8.2.3 The site is well located within the Key Service Centre of Penrith in which Core Strategy policies CS1, CS2 and CS7 focus new sustained development appropriate for a large town, including the provision of new housing. The Core Strategy locational policies accord with the provisions of the NPPF which seek to promote new housing in sustainable locations such as Penrith. This position is further supported by ‘draft’ emerging Local Plan Policy LS1, now afforded substantial weight, which again seeks to focus larger development towards sustainable locations such as Penrith. 8.2.4 It is noted that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. At the present time, Eden District Council is unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 49 of the Framework “relevant policies for the supply of housing should

Page 53 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE not be considered up to date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.” As such, the development plan policies relating to the supply of housing within the District are considered out-of-date and, therefore, afforded less weight in the planning assessment. 8.2.5 Furthermore, the NPPF notes within paragraph 14 that “where the development plan is out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless…the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF...or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted”. In the case of the current application, planning permission should be granted unless there is significant and demonstrable harm that outweighs the benefits of the provision of 31 residential dwellings. A recent Supreme Court judgement in Suffolk Coastal District Council (Appellant) v Hopkins Homes Ltd and anor (Respondents) Richborough Estate Partnerships LLP and anor (Respondents) v Cheshire East Borough Council (Appellant) [2017] UKSC 37 emphasised that the test set out in paragraph 14 covers all aspects of a proposed development and not just related to polices that restrict housing. 8.2.6 For the reasons detailed above, the principle of residential development in this location is considered to be appropriate and acceptable. The development is in-compliance with the locational criteria of the Development Plan, which focusses large and sustainable developments to Penrith. 8.3 Design and Scale 8.3.1 It is noted that the site of the proposed new building is large, particularly in terms of the footprint that the building covers and the height that it extends, being four storeys. However, the scale and design of the building is considered to be appropriate when considered relative to its surroundings. 8.3.2 The building would be of a modern design, in-keeping with the character of the surrounding built environment on both Roper Street and Old London Road. Whilst the building would be large in scale, it is considered to be appropriate to that of the surrounding area, utilising a design and materials that are consistent with those already used within the locality. For this reason the proposed new building would not appear as an incongruous feature. 8.3.3 It is noted that a number of three storey buildings exists within the locality adjacent to which the new building would be sited. Whilst the new building would add to the visual massing of the area, it would not increase or significantly impact upon the skyline of Penrith. In doing so the building would not appear out of keeping with its surroundings. The building would be four storeys high and would be set back behind a walled front garden area, appropriately landscaped. Approximately 35 metres to the west of the application site, is Whelpdale House (flats) which is 3 - 4 storeys high. On the opposite site of Roper Street are two storey dwellings. It is considered that the scale of the development is considered acceptable and would not appear out of character with the surrounding area which has a range of development types and styles. 8.3.4 The layout and form of the new building is considered to be appropriate, taking advantage of the shape of the site to create a development which reflects both the building line on Old London Road and Roper Street, maintaining the character of the area. As such, the building is considered to be well-designed with an appropriate layout and form so as to minimise the impact upon the character of the locality.

Page 54 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.3.5 Therefore, it is considered that the scale and design of the proposed building is acceptable. 8.4 Landscape Impacts 8.4.1 The application site is located within the Penrith Conservation Area within the town of Penrith. The proposal would seek the demolition of an existing car sales room and workshop units, with the construction of a new building considered to be of a more appropriate design, appearance and use for the area. 8.4.2 As previously noted, the design of the building and use of construction materials mirrors that of a number of buildings within the locality, helping the building to better tie-in to its surroundings. In addition, whilst the height of the building represents an increase from the existing use, the four storey nature of the building is in-keeping with a number of adjacent buildings and others within the locality. The use of render and facing brick has been used elsewhere within the street scene, in addition to the use of tiled roofs. 8.4.3 Due to the improvement that the new building will make to the visual appearance of the area, it is considered that the proposed development would result in a positive impact upon the character, appearance and setting of the Conservation Area, in-line with the requirements of the Development Plan. The existing Armstrong & Fleming garage buildings are grey profile sheet buildings, which do not positively preserve or contribute to the character of the appearance of the Conservation Area. As such, it is considered that the proposed building would result in a positive contribution to the character of the area. 8.4.4 In consultation with the Council’s Conservation Officer, it was noted that the development is in-keeping with the character of the surrounding urban environment in terms of the design height and massing of the buildings. As such, it was concluded that the building would conserve and enhance the Penrith Conservation Area. 8.5 Highways Impact 8.5.1 It is noted that the site is relatively constrained in terms of available space, and also access due to the nature and frequency of use of the surrounding public highways Roper Street and Old London Road. 8.5.2 The applicant has undertaken an independent Transport Statement which notes that the 23 parking bays to be provided. Additionally, the site can be accessed by to the existing public transport and pedestrian access linking the site to the town centre. This network would ensure that the likely vehicle trip generation would not adversely impact upon the local highway network. 8.5.3 Although concerns have been raised by Penrith Town Council in relation to the suitability of the surrounding highway network to accommodate 54 units, in addition to concerns relating to a lack of parking, it is noted that Cumbria County Council as Highway Authority raise no objections to the proposal. The Council has assessed the Transport Statement submitted in support of the proposal in addition to the proposed use of the site and concluded that there is no objection to the development subject to the inclusion of conditions to further mitigate the impact of the development, including appropriate visibility splays, drainage and parking provision being created in accordance with an approved specification. 8.5.4 Although the construction phase of the works has the potential to result in adverse highway conditions, it is noted that this would only be for a temporary period.

Page 55 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Furthermore, conditions are proposed to be included to ensure that construction vehicles are parked on-site and not on the public highway. Any temporary disturbance would not represent sufficient justification to warrant the refusal of this application. 8.5.5 Therefore, although the concerns of Penrith Town Council are duly noted, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in an adverse impact upon the local highway network. 8.6 Drainage 8.6.1 An objector to the application has raised concerns in relation to the potential impact of the development upon local drainage, but specifically in relation to the potential for the cellar of No.6 Roper Street to flood. The site is located predominantly within a Flood Zone 2, but partially within a Flood Zone 3. In consultation with Cumbria County Council as Local Lead Flood Authority and also the Environment Agency no objections to the proposal have been raised subject to the inclusion of further conditions relating to foul and surface water drainage, and seeking to prevent contamination of nearby watercourses. Due to the site being within a Flood Zone 2, it is considered reasonable and appropriate in this instance to include such conditions in any decision notice as may be issued. 8.6.2 Notwithstanding, it is noted that the proposed development would utilise a previously developed plot of land, currently hard surfaced and not result in an increase in hard surfacing locally. The proposal would not result in the loss of any green field space or existing permeable surfaces. 8.6.3 On the basis that further drainage details are secured through the imposition of a condition and implemented on site, it is considered that the proposed development could be adequately drained and would not result in any adverse flooding at the site or on any adjacent land. 8.7 Residential Amenity 8.7.1 An objector to the application has raised, concern has been raised in relation to the proposed impact of the development upon local amenity. In particular, the impact upon the No.6 Roper Street located opposite the proposed new building. The concerns relate to a loss of light, privacy and the development appearing over-bearing. 8.7.2 The proposed building would partially comply with the Council’s separation distances as outlined within the Housing SPD. This document requires a separation distance of 21 metres to direct facing windows and 13 metres from the main face of a building to a gable end. In the case of the current proposal, the alignment of the new building would maintain a 26 metre separation distance to the nearest property on the opposite of Old London Road; a 28 metre separation to the nearest property to the east of the site on Roper Street; and a distance of 25 metres to the nearest properties to the south east. 8.7.3 However, the nearest property to the south of the site (no.6 Roper Street) would be at a distance of approximately 15 metres to the gable end of the new building, across the busy public highway of Roper Street. Although this distance would be in excess of the separation distance required in the Housing SPD as detailed above, due to the length and nature of the gable end there would be facing windows from bedroom spaces towards the neighbouring property, meaning that this would not be a typical building gable end. As such, the proposal does not fully meet the guidelines set out in the Housing SPD, which as a general guide should not be less than 21 metres between habitable room windows.

Page 56 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.7.4 It is undoubtedly the case that the proposed new building would result in an impact upon the amenity of no.6 Roper Street and a degree of harm to be caused. However, it is considered that the degree of harm and the extent of the impact would not be significantly adverse so as to warrant the refusal of this planning application. However, it is important to note that this matter is finely balanced. 8.7.5 It is considered that the previous planning approval sets a precedent for a lower separation distance on Roper Street which was previously 18 metres although only for a 3 storey building. In addition, within the locality there are existing examples along Roper Street and in other areas within Penrith whereby development layout and density is such that buildings are closer together than the Housing SPD guidance. This is the case for the nearby Whelpdale House developments as well as recent housing developments at Kilgour Street and Southend Road. This is generally accepted and not uncommon within urban areas and for front elevations across streets. 8.7.6 However, it is noted that in order to provide further mitigation, the applicant is proposing the use of obscure glazing for the kitchen and living space windows directly facing towards No.6 Roper Street. Whilst other windows may not be fully in compliance with the Housing SPD guidance, these windows would be at a slightly more oblique angle reducing the visual impact. 8.7.7 In relation to air quality, it is noted that initial concerns were raised by the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer to the proposal, in light of the potential for the level of traffic to be generated being an increase in an area already being monitored for air quality. However, the applicant has subsequently provided further details on traffic movements which indicate that the level of traffic movements would be reduced as a result of the proposal, supported by the lack of objection to the proposal from Cumbria County Council as Highway Authority. Furthermore, an Air Quality Assessment has been undertaken for the proposal, which notes that the air quality effects of the proposed retirement home would not be significant and therefore, would not result in any adverse air quality impacts upon existing or future residents. Whilst the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer has raised some concerns with the information and Air Quality Assessment provided to date, the impact of the proposal has not been considered sufficiently adverse so as to register an objection to the proposal. 8.7.8 Therefore, whilst finely balanced in terms of impacts upon local amenity, it is considered that whilst the proposed development would result in a degree of harm to the amenity of local residents, the extent would not be significantly adverse so as to warrant the refusal of this planning application. 8.8 Affordable Housing Contribution 8.8.1 The development of 54 residential units within the town of Penrith would normally be considered against the Council’s Affordable Housing Policy. In the case of the current application the Council would aspire to a target of 30% affordable housing on the site, secured through a Section 106 Legal Agreement. 8.8.2 The applicant has provided a viability appraisal which suggests that it would not be possible for any affordable units to be provided on site due to the nature of the development being retirement apartments. This is a position that has been accepted by the Council previously, specifically the Pele Court Development located in relatively close proximity to the site. 8.8.3 However, an independent assessment was undertaken by the Council in relation to the extent of the affordable contribution that the applicant could make towards the

Page 57 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Council’s Affordable Housing pot as has previously been the case. In this instance, the financial assessment confirmed that the scheme is not capable of viably providing any affordable units or providing any off-site monetary affordable housing contribution. 8.8.4 Therefore, although the development is of a size which would trigger the need for an affordable housing contribution, the scheme would not be viable for such contribution in this instance. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 The proposed development accords with the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations:

Page 58 Agenda Item 3 REPORTS FOR DEBATE i) The development accords with the Locational requirement of ‘draft’ Policy LS1 of the emerging Local Plan in that the proposal represents an appropriate residential development within Penrith which is the Main Town for development. ii) The scale and nature of the development takes into account the capacity of the essential infrastructure necessary to serve the development proposed. The development would not result in any adverse impacts upon flooding or the existing highway network. iii) The design and scale of the proposed development, whilst large, is considered to be acceptable and in-keeping with the surrounding built environment.

11.2 Whilst it is finely balanced in terms of the impact of the proposal upon local residential amenity, although a degree of harm would be caused to existing local amenity, this is not considered to be sufficiently adverse so as to warrant the refusal of this application in this instance when existing local town centre conditions are taken into account.

11.3 Accordingly the application is recommended for approval.

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File 17/0771

Page 59 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee : 15 March 2018

Planning Application No : 17/0988 Date Received : 17/11/18

OS Grid Ref : 68265 20373 Expiry Date : 12/02/18

Parish : Appleby Ward : Appleby

Application Type : Householder

Proposal : Replacement of three windows to front upper elevation with double glazed UPVC.

Location : Parkin End, 5 Low Wiend, Appleby.

Applicant : Mr C Whitehall,

Agent : As Applicant

Case Officer : D Cox

Reason for Referral : Recommendation is contrary to the views of the Town Council.

Page 60 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation:

That the application is Refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposed replacement of the 3 existing windows, to the front upper (principle) elevation of this building, located in a sensitive and publicly prominent visible position would, in the absence of need for, materials and design of the replacement units, seriously detract from the character and appearance of both the building and it’s setting in the locality, and be in conflict with both National and Local Policy, specifically outlined under Sections 16 and 17 of the 1990 Planning (LBCA) Act, and Eden Core Strategy DPD Policies CS17 ”Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment”, Policy CS18 “Design of New Development as well as Policies ENV10 “The Historic Environment” and DEV5 “Design of New Development” of the emerging proposed Eden Local Plan 2014-2032.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The householder application is for the replacement of three existing timber 9 pane windows, top opening panel, with glazing bars, to front upper elevation of the existing building with double glazed upvc units of a similar design. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 Parkins End, as a flat, is part located above an existing row of commercial shop units on Low Wiend centrally within the designated Appleby Conservation Area. Historical maps show that the building plot of the present building and neighbouring plot have seen change throughout the late 20th century with change of use and some buildings being demolished. 2.2.2 The building is of red sandstone rubble with dressed sandstone window surrounds and quoins. The west gable elevation has a rough cast render and a doorway providing access to the first floor residential accommodation. The north elevation has shop fronts to ground floor in a traditional style. 2.2.3 The surviving building fabric suggests that former window openings in the first floor level have been blocked up. The window surrounds are also different suggesting a possible later alteration. 2.2.4 The current windows (in relation to the application site) are timber 9 pane windows with glazing bars. These type of windows are not a common feature of the conservation area, with the predominant type overall there being timber framed sliding sash windows. 2.2.5 The (application site) building holds evidential value in relation to its former use and relationship to the development of the street. The traditional shop front (of which it is a part) gives the overall building a unity in terms of aesthetic value, and its significant amenity and character standing in terms of its prominent position in the street scene. 2.2.6 The application site/building contributes to the significance of the surrounding designated Appleby Conservation Area. It is acknowledged that there are examples of alternative window types, detailing and finishing materials to be found in the vicinity.

Page 61 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway/LLF Authority No objection. Conservation Officer The proposal to replace the upper floor windows does not fully accord with (relevant) planning policy as the use of UPVC will not conserve or enhance the appearance or significance of the (Appleby) Conservation Area. 4. Parish Council Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish No View Object Support No Objection Council/Meeting Expressed Town Council. X

Appleby Town Council Response is as follows: The application was supported by the Committee at their meeting held on Monday 8th January 2018. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 5 January 2018. No of Neighbours Consulted 11 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 0 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 0 6. Relevant Planning History N/A. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Eden Core Strategy : Policy CS17 - Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment. Policy CS18 - Design of New Development. Eden Local Plan 2014-2032 Consolidated Version : Proposed Plan Policy DEV5 – Design of New Development. Proposed Plan Policy ENV10 – The Historic Environment.

Page 62 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) : • Paragraph 134 of the NPPF - Requiring good design. • Conserving and enhancing the natural environment. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues - Design and impact upon form and character of the sensitive Area. - Impact upon the historic environment and designated heritage asset. 8.2 Principle and Impact Assessment 8.2.1 Parkins End is located on Low Wiend within the designated Appleby Town Centre Conservation Area. Historical maps show that the building plot of the present building and neighbouring plot have seen change throughout the late 20th century with change of use and some buildings being demolished. 8.2.2 The present building is of red sandstone rubble with dressed sandstone window surrounds and quoins. The west gable elevation has a rough cast render and a doorway providing access to the first floor residential accommodation. The north elevation has shop fronts to ground floor in a traditional style. 8.2.3 The surviving building fabric suggests that former window openings in the first floor level have been blocked up. The window surrounds are also different suggesting a possible later alteration. 8.2.4 The current windows (in relation to the application site) are timber 9 pane windows with glazing bars. These type of windows are not a common feature of the conservation area, with the predominant type overall there being timber framed sliding sash windows. 8.2.5 The (application site) building holds evidential value in relation to its former use and relationship to the development of the street (Low Wiend). The traditional shop front gives the building aesthetic value. 8.2.6 Though there are examples of alternative cladding material, windows and materials in the vicinity, the present building, notwithstanding certain of its more modern and recent attributes, is considered to continue to contribute to the appearance and significance (in terms of its’ use of traditional and sustainable design and fabric detail) of the surrounding designated Appleby Conservation Area. 8.2.7 The principles of the relevant adopted and proposed Plan Policies and relevant guideline seek to promote the enhancement of the built (historic) environment through the use of high standards of design and careful choice of sustainable materials for all development. The proposal to replace the existing first floor windows with uPVC windows of the same style and design would however have a detrimental impact on the aesthetic value of the building. The use of UPVC would also have a detrimental impact on the aesthetic character of the designated Conservation Area, which the aims of adopted Policies both value and seek to protect. 8.2.8 Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 says that local planning authorities should pay special attention to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Policy CS17 “Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment” of the existing Core Strategy and Policy ENV10 “The

Page 63 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Historic Environment” of the emerging proposed Eden Local Plan say that the Council will require proposals for development to conserve and enhance the significance of heritage assets and their setting. The proposal to replace the upper floor windows, as considered, does not fully accord with the latter planning policies as the use of UPVC will not conserve or enhance the appearance or significance of the designated Conservation Area. 8.2.9 Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states ‘less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset must be weighed against the public benefit of the proposal’. The proposal is considered to have a less than substantial impact on the overall significance of the Conservation Area but the application does not include a clear and convincing justification of the public benefit of the proposal. 8.2.10 No information has been provided on the condition of the current windows to justify that their replacement would lead to an improved thermal efficiency, of benefit to the residents otherwise. 8.5 Infrastructure/Highway Safety 8.5.1 The Highway and Lead Local Flood Authority have confirmed that they have no objection to the application. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10. Conclusion 10.1 The proposed development is considered to not be in accordance with the proposed Eden Local Plan (as amended) as part of the development plan and which is not

Page 64 Agenda Item 4 REPORTS FOR DEBATE outweighed by material considerations and therefore the application is recommended for refusal.

Jane Langston Assistant Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers : Planning Files 17/0988.

Page 65 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 15 March 2018

Planning Application No: 17/1072 Date Received: 18 December 2017

OS Grid Ref: 346864 540131 Expiry Date: 19 March 2018

Parish: Hesket Ward: Hesket

Application Type: Outline

Proposal: Outline application for residential development with all matters reserved

Location: Land at garages and former joiners shop, Calthwaite

Applicant: Mr J Harris

Agent: Savills (UK) Ltd

Case Officer: Karen Thompson

Reason for Referral: An objector has requested a hearing.

Page 66 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: Time Limit for Commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act. 2. Application for approval of all reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 3. Approval of the details of the scale, layout, and external appearance of the building (s), means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (called “the reserved matters”) shall be obtained from Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: The application is in outline form only and is not accompanied by full detailed plans. Approved Plans 4. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved: i) Location plan received 15 December 2017 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission. Before the development takes place 5. The development shall not commence until visibility splays providing clear visibility of 60 metres measured 2 metres down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the major road have been provided at the junction of the access road with the county highway. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grown within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD7, LD8

Page 67 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 6. Full details of the surface water drainage system shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to development being commenced. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained operational thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management. 7. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority reserving adequate land for the parking of vehicles engaged in construction operations associated with the development hereby approved, and that land, including vehicular access thereto, shall be used for or be kept available for these purposes at all times until completion of the construction works. Reason : To ensure a minimum standard of access provision when the development is brought into use. 8. The use shall not be commenced until the access and parking requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan. Any such access and or parking provision shall be retained and be capable of use when the development is completed and shall not be removed or altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of access provision when the development is brought into use. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD5, LD7, 9. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The development shall be carried out prior to the occupation of the dwellings, in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained as such. Reason : To ensure the details and materials harmonise with the surroundings Pre-Occupancy or Other Stage Conditions 10. The dwellings hereby approved shall not be occupied until the vehicular access, turning requirements, carriageway and footpaths have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan and has been brought into use. The vehicular access turning provisions shall be retained and capable of use at all times thereafter and shall not be removed or altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of access provision when the development is brought into use. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD5, LD7, LD8 11. Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems. Reason: To secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution 12. Construction works shall be carried out only between 0800 - 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays; 0900 - 1300 hours on Saturdays and there shall be no activity on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Page 68 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Reason: To safeguard the amenity of residents living nearby. Ongoing Conditions 13. Access gates, if provided, shall be hung to open inwards only away from the highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD7, LD8

Note to Developer 1. Separate approval for the works hereby granted permission/consent may be required by the Building Act 1984 and the Building Regulations 2000 (as amended), and the grant of planning permission does not imply that such approval will be given. The Council’s Building Control Team should be consulted before works commence. You contact the team directly at [email protected] 2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The application seeks outline planning permission for residential development on land at garages and former joiners shop, Calthwaite with all matters reserved. 2.1.2 The proposed development seeks outline approval for 3 market housing (1 x detached and 2 semi-detached) as shown on the indicative plans. The indicative plans show that each of the properties would have their own access, on-site parking and gardens. 2.1.3 The purpose of the indicative plan is to provide an idea of a possible layout and the possible number of properties that could be accommodated on the site. 2.1.3 As the current proposal is for outline planning permission, at this stage matters relating to the site layout, form, design, scale and appearance of the buildings, drainage and access would be subject to a further reserved matters application should planning permission be granted. Although at an outline stage the applicant has provided indicative plans demonstrating how the layout of the site could achieve up to 3 detached houses and likely access details. Notwithstanding the indicative plans submitted, the current application seeks approval for the principle of residential development at the site only. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application relates to a site measuring approximately 40 metres x 18 metres located within the village of Calthwaite. The site is presently occupied by an ‘L’ shaped garage block which accommodates a total of 8 garages; a forecourt/parking area; and a former joiners shop. 2.2.2 To the north west, on the other side of the road, is rear/side of The Globe Inn (PH); immediately to the north east are the rear gardens (9 metres in length) of 1 & 2 Hall Cottages, and which face the main village road; to the south east is the rear/side of Reading Room Cottage; and west of the site, on the opposite side of the road are residential properties including Middle Yard, a single storey former agricultural style building which has three windows facing the site, and No’s 6 & 7 Bracken Court, again

Page 69 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE on the opposite side of the road with their front elevation and gardens facing the application site. 2.2.3 There are no listed buildings on the site or within close proximity of the site and the site is not located within a conservation area. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority No objection – however, when potential new developments are applied for, a number of factors have to be taken into consideration so as to ensure that the development will not have a negative impact on the existing highway and/or neighbouring properties. The indicative plan shows only 1 parking bay for units 2 & 3 when the requirement is for 2 spaces; would welcome the inclusion of a footway; although an existing site, the creation of three new accesses, would require adequate visibility splays. Considering all the points raised and that the application is outline with all matters reserved Cumbria County Council would have no objections to the outline planning application, subject to the inclusion of safeguarding conditions.` Lead Local Flood Authority No flooding or surface water issue in the locale but recommend a condition requiring details of how surface water will be dealt with. 3.2 Discretionary Consultees Consultee Response Parish Council No response received to date Contamination Officer A Phase I desk survey has been submitted. The conclusions ….’the site may have been exposed to construction/demolition waste, contamination for the workshop and possibly oils or fuel from vehicle spills or the garages the most likely sources local to the structures. Asbestos may also be present. Further testing of the site is recommended’. United Utilities No objections but recommend conditions that foul and surface water shall be drained on a separate system and details of a surface water drainage scheme be submitted and approved The following are detailed responses as outlined above: 4. Parish Council/Meeting Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Object Support No Response No View

Page 70 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Council/Meeting Expressed Hesket  5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 9 January 2018. No of Neighbours Consulted 11 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 5 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 5 5.2 Letters of objection raised the following material considerations to the application: Parking/footpath Issues  There is a lack of on-site parking shown on the indicative plan  Displacement of at least 8 parking spaces which are currently provided by the hardstanding and garages  The proposed development would bring about considerable problems for parking  The indicative plan proposes footpaths not within the site but carved out of the width of the present highway which is a bottleneck  The road would need widening as it is only a narrow through-road which is a concern  There is a lack of parking in the area – this site would be used for parking and reduce the size of the proposed development. Type of development proposed  The site is central to the village and the surrounding area is flat, ideal for single storey one bedroom units for elderly  Two storey would be out of character Over-shadowing and over-bearing  70% of the frontage of the site is facing a single story home which would result in overbearing and loss of privacy  Existing private areas and houses would be overlooked Other concerns  The site previously had fuel pumps on it and the tanks are still in situ underground  Bats fly around the area  Odours from the existing drains  There is a need to tidy up the land but what is planned is not appropriate  The site has only had single storey buildings on it

5.3 Letters of objection raised the following non-material considerations:  Loss of views  Construction noise, dust and disturbance

Page 71 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 6. Relevant Planning History There is no relevant planning history 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Eden Local Plan 1996 No relevant policies to the determination of this application Core Strategy DPD Policy:  CS1 - Sustainable Development Principles  CS2 - Locational Strategy  CS18 - Design of New Development Emerging Local Plan (2014-2032)  LS1 Locational Strategy  DEV5 Design of New Development  HS2 Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets Supplementary Planning Documents:  Housing (2010) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Building a strong, competitive economy  Ensuring the vitality of town centres  Supporting a prosperous rural economy  Promoting sustainable transport  Supporting high quality communications infrastructure  Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes  Requiring good design  Promoting healthy communities  Protecting Green Belt land  Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change  Conserving and enhancing the natural environment  Conserving and enhancing the historic environment  Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals National Planning Practice Guidance 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  The principle of housing on the application site 8.2 Principle

Page 72 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2.1 This is an Outline Planning Application for residential development, on a piece of land which is partly redundant and partly accommodates domestic garages, within the village of Calthwaite. 8.2.2 The main consideration of this application is whether the site should be used for the location of housing, with all issues relating to the layout, scale, design, access and drainage would be considered at a later stage, should this application be approved. 8.2.3 In terms of the principle of this application, consideration and assessment of its acceptability is made in relation to the policies contained within the Development Plan and to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This consists of the ‘saved’ policies of the Local Plan (adopted in 1996), the districts Core Strategy (2010) and the draft Policies within the emerging Local Plan (2014- 2032). 8.2.4 In terms of weight, of increasingly more significance is the emerging Eden Local Plan (2014-2032), which in accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, is now being afforded significant weight in the determination of planning applications as a consequence of its advanced stage of adoption. That weight has increased since the completion of the major modification consultation period on the 21st August 2017 and consequently, the plan is now at a more advanced stage. It is noted that a further consultation exercise was undertaken in December 2017 which was completed on the 22 January 2018. This relates to very specific issues, which are, the Town Plans for both Alston and Kirkby Stephen, Policy DEV3 entitled ‘Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way, HS2 entitled ‘Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets’ and ENV10 entitled ‘The Historic Environment’. On reviewing the consultation responses on the major modifications process there were no unresolved matters related to the proposal for Penrith, the three towns and the 13 key hubs providing for the majority of Eden’s supply of housing. This position has been confirmed by the Planning Inspector for the emerging Local Plan. 8.2.5 In effect whilst the district is still temporarily unable to demonstrate a five year land supply, it is acknowledged that if further housing numbers are required, these would be directed in the locations established under draft Policy LS1 in terms of locational strategy – effectively, the key hubs and Penrith rather than locations designated as ‘villages or hamlets’ or indeed ‘local service centres’ unless overriding exceptions can be demonstrated. 8.2.4 Within the emerging Local Eden Plan, draft Policy LS1 designates the village of Calthwaite as a ‘Smaller Village and Hamlet’, which is considered to be of limited sustainability in terms of housing development due to the lack of facilities, shops, services, schools and public transport links. In such locations, ‘Development of an appropriate scale, which reflects the existing built form of the settlement and adjoining and neighbouring development to the site and the service function of the settlement, will be permitted within Smaller Villages and Hamlets, to support the development of diverse and sustainable communities. Development in these locations will be permitted in the following circumstances:  Where it uses previously developed land  Where it delivers new housing on greenfield sites only, in accordance with the local connection criteria All development must be of a high quality design and will be restricted to infill sites, which fill a modest gap between existing buildings within the settlement; rounding off,

Page 73 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE which provides a modest extension beyond the limit of the settlement to a logical, defensible boundary; and the reuse of traditional rural buildings and structures..’. 8.2.5 In the case of the current proposal, the development is considered to be previously developed land – the site currently accommodates a total of 8 domestic scale garages and associated hardstanding, which are rented to local residents and the now vacant north end of the site is where a joiners workshop was positioned along with an attached fuel station. The site is considered to be an in-fill plot as defined under Policy LS1 (above) as the site is considered to be a modest gap between existing buildings within a settlement as it is surrounded on all sides by development including housing, village roads and village pub. 8.2.6 The application therefore in terms of its siting, location and with the justification as submitted, is considered to comply with the criteria concerned and the aims of draft Policy LS1 of the emerging Local Plan. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal for housing on the application site complies in principle to the Development Plan. 8.3 5 year housing land supply 8.3.1 It is noted that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. At the present time, Eden District Council is technically unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). At the present time Eden can demonstrate 3.33 year supply of available and deliverable housing land. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 49 of the Framework “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date of the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites”. As such, the development plan policies relating to the supply of housing are considered out-of-date and afforded less weight in the planning assessment. 8.3.2 Furthermore, the NPPF notes within paragraph 14 that “where the development plan is out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless…the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF...or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted”. 8.3.3 This position is supported by a recent Supreme Court judgement in Suffolk Coastal District Council (Appellant) v Hopkins Homes Ltd and anor (Respondents) Richborough Estate Partnerships LLP and anor (Respondents) v Cheshire East Borough Council (Appellant) [2017] UKSC 37 has provided further clarity and case law on how the impacts of paragraphs 14 and 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework are to be applied to applications for housing development in the absence of a five year housing land supply. This ruling emphasised that the test set out in paragraph 14 covers all aspects of a proposed development and not just related to polices that restrict housing. Furthermore, the ruling makes it clear that paragraph 14 is the primary test to be considered rather than the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole. 8.3.4 However, notwithstanding the above Court Judgement, the Council can still have regard to its housing policies in the planning balance when it falls short of the 5 year housing land supply. In a further recent Court ruling the Judge advocated that there will be many cases in which restrictive policies, whether general or specific in nature, are given sufficient weight to justify the refusal of planning permission despite their not being up-to-date under the policy in paragraph 49 of the NPPF in the absence of a five- year supply of housing land (Suffolk Coastal DC v. Hopkins Homes Ltd. [2016] EWCA

Page 74 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Civ 168). Even if a policy is ‘out of date’ it does not become irrelevant; it must not be ignored or not applied. The weight to be given to such a policy will be for the decision maker. 8.3.5 As noted previously, due to the advanced stage of adoption and confirmation from the Planning Inspector, draft Policy LS1 of the emerging Local Plan is afforded substantial weight in the determination of this planning application. 8.3.6 Of further significance in relation to the Council’s lack of a five-year housing land supply, is that once the emerging Local Plan is adopted, the Council will be able to demonstrate a 6.41 years housing land supply. This assessment is based upon information held as at 01 April 2017 and the following sites delivering housing within the next five years: i) sites under construction; ii) sites with planning permission; iii) allocated sites; v) sites awaiting a Section 106 Legal Agreement; vi) a small windfall allowance. 8.3.7 Therefore, Paragraph 14 is triggered by this application, and it is considered that Calthwaite is a sustainable location for new housing with local services and public transport links which is supported by the NPPF. 8.4 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.4.1 A further consideration in the determination of this planning application is the impact of the proposed development upon the character and visual appearance of the immediate surrounding area. The application site is partially occupied by a range of domestic scale garages with hard-standing. On the northern part of the site is the base of a former joiners workshop. Much of the site is un-kept, redundant site, which is positioned within a pre-dominantly residential area. 8.4.2 The site, and the surrounding area, would benefit from an appropriate form of development on this site. 8.5 Residential Amenity 8.5.1 Several concerns have been received including issues relating to the layout of the site; inadequate on-site parking; previous use of the site; the type of houses that would be built with the preferred being single storey dwellings; impact on residential amenity. There were no objections received that objected to residential development per se on this site; only that what was submitted on the indicative plan was not considered appropriate. 8.5.2 While all of the concerns raised by nearby residential occupiers have been fully considered, this application is only assessing the principle of residential development on this site. Although an indicative plan has been submitted with the application, this is suggestive only and the layout, number of houses, design, parking spaces etc would be considered under a Reserved Matters application. The application site is fairly restrictive in that it is surrounded by residential properties on all sides and any future development on this site will need to be carefully designed with the surrounding uses in mind and not lead to unacceptable overlooking, loss of privacy or be over-bearing on adjacent properties.

Page 75 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.6 Loss of Garages 8.6.1 Concerns have been raised about the loss of the existing garages on site and where those who rent the garages will park. The applicant has responded to this by acknowledging that while the loss of garages will displace some vehicles, only half of the garages are used to house vehicles with the other half used for general storage. One of the tenants using a garage has parking available within the grounds of his rented property. 8.6.2 The applicant has advised that the residents/locals have been allowed to use the open area of their land free of charge but this is not via a formal arrangement and now has the opportunity to utilise the land in a more effective and efficient manner following the end of the use of the joiners workshop. 8.7 Infrastructure 8.7.1 Concerns have been raised by objectors regarding the loss of the existing garages; the amount of proposed on-site parking; and that the existing roads would require widening. 8.7.2 Although approval for access is not being sought through this outline application, matters pertaining to safe and acceptable access to a site are important considerations. The Highway Authority has raised no objections in principle of developing the site for housing, subject to adequate on-site car parking provision; inclusion of a footway; and visibility splays and/or appropriate speed data, which would need to be addressed under a future Reserved Matters application. Safeguarding conditions are recommended. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

Page 76 Agenda Item 5 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: The application site is located within the village of Calthwaite which is considered a sustainable location for new development. Although this is an Outline Application for residential development, with all matters reserved, the site is considered to be an acceptable location for housing development where a layout can be achieved which would not have an adverse impact on the privacy or amenity of adjoining residential occupiers.

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

Page 77 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 15 March 2018

Planning Application No: 17/1062 Date Received: 13 December 2017

OS Grid Ref: NY 351455, Expiry Date: 16 March 2018 529467

Parish: Penrith Ward: Penrith South

Application Type: Householder

Proposal: Proposed two storey side extension

Location: 33 Holme Riggs Avenue, Penrith

Applicant: Mr and Mrs Benson

Agent: Manning Elliott Architects

Case Officer: Caroline Brier

Reason for Referral: This application is before Members as an objector has requested a hearing

Page 78 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 79 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: Time Limit for Commencement 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved: i) 1754-EX-100 received 12 December 2017 ii) 1754-PL-300 Rev A received 26 February 2018 iii) 1754-PL-500 Rev A received 26 February 2018 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 This proposal seeks to erect a two storey side extension to this semi-detached property. 2.1.2 The extension would measure approximately 6.7 metres in length, 3 metres in width and 7.1 metres in height, which is the same length and height as the existing dwelling and would project to the boundary. The width has been reduced by 100mm through a revised plan so that the eaves of the proposal do not encroach onto the neighbouring property. 2.1.3 The proposed materials include brickwork and render, white upvc windows and doors and concrete roof tiles, all of which match the existing. 2.1.4 Although not being material to the determination of this application it is worth highlighting that several other houses along Holmeriggs Avenue have benefited from planning permission to extend. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site is located on Holmeriggs Avenue within Penrith which comprises of a row of semi-detached properties on each side of the road, on a sloping gradient. 3. Consultees 3.1 Statutory Consultees Consultee Response Highway Authority No objection

Page 80 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Lead Local Flood Authority No objection The following are detailed responses as outlined above: 3.1.1 Highway Authority – ‘It is considered that the proposal will not have a material effect on existing highway conditions’. 3.1.2 Lead Local Flood Authority – ‘The Lead Local Flood Authority surface water map show that there is no flooding and/or surface water issue in the locale. Considering the proposal relates to an existing site/building which is not dramatically altering the landscape, it is therefore believed that the risk of surface water flooding will not be increased’. 4. Town Council Response Please Tick as Appropriate Town Council No View Object Support No Response Expressed Penrith Town X Council 4.1 Penrith Town Council advised that they have no objection to the proposal, however expressed concern at the regrettable loss of parking brought about by this proposal. 5. Representations 5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 9th January 2018. No of Neighbours Consulted 7 No of letters of support 0 No of Representations Received 1 No of neutral representations 0 No of objection letters 1 5.2 Letters of objection raised the following material considerations to the application:  None. 5.3 Letters of objection raised the following non-material considerations:  Concerns that the extension may have a detrimental impact on the footings of the neighbouring premises.  The side first floor window on the neighbouring property opens outwards to allow exit in case of fire and may be obstructed due to the close proximity of the proposed back corner of the extension.  Due to the close proximity and height of the adjoining house, the new extension roof eaves would be directly above the eaves of the neighbouring property. Any potential debris from the proposed extension would fall directly on to the neighbour’s roof. This could cause damage and prevent easy access to repair in the future. Such matters are considered to be civil matters and not material planning considerations that should be taken into account in the determination of this application.

Page 81 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 6. Relevant Planning History There is no relevant planning history. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Core Strategy DPD Policy:  CS1 - Sustainable Development Principles  CS18 - Design of New Development Emerging Eden Local Plan 2014-2032:  LS1 - Locational Strategy  DEV5 Design of New Development Due to the advanced stage of adoption of the emerging Local Plan and following confirmation from the Planning Inspector, substantial weight is now afforded to the above draft policies in the determination of this planning application. Supplementary Planning Documents:  Housing (2010) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  Requiring good design National Planning Practice Guidance 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Landscape and Visual Impacts  Residential Amenity 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 The principle of extending this semi-detached property is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS18 and emerging Eden Local Plan policy DEV5, subject to considerations on design and impacts upon residential amenity. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts 8.3.1 The proposal site is situated slightly forward of the neighbouring semi-detached properties (No’s 29 & 31) and on slightly higher land which would make it visible when travelling up the street. The neighbouring property (No. 31) has a two storey side extension adjacent to which the proposed extension would be sited. 8.3.2 It is noted that 2 No. two storey extensions have been granted planning permission on the opposite side of the road to their boundaries, setting precedence for design and building alterations in the locality.

Page 82 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.3.3 The Housing SPD provides guidance on the terracing code, requiring extensions to be set in by one metre from the side boundary to avoid the terracing effect. Given that the properties are not in a uniform frontage and are on different ground levels it is not considered that this proposal creates a terracing effect. 8.3.4 The proposal is in-keeping with other extensions on this street and it is not considered that it would create an adverse visual impact on the landscape of the area. 8.4 Residential Amenity 8.4.1 In terms of impact on the residential amenity, the only property considered to be effected by this proposal is No. 31, as the proposed extension would be up to the boundary. 8.4.2 The neighbouring property has a two storey side extension erected to their boundary with an obscure glazed first floor window located centrally to the extension. 8.4.3 Due to the host property being situated forward of the neighbouring property, the rear of the proposed extension ends at the first floor window of the neighbouring property. As such, no loss of light or privacy would be caused, nor would the extension appear dominant or overbearing to the neighbour. The plan was amended to remove the minor brick detail to the rear corner of the proposal to ensure that the building would not cover any of the neighbouring window. Therefore, the proposed development would not result in an adverse impact upon the local amenity. 8.5 Other 8.5.1 The objector has raised concern that the proposal may have a detrimental impact on their footings. This is a matter that would be dealt with by Building Control through their regulations. 8.5.2 The objector states that the side first floor window on their property opens outwards to allow exit in case of fire and that it may be obstructed due to the close proximity of the proposed back corner of the extension. Building Control has advised that fire exits should be onto the host properties land not a neighbouring property. However the building does not cover this window. 8.5.3 The objector raises concern that the proposed eaves would be directly above their eaves and any potential debris from the proposed extension would fall directly on to their roof. It is assumed that the ownership boundary would be the middle of the 300mm boundary wall and as such the existing and proposed eaves should not protrude further than 150mm over the wall. Whilst it is important to note that this is a civil matter, the neighbouring property’s eaves would appear to protrude across the full width of the wall and therefore encroach onto the host property’s land. The proposed eaves were reduced through an amended plan so that the overhang is 150mm. 8.5.4 It is also a civil matter with regards to maintenance and repair if access is required through a neighbouring property. 9. Implications 9.1 Legal Implications 9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 9.2 Equality and Diversity

Page 83 Agenda Item 6 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 9.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 9.3 Environment 9.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 9.4 Crime and Disorder 9.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 9.5 Children 9.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 9.6 Human Rights 9.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 10. Conclusion 11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations: The proposed two storey side extension is considered to be appropriate in terms of scale and design and in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS18 and emerging Eden Local Plan policy DEV5.

Jane Langston Deputy Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File

Page 84 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee: 15 March 2018

Planning Application No: 17/0527 Date Received: 21 June 2017

OS Grid Ref: 354363 522991 Expiry Date: 21 September 2017 Extension of time agreed until 17 April 2018.

Parish: Lowther Ward: Askham

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Proposed residential development for 28 dwellings and associated infrastructure

Location: Land to the North of Hackthorpe Hall, Hackthorpe

Applicant: Esh Homes Limited

Agent: Julie Hunter – George F White

Case Officer: Mr Ian Irwin

Reason for Referral: This is a major planning application

Page 85 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Page 86 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission is granted and that delegated power be given to the Assistant Director Technical Services to grant planning permission subject to a Section106 Agreement being entered into to the absolute satisfaction of the Deputy Chief Executive and the Assistant Director Technical Services requiring the provision of;  Four affordable dwellings (x 2 two bedroom ‘Lincoln’ and x2 three bedroom ‘Ripon’) at 70% market value;  Traffic Regulation Order and associated highway works at a cost of £6,250;  A footpath is created to adjoin the site to the existing village footpath network at a cost of £11,677;  A financial contribution to secondary school transport of £38,000; and  A financial contribution to public transport of £17,288. and the Council’s reasonable costs being paid in relation to that Section 106 Agreement ; And the following conditions; 1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Approved Plans 2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the planning application form dated 6 November 2017 and the following drawings hereby approved:  Existing site plan, Ref. 13.35.02d – (dated May 2014);  Planning Statement – (dated November 2017);  Site Layout Plan, Ref. HP-PSL-001 Rev. Q – (dated August 2015);  Proposed Streetscape, Ref. HP-PSL-002 Rev. D – (dated April 2016);  Noise Assessment, Ref. ESH/HT/001 – (dated 17 March 2017);  Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment, Ref. RO/FRA/16239/1 – (April 2017);  Tree Survey, Ref. EES17-038 v1 – (dated 30 March 2017);  Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Ref. EES17-038 – (dated 31 March 2017);  Arundel House Type, Ref. AR-S-10 Rev. P (Ground Floor Plan) – (dated 7 November 2017);  Arundel House Type, Ref. AR-S-20 Rev. N (First Floor Plan) – (dated 29

Page 87 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE August 2017);  Arundel House Type, Ref. AR-S-54 Rev. D (Front Elevation Artstone heads and cills) – (dated 23 May 2017);  Arundel House Type, Ref. AR-S-55 Rev. C (Rear Elevation Artstone heads and cills) – (dated 20 April 2017);  Arundel House Type, Ref. AR-S-56 Rev. B (Left Side Elevation Artstone heads and cills) – (dated 20 April 2017);  Arundel House Type, Ref. AR-S-57 Rev. B (Right Side Elevation Artstone heads and cills) – (dated 20 April 2017);  Durham House Type, Ref. DH-S-10 Rev. S (Ground Floor Plan) – (dated 7 November 2017);  Durham House Type, Ref. DH-S-20 Rev. K (First Floor Plan) – (dated 9 August 2017);  Durham House Type, Ref. DH-S-50 Rev. E (Front Elevation Artstone heads and cills) – (dated 6 June 2017);  Durham House Type, Ref. DH-S-51 Rev. D (Rear Elevation) – (dated 6 June 2017);  Durham House Type, Ref. DH-S-52 Rev. D (Right Side Elevation) – (dated 4 April 2017);  Durham House Type, Ref. DH-S-53 Rev. D (Left Side Elevation) – (dated 6 June 2017);  Helvellyn House Type, Ref. HE-S-10 Rev. C (Ground Floor Plan) – (dated 30 October 2017);  Helvellyn House Type, Ref. HE-S-20 Rev. C (First Floor Plan) – (dated 30 October 2017);  Helvellyn House Type, Ref. HE-2-25 Rev. C (Second Floor Plan) – (30 October 2017);  Helvellyn House Type, Ref. HE-S-50 Rev. A (Front Elevation) – (30 October 2017);  Helvellyn House Type, Ref. HE-S-51 Rev. A (Rear Elevation) – (30 October 2017);  Helvellyn House Type, Ref. HE-S-52 Rev. A (Side Elevation) – (30 October 2017);  Helvellyn House Type, Ref. HE-S-53 Rev. A (Side Elevation) – (30 October 2017);  Kielder House Type, Ref. KE-S-10 Rev. C (Ground Floor Plan) – (dated 30 October 2017);  Kielder House Type, Ref. KE-S-20 Rev. C (First Floor Plan) – (dated October 2017);  Kielder House Type, Ref. KE-S-50 Rev. A (Front Elevation) – (dated 30

Page 88 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE October 2017);  Kielder House Type, Ref. KE-S-51 Rev. A (Rear Elevation) – (dated 30October 2017);  Kielder House Type, Ref. KE-S-52 Rev. A (Side Elevation) – (dated 30 October 2017);  Kielder House Type, Ref. KE-S-53 Rev. A (Side Elevation) – (dated 30 October 2017);  Lichfield House Type, Ref. LD-S-10 Rev. L (Ground Floor Plan) – (dated 16 October 2017);  Lichfield House Type, Ref. LD-S-20 Rev. G (First Floor Plan) – (dated 27 June 2017);  Lichfield House Type, Ref. LD-S-50 Rev. D (Front Elevation Artstone heads and cills) – (dated 16 October 2017);  Lichfield House Type, Ref. LD-S-51 Rev. C (Rear Elevation) – (dated 27 June 2017);  Lichfield House Type, Ref. LD-S-52 Rev. C (Right Side Elevation) – (dated 3 July 2017);  Lichfield House Type, Ref. LD-S-53 Rev. B (Left Side Elevation) – (dated 3 July 2017);  Lincoln House Type, Ref. LN-S-10 Rev. H (Ground Floor Plan) – (dated 13 December 2016);  Lincoln House Type, Ref. LN-S-20 Rev. D (First Floor Plan) – (dated 13 December 2016);  Lincoln House Type, Ref. LN-S-50 Rev. B (Front Elevation) – (dated 27 June 2012);  Lincoln House Type, Ref. LN-S-51 Rev. A (Rear Elevation) – (dated 16 October 2009);  Lincoln House Type, Ref. LN-S-52 (Side Elevation) – (dated May 2009);  Ripon House Type, Ref. RI-S-10 Rev. D (Ground Floor Plan) – (dated 13 December 2016);  Ripon House Type, Ref. RI-S-20 Rev. D (First Floor Plan) – (dated 13 December 2016);  Ripon House Type, Ref. RI-S-50 Rev. B (Front Elevation) – (dated 8 August 2014);  Ripon House Type, Ref. RI-S-51 (Rear Elevation) – (dated October 2013);  Ripon House Type, Ref. RI-S-52 (Left Side Elevation) – (dated October 2013);  Ripon House Type, Ref. RI-S-53 (Right Side Elevation) – (dated May 2009);

Page 89 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Rochester House Type, Ref. RO-S-10 Rev. N (Ground Floor Plan) – (dated 21 August 2017);  Rochester House Type, Ref. RO-S-20 Rev. K (First Floor Plan) – (dated 3 July 2017);  Rochester House Type, Ref. RO-S-54 Rev. C (Front Elevation Artstone) – (dated 3 July 2017);  Rochester House Type, Ref. RO-S-55 Rev. D (Rear Elevation Artstone) – (dated 3 July 2017);  Rochester House Type, Ref. RO-S-56 Rev. B (Right Side Elevation Artstone) – (dated 3 July 2017);  Rochester House Type, Ref. RO-S-57 Rev. B (Left Side Elevation Artstone) – (dated 3 July 2017);  Shrewsbury House Type, Ref. SW-S-10 Rev. U (Ground Floor Plan) – (dated 9 October 2017);  Shrewsbury House Type, Ref. SW-S-20 Rev. L (First Floor Plan) – (dated 3 July 2017);  Shrewsbury House Type, Ref. SW-S-50 Rev. D (Front Elevation Artstone heads and cills) – (dated 9 May 2017);  Shrewsbury House Type, Ref. SW-S-51 Rev. D (Rear Elevation) – (dated 9 June 2017);  Shrewsbury House Type, Ref. SW-S-52 Rev. D (Right Side Elevation) – (dated 9 June 2017);  Shrewsbury House Type, Ref. SW-S-53 Rev. C (Left Side Elevation) – (dated 9 June 2017);  Southwark House Type, Ref. SK-S-10 Rev. E (Ground Floor Plan) – (dated 13 December 2016);  Southwark House Type, Ref. SK-S-20 Rev. B (First Floor Plan) – (dated 13 December 2016);  Southwark House Type, Ref. SK-S-50 Rev. A (Front Elevation Artstone heads and cills) – (dated 25 February 2013);  Southwark House Type, Ref. SK-S-51 Rev. B (Rear Elevation) – (dated 3 September 2014);  Southwark House Type, Ref. SK-S-52 (Right Side Elevation) – (dated November 2012);  Southwark House Type, Ref. SK-S-53 Rev. A (Left Side Elevation) – (dated 6 March 2015);  Winchester House Type, Ref. WI-S-10 (Ground Floor Plan) – (dated 4 January 2017);  Winchester House Type, Ref. WI-S-20 (First Floor Plan) – (dated 4 January 2017);

Page 90 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Winchester House Type, Ref. WI-S-50 (Front Elevation) – (dated 4 January 2017);  Winchester House Type, Ref. WI-S-51 (Rear Elevation) – (dated 4 January 2017);  Winchester House Type, Ref. WI-S-52 (Left Side Elevation) – (dated 4 January 2017);  Winchester House Type, Ref. WI-S-53 (Right Side Elevation) – (dated 4 January 2017); Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Prior to the commencement of the development 3. Details of all measures to be taken by the applicant/developer to prevent surface water discharging onto or off the highway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to development being commenced. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained operational thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that 'No development shall commence until' as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 4. Prior to the commencement of the development samples of all external finishes for all proposed dwellings will be submitted to for written approval by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that 'No development shall commence until' as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 5. No development shall commence until detailed drawings showing the development and means of access thereto have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Any such approved means of access shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the development is occupied. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that 'No development shall commence until' as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 6. Prior to the commencement of the development details of the footways that will be constructed to link the hereby approved site to the nearest existing footway continuously and conveniently and shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details submitted shall set out a timescale for implementation to ensure these footways are in place prior to the

Page 91 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE occupation of the first dwelling. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and highway safety. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that 'No development shall commence until' as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 7. No development shall commence until a detailed scheme of hard and soft landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme should take account of the recommendations provided within the Ecology appraisal report submitted in support of this application to ensure appropriate habitat is created for protected species. The scheme shall also include appropriate aftercare and management plans, tree maintenance to include weeding as well as tree stake checking and removal. Thereafter, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme, with all planting undertaken within the first available planting season. Any trees or other plants which die or are removed within the first five years following the implementation of the approved scheme shall be replaced during the next planting season. Reason: In the interests of protecting the visual character and appearance of the area. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that 'No development shall commence until' as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 8. Prior to the commencement of the development details of all tree and root protection measures to be implemented during works carried out on site shall be submitted to for written approval by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved, those details shall be implemented in full for the duration of all works being carried out on site. Reason: To ensure the protection of trees on site and in the interests of the visual amenity of the area. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that 'No development shall commence until' as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 9. No development shall commence on site until a detailed assessment of the pond located to the south of the site is assessed for Great Crested Newts. In the event that Great Crested Newts are located in this pond, appropriate mitigation measures will be submitted to for written approval to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure protected species are afforded appropriate protection. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that 'No development shall commence until' as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 10.No development shall commence on site until badger monitoring surveys have been undertaken to understand what, if any badger usage of the site takes place.

Page 92 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Reason: To ensure protected species are afforded appropriate protection. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that 'No development shall commence until' as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 11.No development shall commence on site until a detailed method statement detailing the on-site protocols in the event that a protected species or nesting bird is located on site during construction has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure protected species are afforded appropriate protection in the event they are located on site during the works. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that 'No development shall commence until' as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 12.Prior to the commencement of the hereby approved development samples of the proposed external finish materials, stone, brick, render, roof finishes as well as other matters shall be submitted to the local planning authority for written approval. Once approved those details shall be implemented on the development thereafter. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development in relation to its surroundings and setting. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that 'No development shall commence until' as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 13.Prior to the commencement of the development details of construction fencing will be submitted to for written approval by the Local Planning Authority. The details submitted shall include a design to allow the passage of nocturnal species such as badger and hedgehog through the site. Reason: To ensure protected species are afforded appropriate protection. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that 'No development shall commence until' as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 14.Prior to the commencement of any development, a surface water drainage scheme and means of disposal, based on sustainable drainage principles with evidence of 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 proposed scheme should meet the requirements of Sustainable drainage systems in accordance with the Non- Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards. The surface water drainage scheme must be restricted to existing runoff rates. No surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly. The development shall then be completed, maintained and managed in

Page 93 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE accordance with these approved details. Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that 'No development shall commence until' as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 15. No development shall commence until a construction surface water management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard against flooding to surrounding sites and to safeguard against pollution of the watercourse running through the site. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that 'No development shall commence until' as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 16. No development shall commence until details of future maintenance and operation of the surface water system are submitted to and approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the surface water system continues to function as designed. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that 'No development shall commence until' as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 17.The carriageway, footways, footpaths, cycleways etc shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to a standard suitable for adoption and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. These details shall be in accordance with the standards laid down in the Cumbria Design Guide. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the hereby approved development is complete. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that 'No development shall commence until' as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 18. Prior to the commencement of the development a Construction Method Statement including details of all on-site construction works, post-construction reinstatement, drainage, mitigation and other restoration with details of their timetabling has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Measures shall include;  Formation of the construction compound and access tracks and any areas of hard standing;  Cleaning of the site entrances and the adjacent public highway;  The sheeting of all HGVs taking spoil to/from the site to prevent spillage

Page 94 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE or deposit of any materials on the highway;  Post construction restoration/reinstatement of the working areas. Once approved, the details shall be adhered to at all times. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that 'No development shall commence until' as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. 19.Prior to the commencement of the development a Construction Phase Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include details of; Details of proposed crossings of the highway verge; Retained areas for vehicle parking, manoeuvring, loading and unloading for their specific purpose during the development; Cleaning of the site entrances and the adjacent public highways; Details of proposed wheel washing facilities; Construction vehicle routing; The management of junctions to and crossing of the public highway and other public rights of way/footway; The sheeting of all HGVs taking spoil to/from the site to prevent spillage or deposit of any materials on the highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that 'No development shall commence until' as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. On-going conditions 20.No demolition or construction works shall take place outside the hours of: 08:00-18:00 Monday to Friday; 09:00-13:00 Saturday; and No Activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area. 21.The drainage for the development hereby approved, shall be carried out in accordance with principles set out in the submitted Flood Risk & Drainage Statement, ref: RO/FRA/16239.1 dated April 2017 Version 1 by RWO Associates, proposing surface water discharging into infiltration system. No surface water will be permitted to drain directly or indirectly into the public sewer. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development and to prevent an undue increase in surface water run-off and to reduce the risk of flooding. 22.Any trenches or excavation shall be covered overnight. Where this is not possible, the trenches or excavations will contain a means of escape for

Page 95 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE mammals such as hedgehog and badger. These should comprise ramps angled at no greater than 45 degrees and at least 300mm in width. Reason: To ensure protected species are afforded appropriate protection. 23. No artificial lighting between dusk and dawn will be permitted at any time. Reason: To protect both the residential amenity of the area and to protect protected species. 24. Any vegetation should be removed outside of the bird nesting season (March to August) unless a qualified Ecologist confirms any areas of vegetation to be removed do not have any nesting birds. Where nesting birds are discovered, no vegetation removal will be permitted until the young have fledged. Reason: To ensure protected species are afforded appropriate protection. 25.The whole of the access area bounded by the carriageway edge, entrance gates and the splays shall be constructed and drained to the specification of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 26.The access and parking/turning requirements shall be substantially met before any building work commences on site so that constructional traffic can park and turn clear of the highway. Reason: The carrying out of this development without the provision of these facilities during the construction work is likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users. Prior to Occupation 27.The use of the development shall not be commenced until the access has been formed with 10.5 metre radius kerbs, to give a minimum carriageway width of 5.5 metres, and that part of the access road extending 10 metres into the site from the existing highway has been constructed in accordance with details approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 28.Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems. Reason: To secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. 29. Footpath no. 342002 shall not be interfered with in any way throughout the construction phase of the hereby approved development. Reason: To ensure that a registered Public right of way remains accessible during the development. 30.Prior to the occupation of any dwelling of the hereby approved development noise attenuation measures sufficient to ensure that glazing and ventilation are incorporated into the construction to achieve internal noise levels as follows; Bedrooms 30 dB LAeq (8 hour) (2300 hrs – 0700 hrs)

Page 96 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Living rooms 35 dB LAeq (16 hour) (0700 hrs – 2300 hrs) All Habitable Rooms 45 dB LAmax A report shall be submitted prior to the occupation of any of the hereby approved dwellings to demonstrate that these levels are achieved which will then subsequently be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where internal noise levels can only be achieved by keeping windows closed, details should incorporate the use of whole house mechanical ventilation systems with heat recovery. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of any occupant. 31.Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any subsequent equivalent legislation) no development falling within Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, D and E of the said Order shall be carried out on plots 5 and 6 of the hereby approved development without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the protection of trees in the vicinity of those plots. Informative 1. A water main crosses the border of the site. As we need access for operating and maintaining it, we will not permit development in close proximity to the main. You will need an access strip of no less than 5 metres, measuring at least 2.5 metres either side of the centre line of the pipe. The applicant must comply with our standard conditions, a copy of which is enclosed, for work carried out on, or when crossing aqueducts and easements. This should be taken into account in the final site layout, or a diversion will be necessary, which will be at the applicant's expense. Any necessary disconnection or diversion required as a result of any development will be carried out at the developer's expense. Under the Water Industry Act 1991, Sections 158 & 159, we have the right to inspect, maintain, adjust, repair or alter our mains. This includes carrying out any works incidental to any of those purposes. Service pipes are not our property and we have no record of them. 2. The level of cover to the water mains and sewers must not be compromised either during or after construction. 3. The level of cover to the water mains and sewers must not be compromised either during or after construction. 4. A separate metered supply to each unit will be required at the applicant’s expense and all internal pipe work must comply with current water supply (water fittings) regulations 1999. 5. If approved the applicant/developer should contact United Utilities regarding connection to the water mains or public sewers. 6. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), the site should be drained on a separate system with foul water draining to the public sewer and surface water

Page 97 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE draining in the most sustainable way. The NPPG clearly outlines the hierarchy to be investigated by the developer when considering a surface water drainage strategy. We would ask the developer to consider the following drainage options in the following order of priority: 1. into the ground (infiltration); 2. to a surface water body; 3. to a surface water sewer, highway drain, or another drainage system; 4. to a combined sewer. We recommend the applicant implements the scheme in accordance with the surface water drainage hierarchy outlined above. 7. If the applicant intends to offer wastewater assets forward for adoption by United Utilities, the proposed detailed design will be subject to a technical appraisal by an Adoptions Engineer as we need to be sure that the proposal meets the requirements of Sewers for adoption and United Utilities’ Asset Standards. The proposed design should give consideration to long term operability and give United Utilities a cost effective proposal for the life of the assets. Therefore, should this application be approved and the applicant wishes to progress a Section 104 agreement, we strongly recommend that no construction commences until the detailed drainage design, submitted as part of the Section 104 agreement, has been assessed and accepted in writing by United Utilities. Any works carried out prior to the technical assessment being approved is done entirely at the developers own risk and could be subject to change. 8. Should any unexpected ground conditions, which could indicate the presence of land contamination (for example unusual colours, odours, liquids or waste materials) be encountered during development, the Environmental Protection Team (01768 212490) should be notified immediately. The Environmental Protection Team liaises with developers to achieve cost effective sustainable solutions to deal with contamination to safeguard the health of future occupants, building structures and the local environment. The responsibility for securing a safe development however, lies with the developer and /or landowner. 9. The recommendations contained within the noise assessment submitted as part of this application shall be implemented to ensure amenity areas, such as gardens, achieve noise levels that do not exceed excessive levels. Good acoustic design principles shall be implemented to ensure that amenity areas, such as gardens achieve a maximum noise level off 55db (LAeq, 16 hour) or where not possible, as low as practicable to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal

Page 98 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2.1.1 The proposal is for full planning permission for residential development 28 dwellings. The proposal would involve the creation of vehicular access points onto the adjacent A6 public highway which is located to the east of the site. 2.1.2 In line with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended 2017), it is considered that the whilst the development falls within the criteria of Schedule 2 Development (Part 10 Infrastructure Projects (b)), the application does not meet or exceed the threshold criteria, by virtue of being less than 5 hectares and for less than 150 residential dwellings. Therefore, the application need not be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment. 2.1.3 The application is supported by the following;  Noise assessment;  Planning Statement;  Flood Risk and Drainage Strategy;  Tree Survey;  Transport Statement;  Phase 1 Ecology Report. 2.1.4 The applicant has confirmed that housing mix of properties proposed would be varied. It would comprise the following house types (all heights are ridge heights);  Two - Lincoln – 2 bedroom (709 sqft), Length – 8.26 metres, Height – 7.5 metres and Width – 4.75 metres;  Two – Ripon – 3 bedroom (754 sqft), – Length – 7.9 metres, Height – 7.5 metres and Width – 4.8 metres;  Three – Arundel – 4 bedroom (963 sqft) – Length – 7.9 metres, Height – 7.65 metres and Width – 7.55 metres;  Two – Durham – 4 bedroom (1134 sqft) – Length – 7 metres, Height – 7.85 metres and Width – 9 metres metres;  Four – Rochester – 4 bedroom (1140 sqft) – Length – 8.55 metres, Height – 7.65 metres and Width – 9.05 metres;  Four – Lichfield – 4 bedroom (1172 sqft) – Length – 8.125 metres, Height – 7.575 metres and Width – 8.8 metres;  Three – Shrewsbury – 4 bedroom + study (1250 sqft) – Length – 9.95 metres, Height – 7.675 metres and Width 7.8 metres;  One – Winchester – 4 bedroom (1270 sqft) – Length – 9.65 metres, Height – 8.035 metres and Width 8.65 metres;  Three – Southwalk – 4 bedroom + study (1350 sqft) – Length – 10.18 metres, Height – 7.95 metres and Width 7.8 metres;  Two – Helvelyn – 4 bedroom (1780 sqft) – Length – 11.68 metres, Height – 9 metres and Width 8.989 metres;

Page 99 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Two – Kielder – 5 bedroom (1820 sqft) – Length – 9.315 metres, Height – 8.435 metres and Width 11.015 metres; 2.1.5 These properties are proposed to be constructed of stone, brick and finished in part with render. Roofs are proposed to be finished with tiles. The applicant has not provided full details on the specific finishes proposed and so consequently a condition requiring final details for approval prior to the commencement of any subsequently approved development has been included in section 1 of this report. Such details will need to be of a suitable standard in order to be discharged to the Planning Authorities satisfaction. 2.1.6 The site access will be via the existing agricultural gated access point although this would, of course, be upgraded to appropriate highway authority standards if this proposal were granted permission. The applicant, in an effort to ensure the site remains ‘in-keeping’ with the locality also proposes two further access points to the north to serve units 24, 25, 26 and 27 as well as 21, 22 and 23. This would essentially mean that 3 access points were created, off the A6, were this development to be approved. Further to the north-east is the M6, approximately 220 metres from the site. 2.1.7 The site would be fronted by a boundary wall/fence with a hedge planted behind it. In order to preserve access to the remainder of the agricultural field, an access would be provided on the western boundary of the site, between units 16 & 17. Furthermore, the applicant has provided an area of public open space – a total of 726 metres sq. in excess of the 15 metres sq. per dwelling required by ‘saved’ policy BE20. 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The site is located within the village of Hackthorpe. It is currently an agricultural field which slopes significantly from west to east and is approximately 1.32 hectares in size. To the immediate east is the nearest public highway, the A6. Beyond that and further to the east is the M6 which is visible from the site and approximately 190 metres from the site boundary. 2.2.2 Presently, the site is bounded by properties to the immediate north-north-west and south-south-east. The development site is accordingly considered to represent an ‘infill’ site given its location, relative to the existing properties in the area. 2.2.3 These nearest properties are known as ‘Henneth Annun’ which shares an existing boundary on the northern edge of the site and to the south is Hackthorpe Hall whose grounds would share part of that boundary but due to the aforementioned grounds would be approximately 67 metres from the boundary itself. To the east and on the opposite side of the A6 are ‘Hillrise’ (approximately 30 metres from the site boundary) and ‘Stevannketh’(approximately 34 metres away from the site boundary). 2.2.4 The site is presently bounded to its front by a post and wire stock proof fence which is approximately 1.4 metres in height. To the north of the site there is a boundary defined by hedgerow, shrubs and some small trees. This ends with the boundary of the aforementioned dwelling ‘Henneth Annum’. The site rises to the west gradually and ultimately, the ridge of this slope is at quite a significant level. 2.2.5 A public footpath, no. 342002 runs along the northern boundary of the site, all the way to the western part of the proposal site. The Lake District National Park boundary is approximately 420 metres to the west, beyond the ridge line. A tree preservation order (TPO164-G1) related to 8 sycamore trees is in place. These trees are located on the southern boundary of the application site.

Page 100 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 2.2.6 The site benefits from an outline planning permission ref. 14/0655. This represents a ‘fall-back’ position for 25 residential dwellings. This outline planning permission has been realised and the applicant has submitted the reserved matters application (18/0040) in association with that development. Accordingly, the fall-back position is secure and essentially, this proposal represents a modest increase in housing numbers when compared to the 14/0655 permission from 25 units to 28. 3. Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response

Highway Authority Responded on the 18 August 2017 and confirmed that the proposal had ‘inadequate’ information related to visibility splays, off-street parking, road layout, road construction, road gradients, on-site turning facilities and would as a consequence potentially have a detrimental impact in terms of its effect on local traffic conditions, public safety and sustainable travel. Accordingly, further information was requested. The Highways Authority responded again on the 4 December 2017 and confirmed that they had no ‘in principle objections’ to the planning application. They further confirmed that as the applicant now sought a further 2 access points in addition to the main site entrance proposed the 40mph speed limit area would need be increased to take in this part of the village – accordingly this element of the proposal was considered acceptable. Cumbria County Council also confirmed that they would require the applicant to extend the village street lighting to illuminate the extended public footpath and the proposed site access points. Conditions and a financial contribution to pay for the extension of the 40mph zone were also requested to be attached to any subsequent grant of planning permission.

Page 101 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response

Housing Officer Responded on the 9 November 2017 and confirmed that given the applicant had submitted a financial viability assessment this would be assessed and a final response provided in due course. The initial response, not inclusive of the assessment provided confirmed that currently, 30% affordable housing would be required, as per a section 106 agreement and given 28 dwellings were proposed, 8 would be required to be ‘affordable’. The financial viability assessment was submitted and subsequently reviewed. In conclusion it was considered that whilst it was accepted that the site could not provide the full 30% affordable contributions usually expected, 4 affordable homes could be provided (a percentage of approximately 15%). These four homes would be provided at 70% of market value. In February 2018 the applicant confirmed that subject to the s106 contributions being confirmed, they would be willing to enter into an agreement to provide 4 affordable homes in relation to this development. Both the council’s own housing officer and financial viability assessment officer have confirmed that this is acceptable. Accordingly, in terms of the housing contributions associated with this proposal, the 4 proposed by the applicant are considered acceptable in this instance given the financial viability of the site.

United Utilities Responded on the 20 November 2017 and confirmed no objection to the proposal. It was requested that a condition related to foul and surface water should be attached to any subsequent grant of planning permission.

Public Rights of Way Responded on the 18 August 2017 and it was confirmed that there should be no interference with public footpath no. 342002 throughout the construction phase or thereafter.

Page 102 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response

Local Lead Flood Authority Responded on the 18 August 2017 and confirmed that there was ‘inadequate’ information regarding surface water drainage. Accordingly, further information was requested. The Lead Local Flood Authority provided a further response on the 4 December 2017. This confirmed that the Flood Risk Assessment compiled by the applicant had been reviewed and confirmed that although some information was still not received, these could be conditioned to be provided ‘prior to development’ commencing on site. However, they also added that the applicant had shown a, ‘clear understanding of the needs of a SUDs (Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme) system on both the grounds of dealing with surface water and water quality’. Accordingly, conditions were requested to be attached to any subsequent grant of planning permission.

Arboricultural Officer Responded on the 10 November 2017 and confirmed that there should be no excavations in the areas where roots of trees (those subject to the TPO’s). A condition related to a tree maintenance schedule (to include weeding, tree stake checking/removal) should be attached to any grant of planning permission. A further condition was proposed to ensure any failed planting was replaced within at least 5 years (preferably 10 years) and it was suggested that permitted development rights for some plots be removed to ensure tree roots were protected associated with trees subject to a tree preservation order.

Natural England Responded on the 11 July 2017 and confirmed no objection to the proposal. A response to the re-consultation was also received on the 17 November 2017 which confirmed no change to the comments made on the 11 July 2017.

Page 103 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response

Environmental Health Initial comments were received from the Environmental Health Officer/Contaminated Land Officer who liaised with the applicants own noise consultant in Officer December 2017. A formal response was received in February 2018 which indicated that a condition be attached to any grant of planning permission that ensured specific internal noise levels were achieved on any dwellings constructed on site. Some additional comments were made in relation to a 15 year forecast for noise due to traffic volumes. The applicant responded on this and confirmed that they were not intending to provide the 15 year forecast figures as even a doubling of traffic on roads in the vicinity of the site would only equate to a 3db increase in noise. Accordingly, they contended that the report they had submitted was still acceptable and this data was not necessary. The Environmental Health Officer responded and confirmed that if the applicant was willing to factor the 15 year forecast into the modelling to meet the internal noise levels required by condition (see draft condition 29) then this would be acceptable. The applicant has confirmed that they will. There are therefore no further noise issues to consider in relation to this proposal.

Environment Agency Responded on the 6 July 2017 and had no comments to make in relation to the proposal.

Highways England Responded on the 21 August 2017 and confirmed no objection to the proposal.

Lake District National Park Responded on the 7 December 2017 and confirmed no Authority objection to the proposal.

Historic Environment Responded on the 18 August 2017 and confirmed that the site Officer had been subject of an archaeological geophysical survey and evaluation. It was confirmed that medieval agricultural remains had been revealed and recorded. It was confirmed that no further work was required and so therefore there was no objection to the proposal.

Education Responded on the 18 August 2017. In terms of secondary school contributions, it was requested that contributions of £38,000 would be required. As a footpath link was being provided by the developer and updated response received on the 28 February 2018 confirmed that no primary school contribution was necessary.

Page 104 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response

Public Transport The County Council responded on the 18 August 2017 and confirmed that a contribution to local public transport would be required. This was updated on the 28 February 2018 to be £17,288.

4. Parish Council Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Council No View Object Support No Response Expressed Lowther  4.1 Lowther Parish Council object to this proposal and have raised the following points;  The footpath currently ends at the Lowther Castle public house and all amenities are located on the western side of the road. Occupants of these properties would have to cross the road twice to get to them and return – accordingly there is a serious safety concern in regard to this – the footpath should be extended to deal with this;  Proposal has no affordable housing element;  The village is subject to flooding in periods of heavy rain and drain top gullies struggle to cope currently – more gullies should be installed;  The parish council requests that the speed limit on the southern side of the village be extended and reduced to 30mph;  The three access points proposed – two are just inside the existing 40mph limit whilst the other is outside of it;  The elevation plans don’t match up with the layout plan;  There is not enough car parking provision;  Roof materials proposed are not suitable;  Front of the site should have a stone wall to blend in with the rest of the village; 5. Representations 5.1 The application was advertised by means of a site notice posted on the 13 July 2017 and a further site notice on the 9 November 2017 and the following neighbour notifications: No of Neighbours Consulted 26 No of letters of support 0 No of objection letters 4 0 No of neutral representations

5.2 Letters of objection have been received in relation to this proposal. It is not possible to convey, word-for-word these comments within this report. However, I have summarised the key concerns, raised by objectors as follows;

Page 105 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  The proposal is out of character with the basic, linear layout of the village;  The village lacks any local services (including very poor public transport links);  Highways safety implications by development proceeding;  Nearby A6 becomes flooded during heavy rainfall;  No demand for housing in the village and no proof;  The village has no local amenities as suggested by the applicant via their planning statement;  The development includes no starter homes or bungalows;  The development would lead to a loss of light into properties nearby;  The site layout is impractical;  The footpath along the A6 is not suitable, requiring parents and/or children to have to cross over the A6 to the footpath to cross back to get to the school;  The proposed plan is not in-keeping with the immediate area in terms of materials proposed;  Unclear who maintains the open space areas;  Health and Safety implications for children playing on amenity space in close proximity to gas tanks;  The footpath should be extended from the site to the pub to allow safe pedestrian access;  Proposal include no renewable energy sources;  Not clear what surface water run-off has been provided as existing drains cannot cope and flood now, this will exacerbate things further;  Road speed limit should be reduced; 6. Relevant Planning History 6.1 14/0655 – Outline application for residential development and associated infrastructure – Approved. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Core Strategy DPD Policy:  CS1 - Sustainable Development Principles  CS2 - Locational Strategy  CS4 - Flood Risk  CS7 - Principles for Housing

Page 106 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  CS8 - Making Efficient Use of Land  CS16 - Principles for the Natural Environment  CS17 - Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment  CS18 - Design of New Development Supplementary Planning Documents:  Housing (2010) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  The presumption in favour of sustainable development  Core planning principles  Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes  Requiring good design  Promoting healthy communities  Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change  Conserving and enhancing the natural environment  Conserving and enhancing the historic environment National Planning Practice Guidance Emerging Local Plan (2014-2032)  LS1 - Locational Strategy  LS2 – Housing Targets and Distribution  DEV1 – General Approach to New Development  DEV3 – Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way  DEV5 – Design of New Development  HS1 – Affordable Housing  HS4 – Housing Type and Mix  EN5 – Environmentally Sustainable Design 7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. Due to the stage of adoption of the emerging Local Plan, significant weight is afforded to the above policies in the determination of this current planning application other than draft Policy DEV3 which is still afforded ‘limited’ weight. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Landscape and Visual Impact

Page 107 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Housing Density  Housing Need  Affordable Housing Contribution  Flooding and Environmental Impacts  Infrastructure  Other matters 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 In terms of the principle of housing development, consideration is given to the development plan. This consists of both the ‘saved’ policies of the local plan (adopted in 1996) and the districts Core Strategy (2010). In addition, there is a Housing Supplementary Planning document which assists in the determination process. Housing policy within the district as prescribed within these documents that comprise the development ‘plan’. 8.2.2 The current Core Strategy Policies (CS1, CS2 and CS7) seeks to direct much of proposed development to locations are considered ‘Key and Local Service centres’ because they are where local facilities and infrastructure are provided. Of course, any proposed development must be of appropriate scale relative to their designated, locational status – for a local service centre, Policy CS2 refers to ‘small scale development to sustain local services, support rural businesses and meet local needs’. 8.2.3 Villages and Hamlets are also considered appropriate for development in specific circumstances, which for this type of location would be an identified local need. In this instance, the location site is located in Hackthorpe which is currently a designated Local Service Centre. In the emerging local plan, Hackthorpe’s status will change to that of ‘village/hamlet’ and is considered a suitable location for development of appropriate scale and where a local need has been identified. Furthermore, sites need to be either a ‘rounding-off’ with a defensible boundary or be a modest infill site. It is noted that no definition of what small scale development would amount to is provided within the policies. Paragraph 49 states “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.” 8.2.4 At present Eden District Council is unable to demonstrate a five year land supply (it currently is only able to demonstrate a 3.35 year supply). In such circumstances policies related to housing are to be considered out-of-date and planning authorities are required to take account of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF notes within paragraph 14 that “where the development plan is out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless…the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF...or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted”. 8.2.5 Effectively, paragraph 14 states that where policies are considered out-of-date planning permission should be granted unless there are adverse impacts. Such impacts would need to be considered significantly harmful and would demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

Page 108 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2.6 Recently a Supreme Court judgement (Case ID UKSC 2016/0078) in Suffolk Coastal District Council (Appellant) v Hopkins Homes Ltd and anor (Respondents) Richborough Estate Partnerships LLP and anor (Respondents) v Cheshire East Borough Council (Appellant) [2017] UKSC 37 also provides further qualification on how significant the lack of a demonstrable five year housing land supply actually is. Fundamentally, the judgement reaffirms that where such a supply is not demonstrable, paragraph 49 of the NPPF is a key material consideration in that all relevant housing policies detailed in the development plan are to be considered out-of-date. In turn, the determination of such applications given that circumstance in Eden means that paragraph 14 is a key factor to consider in the determination process. Ultimately, unless significant and demonstrable harm can be demonstrated to outweigh the benefits of the proposal, the development should be granted planning permission ‘without delay’. 8.2.7 However, it is equally important to note that whilst the lack of a five year housing supply is a significant consideration in relation to this application, at a planning appeal in Allerdale (APP/G098/A/13/2193690), the Inspector noted that the lack of a five year housing supply is a temporary circumstance and as a short term problem it must be weighed against the permanent harm caused to the character of an area and the conditions of nearby residents. This is significant as the Council will be able to demonstrate approximately a 6.5 year land supply once the emerging local plan has been adopted and the emerging local plan is now at an advanced stage. 8.2.8 It must be noted that, in accordance with paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework the emerging local plan must be given appropriate ‘weight’. The emerging local plan is now at a stage where policies, such as draft Policy LS1, can be afforded significant weight in the determination of planning applications. Furthermore on reviewing the consultation responses on the major modifications on the draft local plan there were no unresolved objections in relation to the locational strategy and the designations for the settlements within the district. 8.2.9 In effect this leaves the district with a continuing lack of a five year land supply at the time of writing this report (December 2017) but with an understanding that if further housing numbers are required, these would be directed in the locations established under draft Policy LS1 in terms of locational strategy – effectively, the key hubs and Penrith rather than locations designated as ‘villages or hamlets’.

8.2.10 However, the emerging local plan still considers ‘villages and hamlets’ as suitable for development of appropriate scale and for meeting an identified need. In this particular circumstance the proposal is an outline proposal for residential development for 28 dwellings. Such a scale of development is therefore considered contrary to the emerging local plan and draft Policy LS1. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that Hackthorpe is currently a designated ‘Local Service Centre’ under the existing Core Strategy. 8.2.11 Accordingly, the proposed full planning application for market-led, residential dwellings, in a location such as Hackthorpe conflicts with the existing local and emerging local plan. This is because the proposal is not for an established need and would be of a scale that is incompatible with locations such as Hackthorpe given its ‘locational’ ‘status’. Nor is the site considered to be ‘rounding-off’ or ‘infill’. However, given the ‘fall- back’ position that the applicant holds in relation to this site, (outline planning permission for 25 dwellings as per ref. 14/0655), as confirmed in paragraph 2.2.6 of this report, means that effectively the proposal is for 3 additional dwellings. This is not

Page 109 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE considered ‘out-of-scale’ and whilst the site is neither considered a rounding off or infill as per the draft Policy LS1 direction, the fall-back position secured by the applicant means they can develop the site regardless for 25 dwellings as is. Therefore, such a modest increase in the already approved numbers of the site, are not considered significantly harmful in this particular case. 8.2.12 In regard to the paragraph 49 direction and the lack of a five year housing land supply that still currently exists, albeit an increasingly temporary circumstance , the paragraph 14 test should then come into play – does the development represent ‘significant and demonstrable harm’ that outweighs the benefit of the proposal. It is considered in this instance, no such ‘significant’ or ‘demonstrable’ harm is applicable in this case. 8.2.13 In this instance, the proposed scale of development is considered acceptable and is in accordance with both the existing and emerging development plan. It is therefore considered that the principal of development on this site is acceptable given the very specific circumstances that apply, notwithstanding other material planning considerations. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impact 8.3.1 A significant consideration in the determination of this outline planning application is the extent of the impact of the proposed development upon both the character of the area and local landscape. It is noted that the application site is an agricultural field which is located within the existing village of Hackthorpe. 8.3.2 It is noted that some objectors refer to the proposal as being out of character with the ‘linear’ nature of the village. It is accepted that the village of Hackthorpe does follow a rather linear building line but there are existing structures (outbuildings, barns etc.) that do depart from this. Hackthorpe Gardens is another example of development beyond this ‘linear style’ within the settlement. Clearly, given the fall-back position relevant to this site, the landscape and visual impact has already been considered by the planning authority previously. It is difficult to conclude that a proposal resulting in 3 further dwellings would result in what could be demonstrated as ‘significant and demonstrable’ harm were it to be implemented given these circumstances. 8.3.3 There would be a clear change in visual appearance were this land to be subject to the implementation of a residential development and once again it is acknowledged that the principle of this was accepted by the outline permission being granted as per planning permission ref. 14/0655. It is also acknowledged and accepted that this site is not subject to any landscape designation and whilst this impact is understood, the impact is not considered to be so severe as to be significantly harmful to an extent that would outweigh the benefit of the proposal. 8.3.4 The Lake District National Park is located beyond the ridge and is approximately 420 metres to the west of the site boundary. Given that the site could not be viewed from within the Lake District given the natural topography of the area, there is no obvious reason why this proposal would have any impacts at all on this designated area. The Lake District National Park Authority has confirmed that they have no objection to the proposal. 8.3.5 In terms of the design, scale and appearance of the proposed development, it is noted that the applicant is proposing a ‘palette’ of materials that are reflective of the local vernacular. Render and stone with slate coloured roof tiles are suggested. However, as no specific details have been provided, a condition to deal with specific materials to be incorporated in any subsequent construction is attached in section 1 of this report.

Page 110 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.3.6 It is noted that the Parish Council had concerns regarding the proposed roof tile finish. Officers agree with these concerns and the applicant (via their agent) has been informed that an appropriate will need to be agreed in relation to this proposal given the locality and the visual prominence of the site. All final finishes will be considered at the stage the condition is sought for formal discharge, however, it is considered that there is no reason why the applicant cannot provide a range of materials of sufficient quality to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 8.3.7 The applicants proposals for stone and render and considered acceptable, in principle but with specific details to follow to ensure the development is in accordance with the Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy and draft Policy DEV5 of the emerging local plan. 8.3.8 A tree preservation order (TPO164-G1) related to 8 sycamore trees is in place. These trees are located on the southern boundary of the application site. These trees remain protected by this order and there are conditions attached to this report to ensure they are protected during any works. 8.3.9 Therefore, whilst it is noted that the proposed development would result in an impact upon the local landscape due to the loss of an open piece of agricultural land, it is considered that the impact would not be significantly detrimental. The site is in a location that affords it an elevated view relative to properties, especially to the east of the site but it is considered that; the scheme would be acceptable and not significantly harmful. 8.4 Housing Density 8.4.1 It is noted that the Council’s principles on housing density are outlined within Core Strategy Policy CS8, which advises that housing schemes should have a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare but lower densities may be considered where there is a need to preserve the character of the area. In the case of the current application, as the application site covers an area of 1.32 hectares, this would means that the scheme proposed should achieve a density target of approximately 20 dwellings were 28 dwellings to be constructed upon the site. 8.4.2 Whilst the proposed level of housing is below the recommended level in Core Strategy Policy CS8 and therefore contrary to it, the reduced level would enable the applicant to offer a less overbearing development than there otherwise would be. In conclusion, the intentions of Policy CS8 would be complied with in this instance as it would result in a development at a density suitable for this location. 8.4.3 Therefore, for the reasons detailed above it is considered that the density of the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in this instance. 8.5 Housing Need and Affordable Housing Contribution 8.5.1 In considering the benefits of the proposed development it is noted that the scheme would make a positive contribution to boosting the supply of housing in Eden. As has been established, for approval in locations such as these, a residential scheme would need to demonstrate a ‘need’ to be approved. However, as has also been established, the housing policies of the district remain ‘out-of-date’ until the emerging local plan is adopted. However, the emerging local plan is being afforded significant weight now. In this particular circumstance, the site benefits from an existing outline planning permission which effectively provides a ‘fall-back’ position for 25 dwellings. 8.5.2 In terms of housing need, it is noted that district wide there is a housing need of circa 242 houses per year. In particular, there is a need for affordable housing within the

Page 111 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE district. In line with Eden District Council’s adopted Council Plan (2015) a key corporate priority is providing access to good quality housing that reflects local need and supports both employment and thriving communities. In terms of affordable housing, the applicant has submitted a financial viability assessment. The Districts Core Strategy includes Policy CS10 entitled ‘Affordable housing’, which confirms that the council aspires to a target of 30% affordable housing for schemes above a threshold of 4 units. In the light of new advice from the Planning Practice Guidance this threshold for the provision of affordable housing has been raised to schemes of 11 units and above. The applicant has provided a Financial Viability Assessment which has been considered and assessed by the Council’s own viability assessor. 8.5.3 The outcome of the assessment was the site could not be developed with a 30% affordable home element. Accordingly, such a contribution would not be required. However, it was considered that rather than a 30% contribution (approximately 8 dwellings) that 4 units could be provided (effectively a 15% affordable home contribution). 8.5.4 The applicant considered this assessment and concluded that the required 15% financial contribution was acceptable. This was predicated on the s106 financial contributions being finalised. However, in terms of the development being considered acceptable in terms of affordable housing contributions, it is acknowledged that the 15% contribution (or 4 units) would be agreeable in this case. 8.5.5 The Council’s Housing Officer and the Financial Viability assessor have confirmed that this is agreeable. For clarity, the 4 units will comprise, x 2 two bedroom ‘Lincoln’ dwellings and x 2 three bedroom ‘Ripon’ properties. 8.6 Amenity Impacts 8.6.1 A number of objectors to the proposed development have made comment that the application would result in a development affecting daylight. As has been referred to in in this report already (see section 8.3 entitled ‘Landscape and Visual Impact’ Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy and draft policy DEV5 of the draft local plan require that development protects the amenity of existing residents and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. 8.6.2 One objector has raised concerns regarding how the development may block out light from their property. In terms of ‘loss of light’ or ‘overshadowing’ this particular dwelling, ‘Hillside’ is approximately 30 metres from the site boundary. It would be in excess of 30 metres between the nearest dwelling on the site and this dwelling were this proposal approved and subsequently implemented. 8.6.3 The Council’s Housing SPD (2010) recommends that there is a separation distance of 21 metres between principal windows and 13 metres between a main elevation and a blank gable wall. Given that the separation distances, which are beyond the requirements of the Council’s Housing SPD, it is not considered that there would be a significant loss of amenity on this particular dwelling were this proposal approved. 8.6.4 The site does occupy an elevated position relative to the locality and it is accepted that there would be a period of construction that would result in some noise and disturbance whilst the proposal was implemented. However, paragraph 123 of the NPPF acknowledges this and with appropriate conditions, limiting construction hours, can help protect local amenity during such works. Such a condition is drafted in section of this report, limiting the hours of construction to protect such amenity.

Page 112 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.6.5 The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) has responded on this application. The initial response sought clarification on some points. Following further discussions between the applicant and the EHO it was agreed that internal noise levels could be achieved by the applicant in any construction, to the satisfaction of the EHO. 8.6.6 The EHO formally confirmed in February 2018 that a condition that required these noise levels be attached to any subsequent grant of planning permission. This is included in this report, drafted as Condition 29 in section 1. 8.6.7 It is noted that the EHO sought 15 year noise forecast predictions for the road traffic noise. The applicant has responded on this particular issue and confirmed that in their view, the noise climate would require a doubling of existing traffic flows to increase the noise levels by 3db. They contended that an increase of 8-10db would be required before the noise would be perceptible. Given that it was not forecast that traffic levels would achieve this level it was considered that the recommendations already incorporated in the noise report submitted were sufficient in order to protect residential amenity. The EHO has responded on this particular point and confirmed that this is acceptable in this instance as long as the proposed mitigation to ensure minimum noise levels as per draft condition 29 are taken into account regarding 15 year noise predictions. The applicant has confirmed that they will do this and therefore there are no other noise matters requiring discussion. 8.6.8 Accordingly, it is not considered that this proposal would have any significantly demonstrable harm in terms amenity of the area contrary to Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy. 8.7 Flooding and Environmental Impacts 8.7.1 Some concerns have been raised by objectors in relation to the surface water flooding the village experiences during periods of heavy rain. These concerns are noted. The Lead Local Flood Authority was consulted in relation to this planning application and they confirmed that whilst there was some additional information was required the flood risk assessment supplied in support of the proposal had shown a ‘clear understanding of the needs of a SUDs (Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme) system on both the grounds of dealing with surface water and water quality’. 8.7.2 Paragraph 103 of the NPPF indicates that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere. In such circumstances, despite the concerns raised by local residents, it is not considered reasonable, on the basis of the response received from the Lead Local Flood Authority that the application be recommended for refusal on flood risk grounds. It is therefore considered that the proposed development is unlikely to result in flood events on site or elsewhere and can be supported. Ecology 8.7.3 The application has been supported a preliminary ecological appraisal. This contains confidential information on protected species so is not publicly available. The proposal considered the potential impact on such species (badger, bats, newts and birds) along with a number of others. 8.7.4 In terms of Great Crested Newts the report considered that all known records of this particular species were 2 kilometres from the site. Furthermore, it was considered that the site had no waterbodies upon it would not be ‘ideal’ for great crested newts. A pond to the south of the site was identified by the survey but this is not within the site

Page 113 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE boundary and the survey confirmed that ‘it is considered unlikely that they would ever be present on the site as there is more suitable terrestrial habitat for the species in the vicinity of the pond. Bat records confirmed common pipistrelle and brown long-eared bats were noted all over 1 kilometre from the site. The site was considered sub-optimal for foraging and commuting bats. The hedgerow along the northern boundary of the site was considered a more suitable commuting route from roosts within the village towards the woodland areas to the east of the site. 8.7.5 During the survey completed by the consultants, two buzzards were observed flying across the site. The site itself was considered to have potential to support a small range of locally common nesting and foraging birds with woodland and garden birds likely to nest within the trees and hedgerow. 8.7.6 The site was considered unsuitable for foraging or commuting red squirrels and also sub-optimal for reptiles. It was noted that one record of a slow-worm was recorded 1.2 kilometres from the site in 1991. 8.7.7 In relation to badgers, a number of potential paths and holes were recorded but are not specifically recorded publicly to ensure protection is maintained of these animals. The report concludes by confirming further surveys would be required on how badgers utilise the site were planning permission permitted. 8.7.8 The report considered that in terms of ‘short-term impacts’ any construction on the site would result in the loss and disturbance of habitats suitable of supporting breeding birds, nocturnal species such as bats and badgers, the severance of commuting routes for hedgehogs and badgers. ‘Long-term impacts’ were considered to relate to the loss of badger and hedgehog foraging habitat and commuting routes through the removal of arable habitats. 8.7.9 The report also proposed several mitigation measures in order to limit such impacts. Such mitigation would be required as a pre-commencement condition. Such measures include the planned landscaping to promote areas for native species to utilise. 8.7.10 It is also noted that the site has existing trees on site that are subject to a tree preservation order (TPO164-G1). This specifically relates to 8 sycamore trees located on the southern boundary of the application site. The council arboricultural officer has reviewed the proposal and has requested that conditions be attached to ensure that failures are replaced and any planting is subject to a maintenance plan. These conditions are attached to this report. Furthermore, an additional condition has been added which removes permitted development rights for two plots on the proposed site plan (plots 5 & 6). This further protects these trees and ensures that any works future occupants of these specific dwellings wish to do to their property, need to liaise with the planning authority before they commence. 8.7.11 On the basis of the reports related to ecology and trees, provided by the applicant, and the comments by the arboricultural officer there are no significantly harmful impacts likely were this proposal approved and implemented. Accordingly, in regards to the ecology of the site, this proposal is supported. 8.8 Infrastructure 8.8.1 A number of concerns have been raised relating to the proposal and how it would, in their view, impact upon existing infrastructure such as the road network and drainage systems.

Page 114 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.8.2 It is agreed that there would be some increase in vehicle movements, were the proposal to be permitted. The applicant has effectively proposed three new access points onto the A6. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’. Draft Local Plan DEV3 entitled ‘Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way’ refers to Highways and says that ‘development will only be permitted if it is able to demonstrate that it would have an acceptable impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion’. 8.8.3 The Highways Authority have responded on this proposal and have confirmed that they’d have no objection to the proposal if the existing 40mph zone was extended. This was suggested to incorporate the all three proposed access points associated with this application. The Highways Authority added that ‘as the applicant wishes to proceed with the proposal to have a main site access with a further 2 access points as currently demonstrated this could be achieved by undertaking a Traffic Regulation Order to extend the 40mph speed limit for the South end of Hackthorpe village so that all access points fall within the 40mph speed limits. It is therefore considered that this is acceptable. The active frontage can further aid slowing of traffic in this area’. 8.8.4 Accordingly, it is considered to be unreasonable to refuse this application on the grounds of highways impacts. The ‘test’ as per paragraph 32 of the NPPF cannot be considered to be met in this instance given the response provided. It is also considered that the proposal is consistent with draft Policy DEV3. Therefore, in terms of highways impacts the proposal is considered acceptable.

8.8.5 It is also noted that some objectors have referred to the A6 flooding in periods of heavy rain. Certainly, these issues are of concern and accordingly both the Lead Local Flood Authority and United Utilities have been consulted with in relation to this application.

8.8.6 United Utilities have been consulted upon this application and responded. They confirmed no objection to this proposal and requested conditions associated with foul and surface water to be attached to any subsequent grant of planning permission.

8.8.7 The Lead Local Flood Authority have also considered the proposal. Initially, they requested further information. They have now confirmed that the applicant had demonstrated a ‘clear understanding of the needs of a SUDs (Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme) system on both the grounds of dealing with surface water and water quality’. However, conditions were requested to be attached to any subsequent grant of planning permission in relation to these specific issues.

8.8.8 On this basis, whilst the concerns of local residents are duly noted, it is unreasonable to refuse the application on the basis of those objections raised in relation to flooding. The information provided by the applicant and subsequently considered by both the Lead Local Flood Authority and United Utilities suggests that this proposal should not result in any significant flood risk concerns elsewhere either on or off site or exacerbate them. On that basis it is not considered reasonable to refuse the proposal on these grounds. 8.8.9 Other concerns that have been raised by objectors relate to lack of transport services in the area and that fundamentally, the proposal would be ‘unsustainable’. In terms of a lack of transport services these concerns are noted. Officers have no specific details of what existing transport services are currently available but from the information

Page 115 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE provided by objectors it appears to be a very limited bus service. It is noted that the County Council have requested a contribution from the developer to a local bus service if the proposal were approved. On that basis, the development would result in a payment that could be used in supporting a bus service between the village and the wider area. This is considered a benefit of the scheme and one that is considered in the planning balance of this proposal and is in its favour. 8.8.10 The NPPF confirms in paragraph 6 that the ‘policies in paragraphs 18 to 219, taken as a whole constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development’ actually is. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF specifically confirms that ‘housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development’. In other words, housing is to be considered sustainable in its own right. 8.8.11 On this basis then, housing development should be considered as ‘sustainable’ development as per the NPPF direction and given that there is no significant and demonstrable harm to infrastructure the proposal should be supported. Indeed, in this particular instance, the proposal would result in public transport contributions being made, an extension of the 40mph zone in the village and contributions to secondary education transport. These are planning ‘gains’ that would be realised as a consequence of this development being approved and implemented and add further weight to the benefits of it and the support it merits. 8.9 Archaeology/Historic Environment 8.9.1 It is noted that the Historic Environment Officer responded to this application and confirmed that the site had been subject of an archaeological geophysical survey and evaluation. It was further confirmed that medieval agricultural remains had been revealed and recorded. The Historic Environment officer finally confirmed that no further work was required and so therefore there was no objection to the proposal. 8.9.2 It is therefore considered that this proposal will not have any significant and demonstrable adverse impacts upon the historic environment of the area and merits support in this regard. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity

Page 116 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions. 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 It is recommended that this application be approved. Although the status of Hackthorpe is due to change as a consequence of the emerging Local Plan being adopted, this site already has an outline planning permission attached to it. Accordingly, the applicant benefits from a ‘fall-back’ position for 25 dwellings. This proposal, for 28 dwellings, therefore represents a small increase on this previously accepted number. Accordingly, this development, in these specific circumstances can be supported. 11.2 It is noted that some concerns from objectors have been raised in relation to a lack of public transport provision for the village. However, the County Council has requested that a contribution to support existing passenger transport links is made by the developer – effectively ensuring a planning ‘gain’ in that this development would result in funds being provided to support these services. 11.3 Further concerns related to the proposed highways access points have also been made – these are to contained within an extended 40mph zone as requested by the Highways Authority. The applicant will make the relevant payments for these works and the Highways Authority has confirmed that these works make the proposal acceptable in Highways terms. 11.4 In terms of affordable home contributions, it is accepted that in these specific site circumstances, and following the assessment of the applicants financial viability assessment, the standard 30% contribution required for such a level of development is not possible. However, the approximate 15% contribution that would be made were this proposal granted planning permission would result in 4 affordable units being created. Given the financial viability of the site, this level of contribution is considered acceptable in this case and merits support. 11.5 Given the fall-back position and the contribution that would be provided to support local public transport, highway safety, secondary education transport and affordable homes it is considered that these are significant planning gains that would not all be provided by the original ‘fall-back’ position that this site benefits from. Given that there are no significant or demonstrable impacts were this scheme to be implemented it is

Page 117 Agenda Item 7 REPORTS FOR DEBATE considered that this represents a significant planning gain. Therefore it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Jane Langston Assistant Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Background Papers: Planning File 17/0527

Page 118 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Date of Committee : 15 March 2018

Planning Application No: 17/0836 Date Received: 26 September 2017

OS Grid Ref: 3195 8666 Expiry Date: 9 January 2017 Parish: Brougham Ward: Kirkby Thore Application Type: Outline

Proposal: Outline permission for residential redevelopment of land and former agricultural buildings for residential development with all matters reserved.

Location: Brougham Hall Farm, Brougham

Applicant: Mr and Mrs P Harden

Agent: PFK Planning

Case Officer: Mr D Cox

Reason for Referral: Recommendation is contrary to the views of the Parish Council

Page 119 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be Refused for the following reasons:  The proposed development does not reflect or enhance the local landscape character contrary to Policy CS16 of the Core Strategy and draft policy DEV5 of the draft Local Plan (2014-2032);  The proposal would have an unacceptable and harmful impact on the character of the local landscape contrary to Policies CS18 of the Core Strategy and draft Policy DEV5 of the draft Local Plan (2014 – 2032);  The proposed development by virtue of its location and siting does not accord with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy and draft policy LS1 of the draft Local Plan (2014-2032). The adverse impacts of the proposed development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposed residential development in accordance with paragraphs 14 and 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. Proposal and Site Description 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 The proposal is for outline planning permission for residential redevelopment of previously developed land and buildings (agricultural) at Brougham Hall Farm, Brougham. The proposal is for outline planning permission at this stage, with all matters relating to site layout, design, scale and appearance of buildings and landscaping being the subject of a further reserved matters application (should planning permission be granted) at a later date. The applicant has suggested that the site could be capable of accommodating 5 detached market led dwellings, (possibly capable of “self-build” occupation by retired farmers.), however this does not form part of the application consideration detail. 2.1.2 The application site is located to the east of Brougham Hall Farmhouse, and contains a range of semi-redundant post-war (modern) agricultural buildings, some of which (along with the adjacent land) are currently used for the keeping of pigs. 2.1.3 Approval is not being sought for specific access detail, which is a reserved matter, however the submitted plan indicates the possible route for an access from the existing public highway (to the south) of the existing, approx. 2.3 acre square ring fenced application site. 2.1.3 The application is supported by a:  Planning Statement  Design & Access Statement 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 The application site, to the east of Brougham Hall Farmhouse, is located both outside and set away from the cluster of more recent (1970-80’s) detached dwellings, Brougham Avenue and Brougham Hall Gardens (largely located on the footprint of the remains of a former Second World War army and DP’s camp) and which now go to make up the elements of the nearby designated hamlet of Brougham, which, together

Page 120 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE with the intervening public highway (B6262, Eamont Bridge-A66 Rd) is located to the south-west of and significantly detached from the application site boundary. 2.2.2 The broadly square approx. 2.3 acre post and wire ring fenced site, set within a slight fold within the surrounding topography, contains a range of redundant and semi- redundant (run down) post war agricultural buildings, some of which are currently used for the keeping of pigs. 2.2.3 Although located close (to the east) of the river Lowther, it’s elevated position relative to the latter puts it outside the designated Flood-zone 2 and 3. The site is not within a conservation area and other than the Grade 1 Listed Brougham Hall and associated Church which are located approx. 500 metres to the south-west, and the Ancient monuments of Brougham Castle and site of the Roman fort approx. 500 metres to the north-east, there are no listed or protected buildings within the site. 2.2.4 The site overall is located approx. 2 miles to the south of Penrith and is set against the backdrop of and within a mix of agricultural grazing land and the occasional mixed small rough stands of trees and copses. 3. Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response

Highway/LLFA Authority No objection subject to conditions.

United Utilities No objection subject to condition.

Housing Development Following informal discussion with Planning Policy colleagues, Officer are of the opinion that the proposed development location is outside the village of Brougham. This means that, in terms of locational strategy (LS1 in the emerging Local Plan), it would be considered as ‘other rural areas’. In this case, “Development will be restricted to the re-use of traditional buildings or the provision of affordable housing as an exception to policy only”. I note that the application is for market led housing and is therefore not policy compliant (unless, of course, you consider that the proposal would be considered as the re-use of traditional buildings). To qualify as rural exceptions affordable housing, a development site must be in a location considered suitable for the development of affordable housing. In general terms this would mean close proximity (walking distance) to a range of services such as a school, shop, transport links etc.

Page 121 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response

Arboricutural Officer I have no objections to the outline application, it may well result in the loss of a few smaller trees within the footprint but in the context of the extensively wooded locality this is a minor effect. However, the access from the public highway will need to be carefully designed to avoid any adverse impact upon the mature trees alongside the road and it will be essential to provide a detailed Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan, together with a method statement for any works in close proximity to trees to be retained.

Natural England No objection subject to condition.

Historic Environment The proposed development site lies in an area of archaeological Officer potential 500m to the west of Brougham Roman fort. Remains of a Roman settlement lie outside the gates of the fort and extend towards the application site. The deserted medieval village of Brougham, which was cleared in the 17th century during the extension of Brougham Park, was located nearby. It is therefore considered that the construction of the proposed development has the potential to disturb buried archaeological assets. Consequently, I recommend that an archaeological evaluation and, where necessary, a scheme of archaeological recording of the site be undertaken in advance of development.

4. Parish Council Response Please Tick as Appropriate Parish Council Qualified No View Object No Response Support Expressed Brougham No objection subject to condition 4.1 Brougham Parish Council notes some statements in the Planning Statement, incorporating Design and Access Statement, which are key to its response. This comment applies particularly to:  Clauses 3.1 & 3.2 proposing the redevelopment of redundant barns to meet local need and suitable as retirement dwellings for local farmers.  Clause 5.2 proposing no more than five dwellings.  Clauses 5.3 & 5.6 anticipating single storey properties in keeping with surrounding residential properties. Provided these Clauses (3.1, 3.2, 5.2, 5.3 & 5.6) are made conditions of approval and are backed by legal agreement restricting occupancy of the new dwellings, Brougham Parish Council would have no objection to the application.

Page 122 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 5. Representations 5.1 The application was advertised by means of a site notice posted on the 24th November 2017, a press notice in the Herald and relevant neighbour notifications: No of Neighbours Consulted 10 No of letters of support 1 No of objection letters 3 No of neutral representations 0 5.2 Letters of objection have been received in relation to this proposal. The following summarise the key concerns, raised by neighbouring objectors;  The development would result in increased traffic on an already busy and dangerous road.  Brougham lacks suitable infrastructure and effective viable service provision found in other local villages. 5.3 Letters of support have been received in relation to this proposal. The following summarise the key elements identified;  The development would tidy up a presently scruffy and untidy site.  If approved, development could be restricted to single storey of no more than five dwellings. 6. Relevant Planning History 6.1 n/a. 7. Policy Context 7.1 Development Plan Core Strategy DPD Policy:  CS1 - Sustainable Development Principles  CS2 - Locational Strategy  CS7 - Principles for Housing  CS8 - Making Efficient Use of Land  CS16 - Principles for the Natural Environment  CS17 - Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment  CS18 - Design of New Development Supplementary Planning Documents:  Housing (2010) 7.2 Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework:  The presumption in favour of sustainable development  Core planning principles  Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes  Requiring good design

Page 123 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE  Promoting healthy communities  Conserving and enhancing the natural environment  Conserving and enhancing the historic environment National Planning Practice Guidance Emerging Eden Local Plan (2014-2032)  LS1 - Locational Strategy  LS2 - Housing Targets and Distribution  DEV1 - General Approach to New Development  DEV2 - Water Management and Flood Risk  DEV3 - Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way  DEV5 - Design of New Development  EN5 – Environmentally Sustainable Design  ENV10 – The Historic Environment 7.2.1 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application. Due to the stage of adoption of the emerging Local Plan, significant weight is afforded to the above policies in the determination of this current planning application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues  Principle  Landscape and Visual Impact  Housing Density  Housing Need  Affordable Housing Contribution  Flooding and Environmental Impacts  Infrastructure  Other matters 8.2 Principle 8.2.1 In terms of the principle of housing development, consideration is given to the development plan. This consists of both the ‘saved’ policies of the Local Plan (adopted in 1996) and the District’s Core Strategy (2010). In addition, there is a Housing Supplementary Planning document which assists in the determination process. Housing policy within the district as prescribed within these documents that comprise the development ‘plan’. 8.2.2 The current Core Strategy Policies (CS1, CS2 and CS7) seeks to direct much of proposed development to locations which are considered ‘Key and Local Service centres’ because they are where local facilities and infrastructure are provided. In turn,

Page 124 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE it is considered such locations are ‘sustainable’. Brougham was not designated as a ‘Local Service Centre’ under the old Core Strategy. In specific relation to Local Service Centres, (there being no “boundaries” identified to such settlements) development, such as housing is supported where it is of ‘appropriate’ scale to support and sustain local businesses, services and to meet local need. 8.2.3 In this instance, the application site is located outside of Brougham which was already been confirmed was not a designated Local Service Centre under the previous Core Strategy. Under the emerging Local Plan, the small settlement of Brougham is however designated as a ‘Smaller Village/Hamlet’ and is considered as a suitable location for development of an appropriate scale, “infill” and “rounding off” and where a local need has been identified. Smaller Villages and Hamlets are also considered appropriate for development in specific circumstances, which for this type of location would be an identified local need. Paragraph 49 states “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.” 8.2.4 However it is considered that the application site is neither “infill” or a “rounding off” and is not considered to be located “within” the settlement of Brougham. The proposal site is an island of developed agricultural land, surrounded by further undeveloped agricultural land, located to the north of the B6262 classified road. This defensible boundary (highway) effectively separates the site from the hamlet (considered to be the adjacent and immediate environs) of Brougham Avenue and Brougham Hall Gardens, with the proposed development on a site outside of that settlement, as defined by the existence of the B6262 as a strong and defensible boundary. Any development that would spill further to the north and east, and across that highway being effectively beyond and further into open countryside. 8.2.5 The extant Core Strategy identifies such locations (as per Policy CS2) that development in ‘open countryside’ should be limited to meeting an identified need. 8.2.6 The emerging Local Plan confirms that such locations are to be ‘restricted to re-use of traditional buildings or affordable housing as an exception to policy only. Some market housing may be acceptable if it facilitates the provision of a significant amount of affordable housing. To qualify as rural exceptions housing the site must be in a location considered suitable for the development of affordable housing. Evidence will need to be given as to why the scheme’s benefits to the locality are such that it justifies an exception policy’. 8.2.7 As confirmed, the proposed development location is considered outside the hamlet of Brougham. This means that, in terms of locational strategy (LS1 in the emerging Local Plan), it would be considered as ‘other rural areas’. In this case, “Development will be restricted to the re-use of traditional buildings or the provision of affordable housing as an exception to policy only”. I note that the application is for market led housing and is therefore not policy compliant (unless, of course, you consider that the proposal would be considered as the re-use of traditional buildings). To qualify as rural exceptions affordable housing, a development site must be in a location considered suitable for the development of affordable housing. In general terms this would mean close proximity (walking distance) to a range of services such as a school, shop, transport links etc. The application does not propose re-use of traditional buildings, and although now designated as a smaller village and hamlet the settlement of Brougham is not over-endowed with such a range of services.

Page 125 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.2.7 At present Eden District Council is unable to demonstrate a five year land supply (it currently is only able to demonstrate a 3.35 year supply). In such circumstances policies related to housing are to be considered out-of-date and planning authorities are required to take account of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF notes within paragraph 14 that “where the development plan is out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless…the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF...or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted”. 8.2.8 Effectively, paragraph 14 states that where policies are considered out-of-date planning permission should be granted unless there are adverse impacts. Such impacts would need to be considered significantly harmful and would demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal. 8.2.9 Recently a Supreme Court judgement (Case ID UKSC 2016/0078) in Suffolk Coastal District Council (Appellant) v Hopkins Homes Ltd and anor (Respondents) Richborough Estate Partnerships LLP and anor (Respondents) v Cheshire East Borough Council (Appellant) [2017] UKSC 37 also provides further qualification on how significant the lack of a demonstrable five year housing land supply actually is. Fundamentally, the judgement reaffirms that where such a supply is not demonstrable, paragraph 49 of the NPPF is a key material consideration in that all relevant housing policies detailed in the development plan are to be considered out-of-date. In turn, the determination of such applications given that circumstance in Eden means that paragraph 14 is a key factor to consider in the determination process. Ultimately, unless significant and demonstrable harm can be demonstrated to outweigh the benefits of the proposal, the development should be granted planning permission ‘without delay’. 8.2.10 However, it is equally important to note that whilst the lack of a five year housing supply is a significant consideration in relation to this application, at a planning appeal in Allerdale (APP/G098/A/13/2193690), the Inspector noted that the lack of a five year housing supply is a temporary circumstance and as a short term problem it must be weighed against the permanent harm caused to the character of an area and the conditions of nearby residents. This is significant as the Council will be able to demonstrate approximately a 6.5 year land supply once the emerging local plan has been adopted and the emerging local plan is now at an advanced stage. 8.2.11 Furthermore, in accordance with paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework the emerging Local Plan has gained weight as it has progressed. That weight has increased since the completion of the major modification consultation period on the 21st August 2017 and consequently, the plan is now at a more advanced stage. It is noted that a further consultation exercise was undertaken in December 2017 which will be complete by the 22 January 2017. This relates to very specific issues, which are, the Town Plans for both Alston and Kirkby Stephen, Policy DEV3 entitled ‘Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way, HS2 entitled ‘Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets’ and ENV10 entitled ‘The Historic Environment’. On reviewing the consultation responses on the major modifications process there were no unresolved matters related to the proposal for Penrith, the three towns and the 13 key hubs providing for the majority of Eden’s supply of housing. 8.2.12 In effect whilst this leaves the District with a continuing lack of a five year land supply at the time of writing this report (9 January 2018) it is acknowledged that if further housing numbers are required, these would be directed in the locations established under draft

Page 126 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Policy LS1 in terms of locational strategy – effectively, the key hubs and Penrith rather than locations designated as ‘villages or hamlets’ or indeed ‘local service centres’. 8.2.13 The emerging Local Plan still considers ‘villages and hamlets’ as suitable for development of appropriate scale and for meeting an identified need. Given that this site is considered to not be within the settlement of Brougham, under either the existing or emerging Local Plan, the site is not considered suitable for such a development proposal. 8.2.14 The proposed outline application (effectively) for market-led residential dwellings, in a location such as this, in countryside, near to Brougham is therefore considered to conflict with both the existing Core Strategy and emerging Local Plan. This is because under the emerging Local Plan the proposal is not for an established need. 8.2.15 It is acknowledged that Paragraph 14 remains a significant material consideration in relation to this proposal. At this present time, whilst Officers acknowledge this, the emerging Local Plan is now considered at such an advanced stage that ‘significant’ weight can be afforded draft Policy LS1. It is acknowledged that the emerging plan remains un-adopted and it cannot be afforded ‘full weight’ but the Inspector overseeing the plan process is of the view that the five year housing land supply has been addressed. Given the previous inspectors appeal comments related to APP/G098/A/13/2193690, that the lack of a five year housing land supply is a temporary circumstance, it is considered on balance, given the advanced nature of the emerging local plan that appropriate weight must be given to it as per paragraph 216 of the NPPF. 8.2.16 Nevertheless, the paragraph 14 direction regarding the lack of a five year housing land supply is understood in that housing policies that comprise the existing local plan must be considered ‘out-of-date’. 8.2.17 In that regard, the paragraph 14 test is still relevant to this application – does the development represent ‘significant and demonstrable harm’ that outweighs the benefit of the proposal. The benefit of the proposal is housing in a District that remains only “Technically” unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply. However, it would be erroneous to not consider the Inspectors opinion on the emerging local plan – that the proposed locational strategy is sound and that any increase in housing numbers would not result in sites such as this being designated for housing. 8.2.18 This site is considered to represent open countryside and as such, would not represent a suitable location for housing. It is not accepted that this development is located within, or as a rounding off of the village boundary (as readily and reasonably defined in this locality by the presence of the B6262 road) and would therefore be beyond “a defensible boundary”, in the open countryside, and for which no overriding justification otherwise is supplied. 8.2.19 Therefore, for the reasons detailed above it is considered that the principle of the proposed development does not accord with the Development Plan and the emerging Local Plan and therefore the principle of development contributes significant and demonstrable harm that outweighs the benefit of residential development on this site. 8.3 Landscape and Visual Impact 8.3.1 A significant consideration in the determination of this outline planning application is the extent of the impact of the proposed development upon both the character of the

Page 127 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE area and local landscape. In this instance, the proposal site is considered to be open countryside near to the settlement of Brougham. 8.3.2 Policy CS16 of the Core Strategy and Draft Policy DEV5 of the emerging local plan both require development to demonstrate a clear understanding of the form and character of the districts built and natural environment. Draft Policy DEV5 states that the council will support proposals that ‘protects and where possible enhances the district’s distinctive rural landscape’. 8.3.3 Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy requires “inter alia” that development demonstrates that it shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the District’s built environment , complementing and enhancing the existing area and an understanding of the District’s ‘distinctive rural landscape’. The policy also requires that development protects and where possible enhances the District’s distinctive rural landscape, natural environment and biodiversity. Whilst it is accepted that the development could be highly likely to achieve dwellings that had a design that was ‘reflective’ of the district, even possibly single storey (Parish and neighbour suggestion), locating housing on this particular site would be inappropriate as it is open countryside and it is clear that in both the existing and emerging local plans, the open countryside is not considered appropriate for proposals such as this. 8.3.4 It would conflict with Policy CS18 and draft Policy DEV5 as rather than enhance the District’s distinctive rural landscape, it would significantly harm it. The proposal, would, result in a residential development that would be located in the open countryside, effectively the opposite of the intent of Policy CS18 and draft Policy DEV5. It is not considered reasonable to conclude that a proposal such as this, in an open countryside location, could ‘protect or where possible enhance’ such a rural landscape. The ‘open’ countryside, is by definition, ‘open’ and it is not considered that a residential development could preserve or enhance this ‘openness’. Indeed, it is considered that it would be significantly harmful to the open countryside and in this instance, should not be permitted. 8.3.5 Draft Policy ENV2 entitled ‘Protection and Enhancement of Landscapes and Trees’ confirms that ‘new development will only be permitted where it conserves and enhances distinctive elements of landscape character and function’. It also confirms that as per criterion 5, the ‘tranquillity of the open countryside’ should be taken account of by any proposals submitted by an applicant. 8.3.6 As has been confirmed, Officers considered that there would be an undoubted change in visual appearance were this land to be subject to the implementation of a residential development. Given it is considered to be outside of the settlement boundary and effectively in open countryside, a development, even of this scale is considered to have potential for significant landscape impact. Whilst not afforded any specific landscape designation, the proposal, even in removing dated and unsightly existing structures, would overall disrupt the natural landscape character the policies referred to are seeking to protect. 8.3.7 Under these circumstances and given the scale of the proposed development (which in itself is considered inappropriate for such a location) the proposal gives rise to significant landscape impact concerns. The adverse impacts of the scheme are considered to relate to a residential development, in an open countryside location, that fails to protect or enhance the district’s rural landscape character. This concern is therefore considered to represent ‘significant and demonstrable’ harm that is not

Page 128 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. Accordingly, the ‘planning balance’ is not considered to have been achieved and in terms of landscape harm, the proposal should be refused. 8.4 Housing Need 8.4.1 In terms of housing need, it is noted that District wide there is a housing need of circa 242 houses per year. In particular, there is a need for affordable housing within the District. In line with Eden District Council’s adopted Council Plan (2015) a key corporate priority is providing access to good quality housing that reflect local need and supports both employment and thriving communities. 8.4.2 Therefore, it is accepted that a housing need does exist within the District (which is also a National need) which is necessary to deliver and through which a proposal such as this could contribute to. However it must be noted that the application (despite applicant reference to possible provision of retirement homes for farmers) is effectively however for market led housing and is therefore not Policy compliant. 8.5 Affordable Housing Contribution 8.5.1 In outline with all remaining matters reserved, the application is therefore in effect for market led housing. To qualify as rural exceptions affordable housing, a development site must be both justified as such and in a location considered suitable for the development of affordable housing. The redevelopment of the site, (and possible re- use of the existing substandard and semi-derelict modern agricultural buildings there through conversion is neither sought nor meaningfully practicable in terms of affordable housing provision) is not considered appropriate for housing (even of this nature) to be located on this specific site, and is therefore not policy compliant in this aspect. 8.7 Amenity Impacts 8.7.1 As has been referred to in in this report already (see section 8.3 entitled ‘Landscape and Visual Impact’ Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy and draft policy DEV5 of the draft Local Plan require) that development protects the amenity of existing residents and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers. 8.7.2 It is accepted that as an outline proposal we do not have specific design detail to consider. These details would need to be finalised at a reserved matters stage but there is no evidence before Officers to suggest that this aspect could not be achieved on this site. 8.7.3 So in specific relation to local amenity issues, this aspect of the proposal should not have any significant impacts from this particular perspective. 8.8 Flooding and Environmental Impacts 8.8.1 The application site, though close by, is significantly set up from and above the nearby river Lowther (to the north). Both Natural England and the Lead Local Flood Authority (CCC) have confirmed that they have no objection to a residential development of this nature, subject to appropriate condition and mitigation measures. 8.8.2 Accordingly, it is considered that a development of this nature in principle could proceed, subject to such relevant condition compliance, without undue or significant harm relative to flood risk and is unlikely to result in flood events on site or elsewhere and can be supported. Ecology

Page 129 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.8.3 Natural England have responded on this application and confirmed that they have no objection to the proposal on the basis that suitable mitigation is secured by condition, if the proposal were approved. Consequently the application can be considered acceptable in terms of potential ecological impacts. Therefore, in relation to ecology, the proposal can be supported. 8.9 Infrastructure 8.9.1 A number of concerns have been raised relating to the proposal and how it would, in their view, impact upon existing infrastructure such as the road network. 8.9.2 As has been established in the previous section of this report, Section 3, The Highway Authority have been consulted on this application and they have responded, confirming no objection to the proposal but with a requirement for conditions to be attached. 8.9.3 On this basis, whilst the concerns of local residents are duly noted, it is unreasonable to refuse the application on the basis of those objections raised in relation to vehicle movements and highway safety. 8.9.4 Other concerns that have been raised by objectors relate to lack of transport services in the area as well as a general lack of services. In terms of lack of transport services these concerns are noted. However, whilst there is a limited public transport service, this in itself, is not significant enough reasons to consider this application for refusal. Nor is the lack of services in the nearby hamlet. 8.9.5 Paragraph 49 of the NPPF specifically confirms that ‘housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development’. It further adds weight to the lack of a five year housing land supply and how housing policies should be considered out-of-date in that context. However, as has been discussed earlier in this report, the situation in relation to Eden is more complex due to the status of the emerging local plan and consideration of paragraph 216 of the NPPF. 8.9.6 On this basis then, housing development should be considered as ‘sustainable’ development as per the NPPF direction. Accordingly, it is considered that the notion that this proposal would represent ‘unsustainable’ development is not consistent with this guidance. 8.9.7 It is therefore concluded that the information provided by the Highways Authority confirm that there would be no significant highways impacts were this proposal be implemented were the recommendations of the Highways Authority be implemented. 8.10 Archaeology/Historic Environment 8.10.1 The proposed development site lies in an area of archaeological potential 500m to the west of Brougham Roman fort. Remains of a Roman settlement lie outside the gates of the fort and extend towards the application site. The deserted medieval village of Brougham, which was cleared in the 17th century during the extension of Brougham Park, was located nearby. It is therefore considered that the construction of the proposed development has the potential to disturb buried archaeological assets. 8.10.2 Consequently, the County Historic Environment Officer (CCC) has recommended that an archaeological evaluation and, where necessary, a scheme of archaeological recording of the site be undertaken in advance of development. He advises that this work should be commissioned and undertaken at the expense of the developer and can be secured through the inclusion of a condition in any planning consent that may be granted.

Page 130 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 8.10.3 Policy CS17 of the Eden District Core Strategy confirms the principles for the built environment should seek to ‘conserve and enhance buildings, landscapes and areas of cultural, historic or archaeological interest’. 8.10.4 Paragraph 133 states that ‘where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss’. 8.10.5 Paragraph 134 states that ‘where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal’. 8.10.6 In this instance given the views provided by the County Council’s Historic Environment Officer this proposal would not have a significantly harmful impact on the Historic Environment, were it implemented, as long as an appropriate condition were attached to any subsequent approval. 9. New Homes Bonus 9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development. 10. Implications 10.1 Legal Implications 10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. 10.2 Equality and Diversity 10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010. 10.3 Environment 10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 10.4 Crime and Disorder 10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions. 10.5 Children 10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions.

Page 131 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE 10.6 Human Rights 10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. 11. Conclusion 11.1 This application is considered to be proposed on a site that is beyond the limits of the settlement/hamlet of Brougham. Accordingly, it would represent a development of significant and unjustified scale in an open countryside location. The development is not considered to either enhance or protect the District’s distinctive rural landscape and would be contrary to Policies CS16, and CS18 of the Core Strategy and draft Policies DEV2 and ENV5 of the emerging Local Plan. The emerging local plan is now considered to be at an advanced stage and as per paragraph 216 of the NPPF it is to be afforded appropriate weight (significant weight) in the determination of this application. 11.2 The applicant considers that the proposal should be determined in accordance with the directions of the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 49 and 14). The applicant is correct that the Council remains unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply. However, as has been established this has been considered to be a ‘temporary’ and at this advance stage a “technical” circumstance as it was in relation to appeal APP/G098/A/13/2193690. The views of the applicant are understood but it would be bordering on perverse to ignore the accepted locational strategy of the emerging draft Local Plan given the Inspectors views and those Penrith, the three towns and the 13 key hubs providing for the majority of Eden’s supply of housing. 11.3 In other words, the locational strategy is confirmed and even if further housing were required, it would not be directed to these locations, outside and/or poorly related to villages or hamlets or such isolated and sensitive sites in the open countryside. 11.4 Were this not the circumstance, in consideration of the paragraph 14 ‘test’ regarding whether the proposal would result in a ‘significantly and demonstrably’ harmful development, in this case it is considered that it would represent such a significantly harmful change. It would simply be inappropriate for a development to be implemented in such a location regardless of scale, beyond the boundary of a settlement in the open countryside. It would remain inconsistent with Policies CS16 and CS18 of the Core Strategy and therefore represent both ‘significant’ and ‘demonstrable’ harm contrary to the aims of the aforementioned policies. Particularly in that it would not protect nor enhance the Districts ‘distinctive rural landscape’. 11.5 The possible benefits of the scheme are noted, but this is not considered sufficient to outweigh this landscape harm and accordingly the proposal is not supported. 11.6 It is therefore concluded that the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposed residential development in accordance with paragraphs 14 and 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the application should be refused.

Jane Langston Assistant Director Technical Services

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer 

Page 132 Agenda Item 8 REPORTS FOR DEBATE Background Papers: Planning File 17/0836

Page 133 This page is intentionally left blank