Development Panel Will Meet on Tuesday 8 January 2013 at 1.00 Pm in the Wave - Maryport

21 December 2012

Development Panel Will meet on Tuesday 8 January 2013 at 1.00 pm in The Wave - Maryport

Membership:

Councillor Peter Bales (Chairman)

Councillor John (Binky) Armstrong Councillor Carole Armstrong Councillor Bill Bacon Councillor Nicky Cockburn Councillor John Crouch Councillor Len Davies Councillor Bill Finlay Councillor Chris Garrard Councillor Joe Holliday Councillor Margaret Jackson Councillor William Jefferson Councillor Peter Kendall Councillor Jim Lister Councillor Billy Miskelly Councillor Ron Munby Councillor Margaret Snaith Councillor Sam Standage Councillor Martin Wood Councillor Joan Wright

Members of the public are welcome to attend the meeting. If you ha ve any questions or queries simply contact Paula McKenzie on 01900 702557.

The following Site Visits will take place:

2/2012/0683 and 2/2012/0770 – Strand House, 5 Strand Street, Maryport .

Members of the Development Panel will leave from The Wave Centre, Maryport following the mornings training session.

Lunch will be provided at The Wave Centre, Maryport for Members of the Panel.

Agenda

1. Minutes (Pages 1 - 20)

To sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 11 December 2012.

2. Apologies for absence

3. Declaration of Interest

Councillors/Staff to give notice of any disclosable pecuniary interest, other registrable interest or any other interest and the nature of that interest relating to any item on the agenda in accordance with the adopted Code of Conduct.

4. Questions

To answer questions from members of the public – 2 days notice of which must have been given in writing or by electronic mail.

5. Development Panel - 2/2012/0683 - Householder alterations - Strand House, 5 Strand Street, Maryport (Pages 21 - 28)

6. Develop ment Panel - 2/2012/0770 - Listed building consent for alterations to domestic dwelling - Strand House, 5 Strand Street, Maryport (Pages 29 - 34)

7. Development Panel - 2/2012/0759 - Outline for erection of 3 dwellings - Land Adjacent to Hillside, Plumbland, Aspatria (Pages 35 - 46)

8. Development Panel - 2/2012/0810 - Change of use from laundrette to pizza/burger take-away - 79 Harrington Road, Workington (Pages 47 - 56)

9. Development Panel - 2/2012/0601 - Erecti on of 3 bed dwelling - Land to rear of Hollybank House, Gilcrux (Pages 57 - 66)

10. Development Panel - 2/2012/0740 - Outline for residential development - Land at Brough Hill, Bolton Low Houses (Pages 67 - 80)

11. Development Panel - 2/2012/0823 - Erection of raised patio, external staircase and boundary wall - 52 High Street, Maryport (Pages 81 - 88)

12. Development Panel - 2/2012/0876 - Outline for dwellings - Land at Newton Arlosh (Pages 89 - 98)

13. Development Panel - 2/2012/0789 - Change of use of land to provide community garden area - Site at Garth Road, Westfield, Workington (Pages 99 - 108)

14. Development Panel - 2/2012/0817 - Domestic Extension - South Maia, Anthorn (Pages 109 - 114)

15. Development Panel - 2/2012/0859 - Extension to porch - 1 St Kentigerns Way, Aspatria (Pages 115 - 118)

Chief Executive

Date of next meeting Tuesday 12 February 2013 at 1.00 pm The Wave - Maryport

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 1

At a meeting of the Development Panel held in The Wave - Maryport on Tuesday 11 December 2012 at 1.00 pm

Members

P Bales (Chairman)

J Armstrong J Holliday N Cockburn J Lister J Crouch B Miskelly L Davies S Standage B Finlay M G Wood C Garrard

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors C M Armstrong, B Bacon, C M Jackson, W H Jefferson, R Munby, M A Snaith and J Wright.

Staff Present

A Dennett, K Kerrigan, S Long and P McKenzie.

419 Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 13 November 2012 were signed as a correct record.

420 Declaration of Interest

5. Development Panel - 2-2012-0660 - Residential development for 24 affordable dwellings and 10 open market dwellings - Land at Ellerbeck Brow, Brigham. Councillor Nicky Cockburn; Other Registrable Interest; 2/2012/0660 - Due to being the Ward Councillor.

7. Development Panel - 2-2012-0738 - Extract Duct - 35 Station Street, Cockermouth. Councillors Len Davies and Sam Standage; Other Registrable Interests; 2/2012/0738 - Due to being members of Cockermouth Town Council.

8. Development Panel - 2-2012-0768 - Outline application for detached bungalow - Sundown, Crosby. Councillor Peter Kendall; Disclosable Pecuniary Interest; 2/2012/0768 - Due to being a friend of the applicant.

9. Development Panel - 2-2012-0753 - Wind Turbine - Firs Farm, Crookdake. Councillor Bill Finlay; Other Registrable Interest; 2/2012/0753 - Due to being the Ward Councillor.

10. Development Panel - 2-2012-0631 - Outline for residential development - Rear of 51A & 53 Stainburn Road, Workington.

Page 1 Councillors Peter Bales and Billy Miskelly; Other Registrable Interests; 2/2012/0631 - Due to being members of Workington Town Council.

12. Development Panel - 2-2012-0683 - Replace roof & incorporate 3 dormer windows and replacement of all windows and door, and erection of garage - Strand House, 5 Strand Street, Maryport. Councillors Peter Kendall and Martin Wood; Other Registrable Interests; 2/2012/0683 - Due to being members of Maryport Town Council.

13. Development Panel - 2-2012-0770 - Listed Building Consent for removal of wall and garage and rebuild - Stand House, 5 Stand Street, Maryport. Councillors Peter Kendall and Martin Wood; Other Registrable Interests; 2/2012/0770 - Due to being members of Maryport Town Council.

14. Development Panel - 2-2012-0703 - Erection of garage - Whiteacre, Church Road, Flimby. Councillors Peter Kendall and Martin Wood; Other Registrable Interests; 2/2012/0703 - Due to being members of Maryport Town Council.

421 Questions

The following question was received from Pamela Watson:

1. How can it be justified to consider the application for Ellerbeck Brow when:-

• There are at least 5 official complaints about Allerdale’s process, which have not been responded to.

• The housing supply document has been held back from October until December 12th to publish.

• A freedom of information act was requested on the splay and has not been responded to by the Highways Authority.

These are crucial material planning considerations and they are not ready for today.

The Head of Development Services responded as follows:

‘All official complaints received have, or will be, responded to in line with the Council's complaints procedure.

In relation to the issue of housing land supply the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires Local Planning Authorities to: “Identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements”. It has always been our intention to publish this information alongside our Annual Monitoring Report which is to be published by the end of the calendar year. If the impression has been given that it was intended to publish this information by 12 December then I apologise as this was simply a date officers were working to in relation to the preparation of a draft document. The process of monitoring housing land

Page 2 availability is an ongoing one and planning officers have access to this information and are aware of the current position when considering planning applications. I am however aware of the high level of current interest in relation to the housing land supply so have taken the decision to publish details of this in advance of the publication of the Annual Monitoring Report. This was published yesterday.

I cannot comment on any requests made to the Highway Authority. The Highway Authority has however provided a formal consultation response to the application and it is appropriate for the Local Planning Authority to having regard to this in determining the application.

I am satisfied the Council has sufficient information to enable planning officers to fully assess the proposed development and for the Development Panel to make an informed decision on the application proposals’.

422 Site Visits

The following Councillors were present at the site inspections, planning references 2/2012/0670, 18 Braeside, Seaton, 2/2012/0631, Land rear of 51a and 53 Stainburn Road, Workington and 2/2012/0660, Land to the west of Ellerbeck Brow, Brigham.

J Armstrong, P Bales, N Cockburn, L Davies, C Garrard, J Holliday, P Kendall, B Miskelly and S Standage.

423 Public participation

The following objectors/applicants addressed the Panel.

W Patterson, M Greaves and N Cockton outlined their objections to application 2/2012/0660. The agent B Barden exercised his right of reply.

R Wolfe, V Hewitson, D Williams, J. K. Rylands and Councillor P Roberts outlined their objections to application 2/2012/0315. The agent D Staniland exercised his right of reply.

Councillor D Mossom and Councillor J Colhoun outlined their objections to application 2/2012/0768. The agent Peter Kendall exercised his right of reply.

M Fitzgerald, J. A. Keighley, A Brown, Councillor P Roberts and Councillor L Douglas outlined their objections to application 2/2012/0753. The agent Richard Horton exercised his right of reply.

V Graham outlined her objections to application 2/2012/0670. The agent T Hayton did not exercise his right of reply.

424 Development Panel - 2-2012-0660 - Residential development for 24 affordable dwellings and 10 open market dwellings - Land at Ellerbeck Brow, Brigham

Councillor J Holliday left the meeting and did not vote.

Page 3

The application: Residential development for 24 affordable dwellings and 10 open market dwellings including associated infrastructure, Land to East of Ellerbeck Brow, Brigham, Cockermouth.

The Principal Planning Officer recommended Approval subject to conditions and a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history - SCR/2012/0022 - A screening opinion determined that the proposal for residential development was not EIA development 16th May 2012.

1987/0885 - Outline application for residential development of approximately 25 units. Refused.

This refusal decision was subsequently appealed and the appeal was dismissed. The appeal decision was summarised as follows:

• The first issue related to whether the District had an adequate 5 year land supply at the time. The Inspector concluded that based on the information provided by the parties, there was an adequate supply.

• If Brigham was to be considered as a satisfactory overspill to from Cockermouth, this should be considered through the public participation process of the Allerdale Local Plan.

• Emerging South Allerdale District Plan states that further large scale development in the village was not considered acceptable. The Plan designates the Derwent Valley as a “visually sensitive area” with a presumption against developments which are likely to be detrimental to the intrinsic quality of the local landscape.

• Special arrangements would have to be made to deal with effluent

• In the Inspector’s view, the size of the project was not in keeping with the existing character of the settlement and it would not enhance the village form since it would extend development into the attractive open countryside beyond the confines of the existing village.

• In the Inspector’s view, the proposal would have a serious adverse impact on the landscape. The site was prominent when viewed from the approach from the Cockermouth to Brigham road. Whilst it would not be so prominent from the north, it would be seriously detrimental to the relationship between the landscape and the edge of the village.

• Class 3 agricultural land that should not be developed except in compelling circumstances.

• Whilst the development was in outline, the Inspector had reservations as to how the proposed development could satisfactorily relate to the traditional buildings fronting Ellerbeck Brow. Page 4

• Concludes that the proposal would be contrary to the Council’s settlement policy for Brigham and that the proposal would be unacceptably detrimental to the character and landscape of the village.

• If the dwarf wall and hedge to no. 2 High Brigham were removed, it would be possible to achieve a satisfactory standard of visibility to the Cumbria County Highways standards.

• In the Inspector’s opinion, a scheme based on only one access from Ellerbeck Brow would not be very satisfactory since the length of the cul- de sac leading to the northern end of the site would be some 220-230m. However, this point had not been raised by the Council.

1977/0732 - Outline application for residential development. Refused. The application was refused by the Local Planning Authority because the application was considered to be:

1. Contrary to the Interim Housing Policy in place at the time, which only allowed for infill housing development.

2. Premature in relation to the formulation of a settlement hierarchy.

The Principal Planning Officers detailed the main issues in the report.

Members were advised of 1 letter of support, 158 letters of objection and a petition with 34 signatures which object to the proposal based on the increase in traffic to the village.

Members were informed of a further 52 letters of objection and the reasons for the objections and an update on the outstanding issue regarding the drainage proposal that appeared on the late list.

Members were informed that the proposed development was outside the settlement limits and had been advertised as such.

Councillor B Finlay moved refusal. This was seconded by Councillor J Lister.

A vote was taken, 12 in favour of refusal, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

The motion in favour of refusal was carried.

Members gave officers delegated powers to allow the correct wording for their reasons for refusal.

The decision: Refused.

Reasons: 1. The local planning authority considered the proposed development would increase traffic and pedestrian movements within the villages central highway network which lack satisfactory paveway facilities,

Page 5 thus increasing pedestrian and vehicular conflict to the detriment of highway safety.

2. The Local planning authority considered the proposal would constitute prominent, non essential and unsustainable housing development outside the designated settlement limits, extending into an attractive area of open countryside to the detriment of the visual amenity and landscape quality of the site and its surroundings contrary to Policy HS4 of the First Alterations to the Allerdale Local Plan (saved) and Policy EN25 and Policy EN19 of the Allerdale Local Plan (saved).

3. The Local Planning authority considered the proposal, by virtue of its site, layout, design, scale of development and lack of permeability is not sympathetic and poorly related with the built form, layout and village character and distinctiveness of Brigham. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy HS8 of the First alterations to the Allerdale Local Plan (saved).

4. The proposed development would result in the detrimental and permanent loss of a section of a hedgerow which presently acts as an important wildlife corridor for the movement of red squirrels through the site. The loss of this section of hedgerow would therefore have an adverse impact on an animal species protected by law contrary to Policy EN32 of the Allerdale Local plan (saved).

5. Insufficient evidence had been submitted within the application to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in the detrimental loss of the Grade 3a agricultural land (Agricultural land classification) contrary to policy EN17 of the Allerdale local plan (saved)

6. The Local planning authority considered the proposed single estate junction and it associated modifications onto Ellerbeck Brow lacks satisfactory visibility splays and adversely affects the access driveways of other properties in the locality of the site to the detriment of highway safety contrary to Policy HS9 of the First alterations to the Allerdale Local plan (saved).

425 Development Panel - 2-2012-0315 - Wind Turbine - Land at Goose Green Farm, Crookdake, Aspatria

The application: Erection of a 67m single wind turbine, Land to the west of Goose Green Farm, Crookdake, Aspatria , Wigton.

The Head of Development Services recommended approval.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history - 2/2012/0123 - Temporary siting of 50m meteorological mast. Approved.

Page 6 SCR/2011/0045 - Screening opinion request for a proposed wind turbine. Not EIA development.

The Head of Development Services detailed the main issues in the report.

Members were advised of 1 letter of objection from FORCE, 2 objection letters from Westnewton Action Group and 15 further letters of objection.

Members were informed of a further 14 letters of objection that appeared on the late list.

Councillor J Armstrong moved refusal. This was seconded by Councillor J Lister.

Councillor M Wood moved approval. This was not seconded therefore the motion was lost.

A vote was taken, 10 in favour of refusal, 2 against and 0 abstentions.

The motion in favour of refusal was carried.

The decision: Refused.

Reasons: 1. The Local planning authority considered that the proposed turbine , by virtue of its site, size and design, in association with the other existing/approved/pending applications for turbines at Prospect house(High Scales), Brayton park, Langrigg Hall (Langrigg), Crossrigg Farm(Westnewton), Stubsgill farm (Yearngill), Stones farm (Abbeytown), Firs farm (Crookdake) and High Aketon(Wigton) would have a detrimental sequential cumulative impact on the visual amenity of its location and the surrounding landscape within the open countryside contrary to Policy EN19 and EN25 of the Allerdale Local plan(saved) and policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District joint structure plan.

426 Development Panel - 2-2012-0738 - Extract Duct - 35 Station Street, Cockermouth

Councillor J Crouch left the meeting for the following applications.

The application: Retrospective consent to install extract duct to rear elevation, 35 Station Street, Cockermouth.

The Principal Planning Officer recommended approval.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history - 2/2011/0830 - Change of use of ground floor to hot food takeaway & installation of extract duct to rear elevation. Approved subject to conditions.

Page 7 COM/2012/0031 - Non Compliance with conditions 5 +6 of planning approval 2/2011/0830. ENF/2012/0007 - Non Compliance with conditions 5 +6 of planning approval 2/2011/0830. CON1/2011/0830 - Non Compliance with conditions 4, 5,6,7,8 and 9 of planning approval 2/2011/0830.

The Principal Planning Officers detailed the main issues in the report.

Members were advised of 3 letters of objection.

Councillor S Standage moved approval. This was seconded by Councillor B Miskelly.

A vote was taken, 7 in favour of approval, 3 against and 3 abstentions.

The motion in favour of approval was carried.

The decision: Approved.

Conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be solely in accordance with the following plans: NC/KT/12/01 - Location Plan, Block Plan, Elevation and Floor Plans Amended (26/11/2012). Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 and Section 91 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Any noise emanating from the flue not shall exceed Noise Rating (NR) 40 when measured at 1m from the rear façade of the nearest noise sensitive use 37 Station Street, Cockermouth'. Reason: To protect nearby residential amenity in accordance with Policies EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

3. The flue hereby approved shall at all times include carbon filters to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority to reduce any neighbouring odour disturbance for the lifetime of the flue. Reason: To protect nearby residential amenity in accordance with Policies EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

Reasons for approval: The decision to grant planning permission had been taken having regard to the Local Development Plan, the NPPF and any comments from consultees (including statutory consultees) and any responses from third parties. The decision was taken having regard to relevant planning policy and it was considered that the proposal was acceptable having regard to the national and local plan policies, and when taking all other material planning considerations into account. It was considered that the harm caused to the conservation area was outweighed by the flue being in accordance with Environmental Health’s noise conditions.

Local Plan Policies:

Page 8 Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO2 - Design of alterations in Conservation Areas Policy EN6 – Location of potentially polluting development, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999.

Proactive Statement: The Local planning Authority acted positively and proactively in determining the application and averting the potentially necessity and expediency for pursuit of enforcement proceedings. The proposal was assessed against all other the all material planning policies and representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

427 Development Panel - 2-2012-0768 - Outline application for detached bungalow - Sundown, Crosby

Councillor P Kendall declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest and left the meeting for the following application.

The application: Outline application for erection of a detached bungalow, Sundown, Crosby, Maryport.

The Principal Planning Officer recommended refusal.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history - 2/2004/1630 - Erection of bungalow, Sundown, Crosby. Approved.

2/2010/0725 - Erection of sunroom, Sundown, Crosby. Approved.

The Principal Planning Officers detailed the main issues in the report.

Members were advised of 2 letters of objection.

Members were informed that the proposed development was outside the settlement limits and had been advertised as such.

Councillor M Wood moved deferral for a site visit. This was seconded by Councillor B Miskelly.

Councillor J Lister moved refusal. This was seconded by Councillor L Davies.

A vote was taken, 7 in favour of refusal, 3 against and 0 abstentions.

The motion in favour of refusal was carried.

The decision: Refused.

Reasons:

Page 9 1. The proposal constituted non-essential development outside the designated settlement limits in the open countryside, which was poorly related to the existing settlement pattern and detrimental to the visual amenity of its site and surroundings. As such, the proposal was considered contrary to Policies EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan, HS4, HS8 and HS15 of the Allerdale Local Plan (First Alteration, May 2006) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. Insufficient information had been submitted with the application to demonstrate the proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy from the existing bungalow Crawford View contrary to Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

Proactive statement: The Local Planning Authority had acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant. However, the issues were so fundamental to the proposal that it had not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which had been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval had not been possible.

428 Development Panel - 2-2012-0753 - Wind Turbine - Firs Farm, Crookdake

The application: Erection of a single 30m to hub, 45m to tip wind turbine plus associated works, Firs Farm, Crookdake, Wigton.

The Principal Planning Officer recommended approval.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history – SCR/2012/0055 – Screening for single wind turbine. Not EIA development.

The Principal Planning Officers detailed the main issues in the report.

Members were advised of 12 letters of objection and 1 letter of support

Members were informed of a further 8 letters of objection that appeared on the late list and an additional 1 that had came in after.

Councillor N Cockburn moved refusal. This was seconded by Councillor C Garrard.

Councillor M Wood moved approval. This was seconded by Councillor P Kendall.

A vote was taken, 4 in favour of approval, 6 against and 1 abstention.

The motion in favour of approval was lost.

A vote was taken, 6 in favour of refusal, 4 against and 1 abstention.

Page 10 The motion in favour of refusal was carried.

The decision: Refused.

Reasons: 1. The local planning authority considered the proposed turbine, by virtue of its site, size and design, in association with the existing/approved turbines at Hellrigg(Silloth), Langrigg , Westnewton, Tallentire Hill, Wharrels Hill (Bothel), High Pow (Bolton Low Houses), Brayton Park, Stepping Stones (Abbeytown), Flimby Brow and High Aketon would have a detrimental sequential cumulative impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding landscape when viewed from the A595 and A5096 highway corridors contrary to Policy EN19 and policy EN25 of the Allerdale local Plan (saved0 and policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan.

429 Development Panel - 2-2012-0631 - Outline for residential development - Rear of 51A & 53 Stainburn Road, Workington

Councillor J Lister left the meeting for the following applications.

The application: Outline application for demolition of existing bungalow and residential development considering access, estate, road and plot layout, Land rear of 51a & 53 Stainburn Road, Stainburn, Workington.

The principal Planning Officer recommended approval.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history – 2/2011/0671. Withdrawn.

The Principal Planning Officers detailed the main issues in the report.

Members were advised of 16 letters of objection.

Members were informed of a further 2 letters from the Town Council offering no objections to the amended plans and 1 letter of representation from a neighbouring resident requesting information that appeared on the late list.

Councillor M Wood moved approval. This was seconded by Councillor S Standage.

A vote was taken, 10 in favour of approval, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

The motion in favour of approval was carried.

The decision: Approved.

Conditions:

Page 11 1. Approval of details of the scale and appearance of the building(s) and the landscaping of the site (thereafter called the 'reserved matters') shall be obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess all the details of the development.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: W0-21-07-12 - Site Location Plan/Block Plan (Considering access, estate road and plot layout only.) (amendment received 26/10/2012) Letter dated 18/9/2012 regarding revised description of outline application (amendment received 18/9/2012) Design Code Rev A. (amendment received 20/11/2012) Drainage summary (amendment received 26/10/2012) Drainage Tech 1 (amendment received 26/10/2012) Drainage Tech 2 (amendment received 26/10/2012) Drainage Tech 3 (amendment received 26/10/2012) Ecology Scoping Survey (including bat survey) ABD12SCO007.001 dated 1/8/2012 BS5837 Tree Report Revision A 10.11.12 (amendment received 19/11/2012) Construction Statement

Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

3. The submission of all reserved matters applications shall be made no later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date of this permission and the development shall begin no later than whichever is the later of the following dates: a) The expiration of three years from the date of the grant of this permission, or b) The expiration of two years from the final approval of the 'reserved matters' or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

4. Any application for 'reserved matters' of layout shall include plans showing the following: a) Cross sections through the site; b) Details of existing and proposed ground levels; c) Proposed finished floor levels of buildings; d) Levels of any paths, drives, garages and parking areas; and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so approved. Reason: To ensure that the works are carried out to a suitable level in relation to the adjoining properties and highways and in the interests of visual amenity.

5. The details required by the Reserved Matters under condition 1 shall be in accordance with the principles of the 'Design Code' (amendment received 20/11/2012) hereby approved. Reason. In order to achieve a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration June 2006 (Saved).

Page 12 6. The carriageway and footways (up to and including the turning head) shall be designed, constructed, drained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No works shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is complete. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety.

7. The development shall not be brought into use until visibility splays providing clear visibility of 2.4 metres x 50 metres measured 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) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, or object of any kind shall be erected or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants which exceed 1m in height shall be planted or be permitted to grow within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. Reason: To ensure an acceptable standard of highway access, in compliance with Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations June 2006 (Saved).

8. Details of the proposed crossings of the highway verge and/or footway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The development shall not be commenced until the details have been approved and the crossing constructed. Reason: To ensure a suitable standard of crossing for pedestrian safety.

9. 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.

10. 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 at all times thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management.

11. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of soft landscaping which shall include indications of all existing trees and shrubs on the site, and

Page 13 details of any to be retained. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised within the scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season following completion of the development and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with other similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to enhance the appearance of the development and minimise the impact of the development in the locality.

12. Prior to the commencement of development, a landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscaped areas (except privately owned domestic gardens) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved and any subsequent variations shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the following elements: 1. Detail extent and type of new planting (NB planting to be of native species); 2. Details of maintenance regimes; 3. Details of any new habitat created on site; 4. Details of treatment of site boundaries and/or buffers around water bodies. Reason: To ensure the protection of wildlife and supporting habitat and secure opportunities for the enhancement of the nature conservation value of the site in accordance with Policies EN3 and EN35 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

13. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until each tree identified for protection within the submitted Tree Report 10/11/12 (including trees recorded under ref TPO 10/2001/G2) is securely fenced off by a post and wire or chestnut pale fence erected in a circle round each tree at a radius from the bole of 3.05 metres or to coincide with the extremity of the canopy of the tree, whichever is the greater. Within the areas so fenced off the existing ground level shall be neither raised nor lowered, and no materials or temporary buildings or surplus soil of any kind shall be placed or stored thereon. If any trenches for services are required in the fenced-off areas they shall be excavated and back-filled by hand and any tree roots encountered with a diameter of two inches or more shall be left unsevered. Reason : In order to ensure that adequate protection is afforded to the existing trees on the site in accordance with Policy EN4 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

14. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for foul and surface water drainage (including a maintenance programme) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the drainage scheme has been constructed in accordance with the approved details. Only foul drainage shall connect to the public sewer

Page 14 Reason : To ensure a satisfactory means of foul and surface water drainage and minimise the risk of flooding, in compliance with Policy EN14 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations June 2006 (Saved).

15. Details of the siting, height and type of all means of enclosure/screen walls/fences/other means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any such walls/fences etc shall be constructed prior to the approved building being brought into use/occupied. All means of enclosure so constructed shall be retained and no part thereof shall be removed without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area.

16. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2008 (or in any Statutory Instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development falling within Classes A, B, C, D and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the said Order shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority upon an application submitted to it. Reason: The Local Planning Authority wishes to retain control over any proposed alterations/extensions in the interests of the appearance of the site and safeguard the amenities of adjacent properties.

17. The development shall be implemented only in full accordance with the Construction Management Plan hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of general amenity and highway safety in accordance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

18. The development hereby approved shall be implemented only in full accordance with the mitigation measures and site management recommended within the Ecological Scoping Survey ABD12SCO007 hereby approved. Reason In the interests of wildlife protection and protection of the R Derwent SSSI (SAC) in accordance with Policies EN27 and EN32 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

Reason for approval: The decision to grant planning permission had been taken having regard to the development plan the National Planning Policy Framework and other material considerations including comments from consultees (including statutory consultees) and third parties.

The proposed residential development was well related to the settlement limit of Workington. It would contribute to the current shortfall in the Council's five year land supply and would have little impact upon the open countryside at this location. The ecological and tree surveys submitted demonstrated minimal impact from the development and the reserved matters would allow for the

Page 15 assessment of appropriate house types that would not impact upon adjacent residential amenity. The highway was not adversely affected with appropriate access and visibility splays achievable. On balance the development achieved an acceptable and sustainable form of development consistent with current Local Plan policies and the principles and aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN14 - Safeguarding Water Environment Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside Policy EN27 - Protecting SSSI's Policy EN3 – Landscaping Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law Policy EN35 - Creation of new wildlife habitats Policy EN4 - Tree & Hedgerow Preservation Orders Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development, Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved) Policy HS4 - New housing in open countryside Policy HS7 - Housing development on unallocated sites Policy HS8 - Housing design Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 Adopted Plan April 206 (Saved) Policy ST5 - New development and key service centres outside the Lake District National Park National Planning Policy Framework March 2010

Proactive Statement: The Local Planning Authority had acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and where appropriate negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments and solutions to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority had been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

430 Development Panel - 2-2012-0670 - Double Garage - 18 Braeside, Seaton

The application: Erection of a double garage, 18 Braeside, Seaton, Workington.

The Principal Planning Officer recommended approval.

The Principal Planning Officers detailed the main issues in the report.

Members were advised of 1 letter of objection.

Councillor B Miskelly recommended approval. This was seconded by Councillor M Wood.

Page 16 A vote was taken, 6 in favour of approval, 0 against and 4 abstentions.

The motion in favour of approval was carried.

The decision: Approved.

Conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: DRG 001AH – Elevations DRG 002AHr1 - Block Plan (as amended 9/10/12) DRG 003AH - Foundation details DRG 004AH - Site Location Plan Letter confirming amended finishes (received 24/10/12) Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

Reason for approval: The decision to grant planning permission had been taken having regard to the Development Plan, any comments from consultees (including statutory consultees) and any responses from third parties. The decision was taken having regard to relevant planning policy and it was considered that the proposal was acceptable having regard to the national, strategic and local plan policies, supplementary planning guidance/documents and design guidance (set out below) and when taking all other material planning considerations into account. It was considered that there was not a demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance caused by the development that justifies withholding permission.

Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy HS12 - Extensions to dwellings, National Planning Policy Framework

431 Development Panel - 2-2012-0683 - Replace roof & incorporate 3 dormer windows and replacement of all windows and door, and erection of garage - Strand House, 5 Strand Street, Maryport

Page 17

Councillor J Armstrong left the meeting for the following applications.

The application: Remove existing roof, velux windows and chimney stacks, replace roof and incorporate 3 dormer windows and chimney. Replace all windows with white upvc double glazed. Black composite door to rear. Demolish rear boundary wall and garage and build new garage, Strand House, 5 Strand Street, Maryport.

The Principal Planning Officer recommended refusal.

1. The proposed dormer windows would constitute an unsympathetic addition to the property which would fail to preserve or enhance the character of the building, the street scene or the wider Conservation Area. The proposal therefore was contrary to Policies CO2 and CO13 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) and the National Planning Policy Framework. 2. The Local Planning Authority considered that insufficient information had been submitted relating to the rear wall to assess its heritage significance in relation to the conservation area and the Grade II Listed Kings Arms Public House, contrary to Policies CO18 and CO13 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Principal Planning Officers detailed the main issues in the report.

Members were informed that the applicant had submitted additional information to support their case that the 3 proposed dormers would fit in with the area that appeared on the late list.

Councillor P Kendall moved deferral for a site visit. This was seconded by Councillor M Wood.

Councillor S Standage moved refusal. This was seconded by Councillor P Bales.

A vote was taken, 2 in favour of refusal, 6 against and 1 abstention.

The motion in favour of refusal was lost.

A vote was taken, 7 in favour of deferral for a site visit, 2 against and 0 abstention.

The motion in favour of deferral for a site visit was carried.

Page 18 The decision: Deferred for a site visit.

432 Development Panel - 2-2012-0770 - Listed Building Consent for removal of wall and garage and rebuild - Stand House, 5 Stand Street, Maryport

The application: Listed building consent for demolition of boundary wall and garage. Re-build with modern materials, Strand House, 5 Strand Street, Maryport.

The Principal Planning Officer recommended approval.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history - 2/2012/0484 - Remove existing roof, velux windows and chimney stacks, replace roof and incorporate 3 dormer windows and chimney. Replace all windows with white upvc double glazed. Black composite door to rear. Demolish rear boundary wall and garage and build new garage, Strand House, 5 Strand Street, Maryport. Refused. 2/2012/0683 - Remove existing roof, velux windows and chimney stacks, replace roof and incorporate 3 dormer windows and chimney. Replace all windows with white upvc double glazed. Black composite door to rear. Demolish rear boundary wall and garage and build new garage, Strand House, 5 Strand Street, Maryport. Pending.

Councillor P Kendall moved deferral for a site visit. This was seconded by Councillor M Wood.

A vote was taken, 9 in favour of deferral for a site visit, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

The motion in favour of deferral for a site visit was carried.

The decision: Deferred for a site visit.

433 Development Panel - 2-2012-0703 - Erection of garage - Whiteacre, Church Road, Flimby,

The application: Erection of garage, Whiteacre, Church Road, Flimby, Maryport.

The Principal Planning Officer recommended approval.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history - 2/2009/0858 - Outline application for the sub-division of an existing vicarage plot to allow the formation of two additional open market dwelling building plots, The Vicarage, Church Road, Flimby. Approved.

The Principal Planning Officers detailed the main issues in the report.

Councillor M Wood moved approval. This was seconded by Councillor B Finlay.

Page 19 A vote was taken, 9 in favour of approval, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

The motion in favour of approval was carried.

The decision: Approved.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out solely in accordance with the following plans: TV/01/AcO - Site Location Plan TV/02/ACO - Block Plan TV/03/ACO - Floor Plan TV/04/ACO - Proposed Elevations TV/05/ACO - Proposed Elevations. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 and Section 91 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Reasons for Approval:

The decision to grant planning permission had been taken having regard to the Development Plan, the National Planning Policy Framework, any comments from consultees (including statutory consultees) and any responses from third parties. The decision was taken having regard to relevant planning policy and it was considered that the proposal was acceptable having regard to the national, strategic and local plan policies, supplementary planning guidance/documents and design guidance (set out below) and when taking all other material planning considerations into account.

The proposed garage would not result in any alterations to the vehicular access, the design and siting was considered acceptable. It was considered that there was not a demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance caused by the development that justifies withholding permission.

Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy HS12 - Extensions to dwellings

National Planning Policy Framework

Proactive Statement: The Local Planning Authority had acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any stakeholder representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

The meeting closed at 6.25 pm

Page 20 Agenda Item 5

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0683

Reference No: 2/2012/0683 Received: 10 September 2012 Proposed Remove existing roof, velux windows and chimney stacks, replace Development: roof and incorporate 3 dormer windows and chimney. Replace all windows with white upvc double glazed. Black composite door to rear. Demolish rear boundary wall and garage and build new garage. Location: Strand House 5 Strand Street Maryport Applicant: Mr Barry Mirehouse

Drawing Numbers: Plan 1 - 1 of 3 - Site Location, Block Plan and Proposed Garage Plan 1 - 2 of 3 - Proposed Elevations Plan 1 - 3 of 3 - Proposed Floor Plans Heritage Assessment

Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 3 Conservation Area:,MARYPORT ASCA Area Article 4 Adv Control Exclusion - Maryport

Policies: Allerdale Local plan Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Policy CO13 - The setting of a Conservation Area, Policy CO18 - Setting of a Listed building Policy CO2 - Design of alterations in Conservation Areas, Policy HS12 - Extensions to dwellings

National Planning Policy Framework

Local Financial None Implications:

Page 21 Black composite door to rear. Demolish rear boundary wall and garage and build new garage – Strand House, 5 Strand Street, Maryport REFUSED 23/08/12 for the following reasons:

1. The proposed dormer windows would constitute an unsympathetic addition to the property which would fail to preserve or enhance the character of the building, the street scene or the wider Conservation Area. The proposal therefore is contrary to Policies CO2 and CO13 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) and the National Planning Policy Framework. 2. The Local Planning Authority consider that insufficient information has been submitted relating to the rear wall to assess its heritage significance in relation to the conservation area and the Grade II Listed Kings Arms Public House, contrary to Policies CO18 and CO13 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Representations: Town Council – No objections but as previously requested, the wall should be sandstone to match the buildings.

Highways – No objections subject to condition.

The application has been advertised on site and in the press. Neighbouring properties have been notified. No resultant representations have been received to date.

Report Policy

The proposal is to extend a residential dwelling within the Maryport Conservation Area and therefore is subject to Chapters 7 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). These outline the importance of good design and the positive contribution that development can make to local character.

These policies reiterate those of HS12, CO2 and CO13 of the Allerdale Local Plan. It is therefore considered acceptable to continue to apply some weight to these policies as they do not conflict with the guidance within the NPPF.

Chapter 12 of the NPPF outlines that an applicant should include an assessment of the impact development may have on a heritage asset, commensurate to the scale of the scheme and the significance of the asset. Local Planning Authorities, in considering applications, should consider the significance of the heritage asset and what may be lost through the development.

Policy CO18 of the Allerdale Local Plan stipulates that proposals

Page 22 affecting the setting of a listed building will only be permitted where they do not have a serious adverse effect upon the character or setting of the listed building and where the development is sympathetic to the listed building. As this policy does not contradict with the guidance of the NPPF it is considered acceptable to continue to apply some weight to Policy CO18.

Assessment

Proposal

A planning application has been received seeking consent to remove the existing roof, velux windows and chimney stacks; replace roof and incorporate 3 dormer windows and chimney at Strand House, 5 Strand Street, Maryport. The application also seeks to replace all windows with white UPVC double glazing, install a black composite door to the rear, demolish the rear boundary wall and garage and build a new garage.

The site has been subject to a previous application for the same scheme under 2/2012/0484. The application was refused as the proposed dormer windows were considered to be a feature which failed to preserve the character of the property or conservation area and due to a lack of information on the significance of the adjacent Grade II Listed heritage asset to the rear.

Background

The property lies within Maryport conservation area at the junction of Strand Street and North Quay. Although the property is on Strand Street the position of the dwelling leads it to form part of the visual grouping with properties along North Quay, facing onto the harbour side. This grouping includes 2 no. Grade II Listed buildings at No’s 1 and 3 North Quay and Christ Church which fronts onto North Quay.

The application building is a rendered dwelling with slate roof and velux windows to the front. There is a driveway to the side of the dwelling leading to a detached garage. The garage is attached and integrated into the fabric of the stone boundary wall to the rear.

To the east of the site (directly behind) is the Grade II listed Kings Arms Public House. The public house has a modern flat roofed extension to the rear which directly abuts and sits on top of the stone boundary wall to the rear.

Windows and Door

Currently the property has a mix of brown UPVC and timber windows. The applicant proposes to replace all existing windows

Page 23 with white UPVC sliding sash double glazed units.

Strand Street itself has lost much of its original features and character. Many of the properties have replaced traditional windows with UPVC windows of varying designs. There are other examples of UPVC windows along the harbour side notable at the adjacent property, 10 North Quay. The development property itself currently has brown UPVC to the front elevation.

The applicant proposes a traditional style of window albeit in UPVC materials. As there are varying designs of UPVC windows within the locality and adjacent to the property, the modern materials proposed in the current application are difficult to resist. The design of the proposed windows are considered to be a betterment against the existing windows. There are therefore no objections to this element of the proposal.

The composite door proposed is to be installed to the rear. The door will not be viewable from the public highway therefore it will not harm the character of the conservation area. There are no objections to this element of the proposal.

Wall and Garage

The site currently has a high stone wall forming the rear and part side boundaries. This wall also contributes to the construction of the detached garage. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing garage and wall to be replaced with a block built garage and wall. The wall would be constructed to the same height as existing (3.3m). Both the garage and wall would be finished in render. The garage would have a concrete tiled pitched roof and forward facing gable.

The replacement garage is considered an acceptable form of development in the conservation area. The rendered walls would match those of the main house and other walls in the immediate locality. The concrete tiled roof is a modern material out of character with the main house and the majority of properties in the locality which mainly house slate roofs. However, as the gable of the garage would form the front facing elevation, the roof material would not be highly visible from public viewpoints. On balance, the materials chosen and designed proposed would not harm the character of the conservation area and locality.

The applicants have indicated that the wall is in a poor state of repair and needs to be replaced. They further indicate that the wall would fall down upon removal of the existing garage.

It is accepted that the wall is (visually) in need of repair and that some element of demolition would occur upon removal of the

Page 24 garage. However, the walls position, abutting the listed building, would lend the wall to form part of the listing of the Public House to the rear.

The applicant has included a heritage assessment with the current application. The assessment states that in demolishing the rear boundary wall there would be some damage to the outer leaf of the flat roofed extension to the Kings Arms Grade II Listed Public House. The assessment also includes a listing description of the Public House, which does not refer to the extension being of significant historic interest.

An application for listed building consent relating to the removal of the wall has been submitted (2/2012/0770) for separate consideration.

The wall is a traditional wall of some note to which the Town Council have commented should be sandstone to match the buildings. The contribution of the wall to the conservation area setting is limited due to its location and resulting restricted vantage points. Given that the wall has limited visual contribution to the conservation area and that there are various examples of rendered buildings and structures in the locality, it is considered that a replacement wall of sandstone could not be pursued in this case. The proposed replacement rendered wall, matching those in the locality, is therefore accepted.

Roof and Chimney Stacks

The property has an existing slate roof with two velux windows to the front and chimney stacks. The applicants propose to remove the existing roof, velux windows and chimney stacks. These would be replaced with a slate roof, 3 no. dormer windows to the front elevation and new chimney stack.

The existing chimney stacks are not notable in character. The loss of these features is accepted given that the applicant proposes to erect a new chimney stack.

Similarly, the removal of the existing roof covering to be replaced with a slate roof is accepted in this case. Traditional materials would be utilised helping to retain the character of the conservation area and this grouping of properties.

Page 25 The applicants’ proposal to incorporate dormer windows into the front elevation is a feature which deviates from the existing traditional character of the property. Likewise, dormers are an alien feature within the grouping of properties fronting the harbour side.

The applicant has submitted additional information to support their proposal and to demonstrate that the dormers would fit in with the area. Photographs outlining other dormers within Maryport have been used to illustrate their case. It is noted that there are a few limited examples of dormer windows in the roof space of properties within the locality however, these do not form part of the harbour side grouping nor do they have such a significant visual impact upon the setting of the conservation area.

The additions of 3 no. dormer windows into the front elevation of the property are considered to form a modern addition incompatible with the architectural detailing of the building and the character of the conservation area. The dormers are significant in scale and would dominate the roof slope of the building. The window openings are wider, out of proportion with existing windows and poorly aligned. The generally modern design of the dormer windows would substantially alter the appearance of this prominent roof slope within the harbour side setting and property grouping. The alterations to the roof would in turn adversely alter the appearance of the property and adversely affect the character of the harbour side grouping.

The dormers would therefore fail to preserve or enhance the property itself or the conservation area and this significant group of properties in a prominent harbour side vista. This element of the proposal is therefore considered unacceptable.

Conclusion

Whilst the applicant has submitted a heritage assessment in order to overcome the related refusal reason of the previous application (2/2012/0484), they have failed to alter the design of the scheme and those features which were deemed unacceptable previously. In the absence of any change to the proposal, the decision remains unchanged and the application is recommended for refusal as the proposed dormer windows to the front elevation are considered to be a feature which are out of character with the property and this grouping of properties within the conservation area.

The dormer windows are felt to be an inappropriate form of development within this sensitive location which would have a significant adverse effect upon the appearance of the building and this part of the conservation area. For this reason, it is considered

Page 26 detrimental to the existing building and the significant harbour side frontage within Maryport conservation area.

Taking all of the above into account it is considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposal is therefore considered unacceptable.

In the absence of any design changes to the proposed alterations of the previous planning application, this application is recommended for refusal in accordance with current policy guidelines and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Recommendation: Refused

Conditions/ The proposed dormer windows would constitute an Reasons: unsympathetic addition to the property which would fail to preserve or enhance the character of the building, the streetscene or the wider Conservation Area. The proposal therefore is contrary to Policies CO2 and CO13 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Proactive The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and Statement: proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to resolve all those matters within the timescale allocated for the determination of this planning application. However, the Local Planning Authority has clearly set out within its report, the outstanding matters needing to be remedied to address the harm identified within the reasons for refusal– which may potentially lead to the submission of a more acceptable proposal in the future. The Local Planning Authority is willing to provide pre-application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.

Notes to Applicant:

Page 27 2/2012/0683

Page 28

Agenda Item 6

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0770

Reference No: 2/2012/0770 Received: 15 October 2012 Proposed Listed building consent for demolition of boundary wall and garage. Development: Re-build with modern materials. Location: Strand House 5 Strand Street Maryport Applicant: Mr Barry Mirehouse

Drawing Numbers: Plan 1 - Site Location Plan, Block Plan and Proposed Plans Heritage Assessment

Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 3 Conservation Area:,MARYPORT ASCA Area Article 4 Adv Control Exclusion - Maryport Listed Building (PLN)

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO18 - Setting of a Listed building, National Planning Policy Framework

Local Financial None Implications:

Relevant Planning 2/2012/0484 - Remove existing roof, velux windows and chimney History: stacks, replace roof and incorporate 3 dormer windows and chimney. Replace all windows with white upvc double glazed. Black composite door to rear. Demolish rear boundary wall and garage and build new garage – Strand House, 5 Strand Street, Maryport REFUSED 23/08/12

2/2012/0683 - Remove existing roof, velux windows and chimney stacks, replace roof and incorporate 3 dormer windows and chimney. Replace all windows with white upvc double glazed. Black composite door to rear. Demolish rear boundary wall and garage and build new garage – Strand House, 5 Strand Street,

Page 29 Maryport -PENDING

Representations: Town Council – Objects to the proposed demolition of the wall, which it considers should be retained & repaired as the material aligns with the surrounding properties.

Highways – No objections

The application has been advertised on site and in the press. Neighbouring properties have been notified. No resultant representations have been received to date.

Report Policy

Policy CO18 of the Allerdale Local Plan stipulates that proposals affecting the setting of a listed building will only be permitted where they do not have a serious adverse effect upon the character or setting of the listed building and the development is sympathetic to the listed building. As this policy does not contradict the guidance in the NPPF it is considered acceptable to continue to apply some weight to Policy CO18.

Assessment

An application for listed building consent has been received seeking permission for the demolition of a boundary wall and garage, to rebuild with modern materials at Strand House, 5 Strand Street, Maryport.

The proposal forms part of a larger redevelopment scheme for the site, which is subject to planning application 2/2012/0683, currently under consideration.

The application site constitutes a rendered dwelling with slate roof and velux windows to the front. There is a driveway to the side of the dwelling leading to a detached garage. The garage is attached and integrated into the fabric of the stone boundary wall to the rear.

The property lies within Maryport conservation area at the junction of Strand Street and North Quay. To the east of the site (directly behind) is the Grade II listed Kings Arms Public House. The public house has a modern flat roofed extension to the rear which directly

Page 30 abuts and sits on top of the stone boundary wall to the rear.

The high stone wall forms the rear and part side boundaries to the application site. The applicants indicate that the wall is in a poor state of repair and needs to be replaced. They have applied separately under 2/2012/0683 for planning permission to remove the wall and existing garage (which is attached and integrated into the fabric of the wall) to be replaced with modern alternatives. However, the walls position, abutting the listed building, would lend the wall to form part of the listing of the Public House to the rear, hence the requirement for Listed Building Consent.

The applicants have stated that the wall would fall down upon removal of the existing garage. It is accepted that the wall is (visually) in need of repair and that some element of demolition would occur upon removal of the garage.

The applicant has included a heritage assessment with the application. The assessment states that in demolishing the rear boundary wall there would be some damage to the outer leaf of the flat roofed extension to the Kings Arms Grade II Listed Public House. The assessment also includes a listing description of the Public House, which does not refer to the extension being of significant historic interest.

Given that the damage would be limited to the outer leaf of the adjacent wall and that the extension is a modern addition, not noted as significant in the listing description, the effect upon the character and heritage of the adjacent Grade II Listed Building is considered minimal with limited harm to the character of this heritage asset. If approved, a condition is suggested to secure the method of demolition and reinstatement of the wall.

The wall is a traditional wall of some note to which the Parish Council have suggested should be retained as the materials align with the surrounding properties. The contribution of the wall to the setting of the listed building is limited due to its location and resulting restricted vantage points. The listing description refers only to features viewable from public areas, to which the wall is not.

Given that the existing wall has limited visual contribution to the setting of the listed building and that the Grade II Listed building itself is of a rendered finish, it is considered that retention of the wall could not be pursued in this case. The proposed replacement rendered wall, matching those in the locality, is therefore accepted.

Taking all of the above into account it is considered that the proposal would have minimal impact upon the character and appearance of the heritage asset. The proposal is therefore

Page 31 recommended for approval under current policy guidelines and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Recommendation: Approved

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: Plan 1 - Site Location Plan, Block Plan and Proposed Plans Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

3. Before any part of the development hereby approved first commences, plans shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority indicating details of all proposed walls adjacent to or forming part of the structure of the Grade II Listed Kings Arms Public House. Details should indicate how the walls will be constructed, including sections and plans, to a scale of not less than 1:20. The works shall be implemented solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the historic fabric of the building/structure is retained, in compliance with Policy CO18 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved).

Notes to Applicant:

Page 32 2/2012/0770

Page 33

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 34 Agenda Item 7

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0759

Reference No: 2/2012/0759 Received: 4 September 2012 Proposed Outline application for erection of 3 dwellings Development: Location: Land adjacent to Hillside Plumbland Aspatria Wigton Applicant: Mr R Lockhart

Drawing Numbers: ET/0037/0001/A - Site Plan (amendment received 7 December 2012)

Constraints: Flood Zone 3 Radon Assessment British Coal Area Site Of Arch Interest

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development Policy EN9 - Contaminated/Derelict Land Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law Policy TR6 - Car parking guidlines

Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved) Policy HS4 - New housing in open countryside Policy HS8 - Housing design Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing

National Planning Policy Framework

Relevant Planning 2/2004/1060 Outline application for residential development – History: refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed dwelling is considered to be sporadic development in the open countryside with no demonstrated essential employment need contrary to Policy HS4 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policies 1, 25 and 40 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan.

Page 35

2. If allowed, the proposal would act as an adverse precedent for other residential proposals within the open countryside without any demonstrated essential employment need contrary to Policy HS4 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policies 1, 25 and 40 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan.

3. The proposal does not provide any details regarding the provision of non-mains drainage contrary to Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

Representations: Parish Council – Approve subject to safe access with respect to proximity to a blind corner and designs being in keeping with the village character.

Cumbria Highways – Following receipt of the speed survey no objections subject to conditions (3 December 2012).

Cumbria Highways – Although all matters are reserved, it is noted the applicant relies on Manual for streets to be able to achieve the required visibility splays for the accesses. Severe concerns are raised as to the ability of the site to provide the required splays without knowing what the required splay is. The applicant therefore will need the backing of a speed survey to inform the splay requirement and I would recommend the application be refused without this information (31 October 2012).

Environment Agency – No comments to make.

Environmental Health – No objections subject to conditions attached relating to contamination and a construction management plan. County Archaeologist – No objections.

United Utilities – No objections (23 October 2012)

Fire Officer – No reply to date.

The application has been advertised on site and in the local paper. Adjoining owners have been notified.

1 letter has been received from the neighbouring property, who raise the following comments:

1. At present access to the paddock via our drive entrance is allowed for farm animals only. This access would not be granted for any other purpose.

2. Our septic tank is situated within the paddock, at the time of

Page 36 purchase it was agreed by solicitors that if future building, taking place on the paddock our septic tank would remain or be connected to the main sewerage by the builders.

Report Outline consent is sought for erection of three dwellings, Land Adjacent to Hillside, Plumbland, Aspatria.

Site

The site, measuring 0.26 hectares is gently undulating and is located on the eastern fringe of the village. To the immediate south is agricultural land, to the east and north are deep disused quarries which are now heavily wooded. To the immediate west is a bungalow, Hillside, which marks the beginning of the village settlement boundary.

The site is linked to Plumbland and Threapland by a new footpath alongside the County Highway. The site boundaries are maintained with a traditional hedgerow along the road frontage. Hedgerows form the eastern and western site boundaries with a stock proof fence forming the southern boundary.

Proposal

The applicant seeks outline consent for the erection of three dwellings on the site, with all matters reserved. The proposal will seek to retain the existing hedgerows except at the access points to the individual plots.

An indicative plan has been submitted with the application that shows the site layout relative to Hillside.

Policy

In the absence of a five year land supply of deliverable housing land, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) indicates that local planning policies for the supply of housing cannot be considered up to date, and cannot be relied upon to resist development outside defined development limits. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF explains that in terms of decision making, where policies are 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 this Framework taken as a whole or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

The proposal is considered to be a departure from current Local Plan Policies as the site is not located within the settlement

Page 37 boundary and therefore has been advertised as a departure to the current Allerdale Local Plan.

It is considered acceptable to continue to apply some weight to the policies within the Allerdale Local plan.

Assessment

The site lie on the outskirts of the village of Plumbland outside settlement limits. Plumbland (and Threapland) are defined in the current settlement hierarchy as Limited Growth Villages, and are retained in the settlement hierarchy in the proposed Core Strategy as Rural Villages, confirming the Authority’s view that they are a suitable location for further limited development.

Although the site lies outside the current settlement boundary for Plumbland, and arguably represents ribbon development, there appears to be a definite barrier to further development between Plumbland and Threapland in this location due to the physical constraints of the locality. Given that the Authority acknowledges that some limited development is desirable in the village, the site is considered to be sustainable.

The NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development means that planning permission should be granted unless the development would result in any adverse impact that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

Officers therefore consider the proposed is a satisfactory extension to the built format of Plumbland and the principle of residential is acceptable.

Access/Highways Issues

The indicative plan submitted with the application does not indicate the proposed access to the site. However it is understood that each plot will achieve a separate access from the classified road and will not rely on the existing access referred to in the representations from the neighbourining occupied.

Although all matters are reserved, it is noted the applicant relies on Manual for streets to be able to achieve the required visibility splays for the accesses. As the frontage is only 62m in length, Cumbria Highways raised severe concerns as to the ability of the site to provide the required splays without knowing what the required splay is. The applicant therefore will need the backing of a speed survey to inform the splay requirement. Without this information Cumbria Highways recommended the application be refused.

Page 38 The applicant has commissioned a speed survey. The speed survey was taken from late on Thursday 15 November to early on Tuesday 20 November providing four complete days of data. The data has enabled Cumbria Highways to determine what visibility splays are required. They therefore recommend the application be approved subject to conditions.

Drainage

The applicant has stated the foul sewerage will be connected to the mains, with surface water collected by means of a Sustainable Drainage System, which will involve collecting in harvesting tanks with any overflow to soakaways. United Utilities have raised no objections to the proposed drainage scheme, but have commented that they have no public sewer in the vicinity of the site.

The exact position of where the existing mains sewer has to be established, however the applicant has confirmed he proposes to connect the three new dwellings to the main sewer and remove the existing septic tank for Hillside that is located within the application site and also connect this property to the mains sewer.

No objections are raised to the proposed drainage will full details of the surface water drainage provided at reserved matters stage.

Local Financial Implications

There will be a financial benefits to the Council through the scheme through the New Homes Bonus Scheme. The New Homes Bonus is not however considered to be a significant factor in judging the overall planning merits of the current scheme.

Conclusion

Although the site lies outside the defined settlement limits, officers consider the benefits of the proposal outweigh its location outside the development limits, achieving a satisfactory extension to the built format of Plumbland located in a sustainable location.

Officers consider the previous reasons for refusal on application 2/2004/1060 have been overcome or are considered out of date for the full reasons discussed in the report.

Recommendation: Approved

Page 39 Reason: The application has been submitted as an outline application, in accordance with the provisions of the details of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Procedure) Order 1995.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: ET/0037/0001/A - Site Plan (amendment received 7 December 2012 Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

4. Provision shall be made in the submission of any 'reserved matters' application for a minimum of 2 parking spaces for each individual dwellinghouse. Reason: To ensure that a minimum standard of off-street parking provision is made for the development and in the interests of highway safety, in compliance with Policy TR6 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

5. The development shall not commence until details of visibility splays providing clear visibility of 2.4m by 45m towards the west of any access and 2.4m by 49m towards the east of any access, measured down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the major road have been provided at the junction of any access (forming part of any subsequent application) with the county highway have been submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure or object of any kind shall be erected or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grow within the visibility splays which exceed 1 metre in height and

Page 40 obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of access for the development, in compliance with Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations June 2006 (Saved).

6. The dwelling/land use hereby approved shall not be occupied until the vehicular access, parking and turning requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan and have been brought into use. The vehicular access, parking and 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, parking and turning provision when the development is brought into use.

7. 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 the 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 the 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.

8. 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 at all times thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management.

9. No development approved by this permission shall commence until a desktop study has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Should the preliminary risk assessment identify any potential contamination which may affect human health, controlled waters or the wider environment, all necessary site investigation works within the site boundary must be carried out to establish the degree and nature of the

Page 41 contamination and its potential to pollute the environment or cause harm to human health. The scope of works for the site investigations should be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to their commencement. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved).

10. Should land affected by contamination be identified under the desk top study under condition 9 is found which poses unacceptable risks to human health, controlled waters or the wider environment, no development shall take place until a detailed remediation scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include an appraisal of remediation options, identification of the preferred option(s), the proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, and a description and programme of the works to be undertaken including the verification plan. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved).

11. Should a contamination remediation scheme be required under condition 10, the approved strategy shall be implemented and a verification report submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the development (or relevant phase of development) being brought into use. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved).

12. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Development on the part of the site affected must be halted and a risk assessment carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where unacceptable risks are found remediation and verification schemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These shall be implemented prior to the development (or relevant phase of development) being brought into use. All works shall be undertaken in

Page 42 accordance with current UK guidance, particularly CLR11. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved).

13. No development shall take place until a Construction and Demolition Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall include the following: (a) Traffic Management Plan to include all traffic associated with the development, including site and staff traffic; (b) Procedure to monitor and mitigate noise and vibration from the construction and demolition and to monitor any properties at risk of damage from vibration, as well as taking into account noise from vehicles, deliveries. All measurements should make reference to BS7445. (c) Mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts on residential properties from construction compounds including visual impact, noise, and light pollution. (d) Mitigation measures to ensure that no harm is caused to protected species during construction. (e) A written procedure for dealing with complaints regarding the construction or demolition; (f) Measures to control the emissions of dust and dirt during construction and demolition; (g) Programme of work for Demolition and Construction phase; (h) Hours of working and deliveries; (i) Details of lighting to be used on site. The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the duration of the development. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, in compliance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

14. Details of the siting, height and type of all means of enclosure/screen walls/fences/other means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any such walls/fences etc shall be constructed prior to the approved building being brought into use/occupied. All means of enclosure so constructed shall be retained and no part thereof shall be removed without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding

Page 43 area.

Reasons for Approval

The decision to grant outline consent has been taken having regard to the Development Plan, any comments from consultees (including statutory consultees) and any responses from third parties. The decision was taken having regard to relevant planning policy and it was considered that the proposal was acceptable having regard to the national, strategic and local plan policies, supplementary planning guidance/documents and design guidance (set out below) and when taking all other material planning considerations into account. It was considered that there is not a demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance caused by the development that justifies withholding permission.

Proactive Statement

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and where appropriate negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments and solutions to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Notes to A separate metered supply to each unit will be required at the Applicant: applicant’s expense and all internal pipework must comply with current water supply (water fittings) regulations 1999.

On receipt of approval, the applicant should contact United Utilities Service Enquiries on 0845 7462200 regarding connection to the water mains.

United Utilities offer a fully supported mapping service at a modest cost for our water mains and sewerage assets. This is a service, which is constantly updated by our Property Searches Team (Tel No: 0870 7510101). It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate the exact relationship between and assets that may cross the site and any proposed development.

Environmental health has commented that the applicant should be aware that the recommendations in S6 of the Phase 1 desk study do not provide sufficient detail on the site investigation proposals.

Page 44 2/2012/0759

Page 45

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 46 Agenda Item 8

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0810

Reference No: 2/2012/0810

Received: 03 October 2012

Proposed Change of use from laundrette to pizza/burger take-away Development: Location: 79 Harrington Road Workington

Applicant: Mr Mehdi Samadi

Drawing N umbers: 001 - Location Plan 002 - Block Plan 003 - Proposed Elevations 004 - Proposed Floor Plans Proposed hours of use letter (as amended 19/11/12)

Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 British Coal Area Adv Control Exclusion - Workington

Policies: Natio nal Planning Policy Framework

Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy RG6 - Control of Hot Food take-aways Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development

Local Financial None Implications:

Relevant Planning 2/2002/0161 – Removal of planning condition No. 2 (ref History: 2/1983/0843) restricting opening hours at Olympic, 61 Harrington Road, Workington APPROVED 8/5/02

Representations: Town Council - No objections but comment that parking is already a problem at this dangerous corner

Highways - As it is considered that the proposal will be unlikely to have a material affect on existing highway conditions there are no objections

Page 47

Environmental Health – Originally were unable to support the application but following further discussions can now support the application subject to conditions.

Fire Officer – No comment to date

Cumbria Constabulary - No comment to date

13 letters of objection have been received from neighbouring properties with the following issues: • There are already too many takeaways in town. • There is a take away at the other end of the block; this would be too many at each end and in a residential area. • It would increase the volume of traffic. • It is on a busy road junction used by large delivery vehicles and on a main bus route. The junction is in close proximity to other businesses to which this proposal would cause further congestion. • There are parking problems already including illegal parking which would only increase if the takeaway is approved, particularly given the later opening times than the existing laundrette. • The safe use of the junction by pedestrians and school children is difficult. • The increased mess and rubbish would cause nuisance to nearby residences and businesses. • The alley way would be turned into a toilet. • The building is not fit for food. • The takeaway would increase potential for vermin due to food and waste being dropped. • There are existing smells from the laundrette which are bearable and smells from the nearby takeaway already in place on Harrington Road, greasy food smells would be unwelcome. • The noise level would dramatically increase as the premises could attract violent and anti-social behaviour from intoxicated people which may lead to damage to properties. People will gather around the take away causing nuisance to neighbouring dwellings. • Do not wish to see the loss of the laundrette as a valuable community facility.

Report Policy

The proposal involves the change of use of an existing laundrette to a pizza/burger takeaway which is subject to the overarching principle of ‘achieving sustainable development’ within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The policy indicates that the

Page 48 planning system should provide a social and economic role. Decisions should be taken with a presumption in favour of sustainable development in that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF as a whole.

Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan seeks to prevent the approval of potentially polluting development in locations which would unacceptably adversely affect pollution sensitive development.

Policy RG6 of the Allerdale Local Plan states that planning permission will only be granted for hot food takeaways where the proposal is located within an existing retail frontage, it is demonstrated that the effects of noise, smell and disturbance to adjacent property are within acceptable limits and satisfactory arrangements are proposed for car borne users where developments are located outside defined town centres.

As policies EN6 and RG6 of the Allerdale Local Plan are not in conflict with those of the NPPF, it is considered acceptable to continue to apply some weight to those of the Allerdale Local Plan.

Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the proposed change of use form launderette to pizza/burger take away at 79 Harrington Road, Workington.

There are no external changes proposed other than the addition of a flue which would project approx 1.5m above the rear roof slope.

The applicant originally proposed opening hours of 3pm -12pm Monday to Sunday. These hours have since been amended to 3pm - 11.30pm Monday to Saturday and 3pm – 10.30pm Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Background

The site lies upon Harrington Road, a main thoroughfare through the settlement of Workington. The immediate area contains a mix of residential and commercial properties through the provision of retail and service units upon this stretch of Harrington Road.

The building sits at on the corner of a junction with Harrington Road and Mason Street and is currently used as a laundrette. The building is bounded by double yellow lines limiting parking directly outside, however on street parking exists within close proximity. There are two residential units above the proposed takeaway unit.

Page 49

Assessment

Principle

There have been a number of objections to the proposal indicating that there are enough take away premises within the town and that two within one block in a residential area would be excessive.

The proposed use would provide a service which is often sought to be located within residential areas. Whilst it is accepted that the majority of properties along this stretch of Harrington Road are dwelling houses, there is a pronounced element of commercial properties provided small scale shopping and service provision to the locality. Such a use within a mixed residential/commercial is considered suitable subject to controls to protect the amenity of nearby residences.

As the application site is presently used as a laundrette, and the proposal involves the change of use of the site to a pizza/burger takeaway, the proposal would not adversely affect the balance of residential/commercial properties within this locality.

Objectors have also raised the issue of the loss of the laundrette facility. As a result of other existing laundrette services elsewhere e.g. Nook St the loss of this specific service would not represent a ground for refusal, especially as it represents a commercial rather than community asset.

Highways

Concerns have been raised over the lack of parking to facilitate the premises at this busy junction. Residents state that the lack of parking at the junction and in close proximity to other commercial premises often results in illegal parking on double yellow lines causing safety difficulties to crossing pedestrians. Objectors indicate that the lack of parking and the potential increase in traffic volume upon this main junction leads the proposal to be unacceptable.

It is acknowledged that the application site lies upon a busy junction at a crossroads linking to a main route through the town. There is also a lack of parking directly outside the application site. However, the current commercial use of the premises and others within the vicinity is already subject to the constraints of the busy road and limited parking. The Highways Department comment that taking into account the existing use of the property and the information submitted, the proposal would be unlikely to have a material affect on the existing highway conditions and raise no objections.

Page 50

Odour

The proposed use has the potential to create odour nuisance to nearby residential properties. This concern has been noted by a number of objectors who comment that greasy food smells would be unwelcome.

The applicant proposes to install a flue system to deal with potential odours emanating from the premises and to protect nearby residential amenity. The Environmental Health Department raise no objections to the applicants’ proposal subject to conditions to ensure odour controls are suitable and in use prior commencement of the use.

Noise

Objections have been raised to the potential increase in noise level in and around the premises. Objectors feel that the proposed use at the premises could attract violent and anti-social behaviour from intoxicated people which may further lead to damage to properties. They also raise concerns that people would congregate within the vicinity of the take away causing nuisance to neighbouring dwellings.

There have not been any adverse comments made by Cumbria Constabulary nor is there any specific evidence to suggest that unsociable behaviour and resulting noise would occur. A condition limiting the hours of opening is suggested to limit the opening hours of the premises should approval be granted.

Environmental Health has raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions to ensure suitable noise mitigation are installed prior to commencement of the use. Likewise, conditions are proposed to ensure suitable measures to minimise noise and vibration are installed prior to commencement of use.

Residential Amenity

There are two flats located within the building. One flat is located to the front, facing onto Harrington Road. The other is located to the rear, facing onto Mason Street. The proposed flue would run through the flat located to the front. The adjoining premises at 77 Harrington Road is separated from the shop area by a stairwell.

The Environmental Health Department have suggested conditions be imposed restricting the use of the flat fronting onto Harrington Road so that it only be occupied by a manager or employee of the proposed takeaway and their family members. As the flats above do not fall within the scope of the current application, this measure

Page 51 would be secured through legal agreement.

Environmental Health also suggest that a sound insulation scheme be installed between the development site and the rear flat, to be secured by condition. This condition is included to ensure the residential amenity of the flats is suitably protected.

Nuisance

Comments have been made that should the proposal be approved, it could lead to an increase in litter within the locality, have the potential to attract vermin due to dropped waste and food and that the alley would be used as a toilet. There has also been a comment made that the property may be unsuitable for the preparation/ sale of food.

These are all considered to be issues which could be handled through separate legislation and controls should they occur.

Health

A recent High Court case (R (Copeland) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (2012)) judged that the proposed siting of a take away adjacent to a school promoting a healthy eating programme could be a material consideration in determining whether permission should be granted.

The application site and proposed take away is situated upon Harrington Road as is St Josephs Secondary School at the north eastern end. The school is situated close to Workington Town Centre which contains other take aways, contrary to any healthy eating programmes at the school. The application site is no closer to the school than others located in the town and the hours of opening are such that the premises would not be open during the school lunch break.

Hours of Opening

The applicant originally proposed opening hours of 3pm -12pm Monday to Sunday. These hours have since been amended to 3pm - 11.30pm Monday to Saturday and 3pm – 10.30pm Sundays and Bank Holidays.

A previous decision (2/2002/0161) granted planning permission for hours of opening from 9am to 11.30pm Monday to Saturday at the takeaway premises at 61 Harrington Road. Based upon this previous decision, the proposed hours of opening are considered acceptable.

Summary

Page 52

The principle of locating a takeaway premises in this location is appropriate given the small scale shopping and services in this area. There have been no objections from the Highways Department relating to parking or increased volumes of traffic at the junction of Mason Street and Harrington Road.

Conditions are suggested to ensure the appropriate control of noise and odour to protect residential amenity. A Section 106 legal agreement is also suggested to manage the occupancy and amenity levels of the flat fronting Harrington Road. Other measure and controls are already in place should further nuisance be caused.

The applicants proposed hours of opening are in line with a previous approval (2/2002/0161) relating to the takeaway premises at 61 Harrington Road and therefore follow this precedent.

Taking into account all of the above, it is considered that the proposal would not result in a detrimental effect on the amenity of the area through appropriate conditions to ensure these levels are protected. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to a Section 106 agreement under current policy guidelines and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Recommendation: Approve d

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: 001 - Location Plan 002 - Block Plan 003 - Proposed Elevations 004 - Proposed Floor Plans Proposed hours of use letter (as amended 19/11/12) Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

3. The use hereby permitted shall not be open for customers outside the following times: 3pm to 11.30pm Mondays to Saturdays and 3pm to 10.30pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of residential properties in the locality of the application site, in compliance

Page 53 with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

4. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until full details of the ventilation and odour control measures to be installed at the property (including noise attenuation measures and predicted noise levels at the discharge point) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These measures shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and shall be fully operational before the use commences. The measures shall be retained as approved and maintained operational for the lifetime of the development. Reason: In the interests of preserving the amenity of neighbouring residents, in compliance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

5. The level of noise from the site shall not exceed NR40 as measured 1 metre from the nearest noise sensitive use, '1 Northumberland Street Workington, Workington'. Reason: In the interests of preserving the amenity of neighbouring residents, in compliance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

6. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a scheme of vibration insulation associated with the ventilation system and sound insulation for the party walls and ceilings between the rear and front flats and the development site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These measures shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and shall be fully operational before the use commences. The measures shall be retained as approved and maintained operational for the lifetime of the development. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of residential amenity in accordance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

Reasons for Approval

The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the Development Plan, any comments from consultees (including statutory consultees) and any responses from third parties. The decision was taken having regard to relevant planning policy and it was considered that the proposal was acceptable having regard to the national, strategic and local plan policies, supplementary planning guidance/documents and design guidance (set out below) and when taking all other material planning considerations into account. It was considered that there is not a demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance caused by the development

Page 54 that justifies withholding permission.

Proactive Statement

Notes to Applicant:

Page 55 2/2012/0810

Page 56

Agenda Item 9

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0601

Reference No: 2/2012/0601 Received: 31 July 2012 Proposed New 2/3 bedroom dwelling Development: Location: Rear Of Hollybank Gilcrux Wigton Applicant: Mr J & J Parnaby & Davis Drawing Numbers: Site Location Plan 120701-01 - Proposed Plans 120701-02 - Block Plan Certificate C - Amended plan received 5 December 2012

Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Radon Assessment British Coal Area ASCA Area PROW(PLN) 229002

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Sav ed) Policy EN9 - Contaminated/Derelict Land Policy EN14 - Safeguarding Water Environment, Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside Policy TR6 - Car parking guidelines

Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved) Policy HS4 - New housing in open countryside Policy HS8 - Housing design Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing

National Planning Policy Framework

Relevant Planning No relevant site history History:

Representations: Parish Council – As long as the application falls between the planning guidelines, it has no objections.

United Utilities – No objections, if possible the site should be drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer. Surface water should discharge to the

Page 57 soakaway/watercourse/surface water sewer. If surface water is allowed to be discharged to the public surface water sewer may require attenuation.

Highways – The highways authority comment that the site is served via an unmade single lane access track which has severely restricted visibility onto the public highway which is also a single track lane.

The highways authority would not wish to see any increased use of this access and approval for this application would make it difficult to refuse similar proposals to other sites along this track in the future.

The highways authority would recommend that the application is refused for the following reasons,

1. The increased use of the access onto the public highway, resulting from the proposed development would, by reason of the limited visibility from and of vehicles using the access, be likely to result in additional danger to all users of road.

2. Inadequate information has been submitted to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the proposal is acceptable in terms of visibility splays, road construction, surface water drainage and its effect on local traffic conditions and public safety.

Environmental Health – No objections

Public Rights of Way Officer – No objections, however, note that public footpath number 229002 runs through part of the location plan area, the footpath must not be altered or obstructed by the development.

There have been 9 letters of objection which relate to the following points: -

Access • The access has only been used for farm access, to open fields to the rear of the site and undeveloped gardens to the rear of properties. • Increase in use of a substandard access • Existing use is causing congestion • Existing use has increased the danger to users • No visibility • Vehicles can currently block the lane and prevent access to the fields • The lane is the only access into three fields to the rear • The development would interfere with existing field access and would make it difficult to manoeuvre large

Page 58 farm vehicles • The access track is very narrow • The development is likely to attract 2 vehicles plus visitors however there is only 2 parking space provided • The lane is used for access to horses and an increase in traffic may interfere with movement of the horses • Manoeuvring and turning vehicles is restricted • Lack of passing spaces potentially leading vehicles having to reverse round a blind bend • Limited visibility from the public highway onto the main thoroughfare through the village • Access to a farm shed is directly opposite the plot entrance • Potential issues with moving livestock on the lane • There is only one property that only has an access via the rear lane which is a conversion rather than a new build • The access is along a public right of way • The increase in use of the access could put users of the public right of way at risk • The access could be further damaged by building traffic • Potential access issues for emergency vehicles • The land adjacent to the highway at the entrance to the access belongs to 1 Chapel Terrace

Other objection issues • The proposed building is outside the permitted building line for Gilcrux, previous development not allowed outside this line. • The proposal is not in keeping with this part of the village • There is allegedly an underground stream running under Hollybank and it is not clear how the building will affect this • There are a number of properties for sale at the moment therefore further development is considered unnecessary • The proposed height would be higher than the adjoining property Banklands, which was built to the maximum height allowed under the guidelines at the time • The boundaries are not clear on the proposed plans • It is not clear how mains services will be connected • The application states that no works have commenced on site; however, the site has already been cleared and hedges removed • Potential to set a precedent for other development on the lane • Potential for overlooking

Neither

Page 59 There has been three letters that neither support nor object, they are please to see young people wishing to remain in the village; however, do have concerns relating to precedent for further homes and indicate that improvements to the access track and visibility would be required. Would suggest a local occupancy clause so the property could be available for future generations

The 3 bed detached home would not be affordable and would therefore not increase the housing stock for affordable dwellings.

The design and access statement implies the track should be viewed as a road; the access is a public footpath and muddy track. There is the potential to overlook their property in a direction not previously overlooked. Guest parking and vehicle turning should be incorporated into the design. The visibility from the access track with the highway needs improving

Support

There has been four letters of support which outline the following, need for affordable housing within the village.

There has been a letter of support submitted from the owner of the land which comments that the access gate mentioned within the objections is not opposite the site it is actually next door to the development. The gate swing would be improved by the development as the fence and previous gates have been removed to clear the land. 15 Properties access this road, seven garages and business access, plus further two fields. 8 wheeled wagons have delivered down this road with little or no difficulty. On a normal day 12 vehicles use this access this does not include farm vehicles which do not use this access on a regular basis. The road is used more by residence on a regular basis than a casual use by an equestrian centre which does not have its main access on this road. The only interests for the equestrian centre is the three fields, development would improve access to one of their fields.

Report Introduction

The proposal seeks detailed consent for the erection of a single dwelling to the rear of Hollybank, Gilcrux. The site is greenfield land located within the open countryside and is part of the garden area serving Hollybank.

The site is bound by residential gardens to the north and east, domestic garages to the west and agricultural land to the south.

Site History

Page 60 No relevant site history

Policy Considerations

National Planning Policy Considerations

The site is considered to be in accordance with the recently adopted National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which emphasises under paragraph 14 that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. In particular this development is supported by Chapter 6 which seeks to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes.

The National Policy Framework (NPPF) would support the policies relevant to this development within the Allerdale Local Plan and regional spatial strategy in terms of housing development and design.

Local Financial Implications

The Localism Act provides that local financial considerations may be a material consideration to a planning application. Where financial matters are considered, it is necessary to clarify how financial considerations have impacted on the decision, and why.

Were the application to be approved and the dwellings occupied, the development would also attract ‘New Homes Bonus’, where the government will make a payment to the Council to the same value as the council tax raised for net additional new homes and empty properties brought back into use, (with an additional amount for affordable homes), for the following six years, however this has been accorded little weight in assessing the merits of this proposal.

Main Issues

The proposal

This application provides a layout which shows the site accommodating one dwelling while still providing parking for two vehicles and amenity space. The description has been amended to remove the word affordable as the applicant seeks permission for open market house with no restrictions to limit the dwelling to an affordable unit for future occupiers of the property.

The property would be a 3 bedroomed dwelling and would be constructed using three interlocking elements to form a single unit measuring 13.4m x 9.8m in width (at the widest points) with a proposed height of 7.1m.

Page 61 The settlement boundary for Gilcrux at this site adopts a route to the rear of the existing built development and excludes the majority of the residential curtilages. The application site measures 22m x 13m with site access from the public highway via an unmade access track to the south west of the site.

The principle of dwellings outside the settlement limit would be contrary to Policy HS4 and would therefore be a departure to the Allerdale Local Plan. However given the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF is is considered appropriate to assess the relationship of the proposed dwelling with the existing pattern of development and consider whether any significant harm would result from the development.

Although the majority of Gilcux’s settlement pattern is linear in character and forward facing onto the main highway through the village, at this particular location there are other detached buildings set back from the frontage. Therefore on its individual merits, albeit outside the settlement limits, officers consider the siting of the dwelling relates reasonably well to the existing pattern of development.

The design of the building is a modern two storey dwelling. The proposed materials render walls, slate roof and timber alu clad doors and windows. This is considered acceptable with no adverse impact on the site or the amenity of neighbouring properties.

Access

Access to the site is via an unmade lane which provides access to the rear of residential gardens, a set of garages, a single dwelling, farm building, fields and equestrian use. The main access to the dwellings bar one is from the main street running through the village.

The access point onto the highway has restricted visibility in both directions due to high banking to a garden area and adjoining agricultural field. The access would be considered to be substandard for an increased level of traffic. Limited visibility of the access is gained from the public highway; also there are no footways to the public highway or the unmade track.

The visibility splays have not been included within the red line therefore the application has not demonstrated that satisfactory levels of visibility can be achieved from the unmade access track and the public highway. The visibility splays which connect the track to the public highway would cross land within third party ownership and no evidence has been provided to support increasing the visibility from this junction.

Page 62 The access point with the adopted highway is 7 metres in width (including access to a detached garage), which quickly narrows to single track with banking on either side also there are no passing places for the length of the track to the development site (45m) other than on private land not within the applicants control. Due to the fact that there is insufficient distance for two vehicles to pass this creates a situation whereby vehicles are having to wait on the highway (which is also single track) or reverse backwards along a narrow access which is also a public right of way.

The unmade access track is used by both pedestrians and horses and it is considered that the increased use with limited width could put users of the public right of way at risk above the existing situation.

The Highway Authority have recommended that the application is refused due to the increased use of the access onto the public highway with the limited visibility from and of vehicles using the access, is likely to result in additional danger to all users of road. They have also indicated that there is inadequate information relating to the development being acceptable in terms of visibility splays, road construction, surface water drainage and its effect on local traffic conditions and public safety.

Drainage

The application indicates that the site would be drained to the public surface water sewer and the foul would be to the main sewer. United Utilities have not objected to the application therefore there would be no objections to either method of disposal.

Boundary Issues

Officers consider that a satisfactory level of screening can be achieved between the new development and existing residential properties.

Residential Amenity

The dwelling would be sufficiently away from adjoining residential properties and would not be considered to cause significant overlooking of any nearby dwellings. There are no windows to the section of the building at first floor level adjoining the garden of the adjoining property ‘Banklands’. The distance from the proposed dwelling and the rear curtilage of ‘The Barn’ is considered to be of a sufficient distance not to cause significant overlooking.

Conclusion

Page 63 Considering the above points officers, although accepting the siting of the dwelling outside the current line of the settlement limit, consider the development to be contrary to local plan policies by virtue of its substandard access and therefore recommend refusal.

Recommendation: Refused

Conditions/ 1. The increased use of t he access onto the public Reasons: highway, resulting from the proposed development would, by reason of limited visibility from and of vehicles using the access, be likley to result in additional danger to all users of the road contrary to Policy HS9 of the First Alterations to the Allerdale Local Plan (saved).

Proactive Statement

Notes to Applicant:

Page 64

2/2012/0601

Page 65

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 66 Agenda Item 10

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0740

Reference No: 2/2012/0740 Received: 24 August 2012 Proposed Demolition of redundant vacant buildings and the redevelopment Development: of the site for residential development Location: Land at Brough Hill Bolton Low Houses Wigton Applicant: Mr Thomas Todd

Drawing Numbers: 12/059/1 - Location Plan Hedge Survey Report dated August 2012 Daytime Roost Inspection Survey and Activity Survey for Bats and Barn Owls dated August 2012

Constraints: Radon Assessment British Coal Area

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development Policy EN9 - Contaminated/Derelict Land Policy HS14 - Affordable/local needs housing on large sites

Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved) Policy HS4 - New housing in open countryside Policy HS8 - Housing design Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing

National Planning Policy Framework

Relevant Planning History:

Representations: Parish Council – Refuse. At the parish meeting it was decided the principle of development of the site was acceptable, but five houses would be overdevelopment of the 0.4 hectare site. The village already has numerous houses that have been for sale for over 2 years and a further development site in the village has been unsuccessful in gaining a buyer. This does not constitute a

Page 67 demand for housing in the village (30/10/12).

Cumbria Highways – It is noted that this is an outline application with all matters reserved. However the drainage strategy, to the highways drains on the A595 is completely unacceptable. I will not seek refusal on this point as all matters are reserved. I will however condition this element (31/10/12).

Environment Agency – We do not object to the proposal in principle, but the applicant will need to demonstrate that they are able to safely manage the risks posed by potential pollutants to water and land (31/10/12).

Environment Agency – On the basis of the developer connecting to the existing sewer network we withdraw our objection.

Environmental Health – No objections subject to conditions. Natural England – Standing advice shows the permission may be granted subject to appropriate conditions including a detailed mitigation and monitoring strategy for bats.

Housing Services – There is a high need for affordable housing in the parish of Boltons and in adjoining parishes. It will be dependent on planning policy whether they request any affordable housing on this development.

County Planning – We do not consider the proposal to be a Category 1 Application and the County Council will not be responding from a strategic perspective.

United Utilities – No objections (23/10/12 and 27/11/12).

Fire Officer – No reply to date.

Cumbria Wildlife Trust – No reply to date.

The application has been advertised on site and in the local paper. Adjoining owners have been notified.

3 letters have been received from the neighbouring properties, raising the following objections:

• The Allerdale and National Planning Policy states that planning will be given if there is an essential local demand for housing. There are houses of varying range in the village that have been for sale for several years and have not been sold. This would indicate there is not an essential local demand for houses. • At present there is a natural demarcation line between

Page 68 village housing and farmland. This development will be encroaching on this present boundary, in effect creating village sprawl. • The development would result in the irreversible loss of an area of agricultural land. • All nearby properties are conversions of barns or the original farmhouse. This modern development would adversely affect the current character of the existing properties. • The house is plot 1 is very close to the boundary of our property and will spoil our presently private outlook. • The application site is in the open countryside on a piece of land which forms a buffer between Brough Hill and Bolton Low Houses, extending the settlement. • The nature of the application appears to conflict with the housing services response.

1 letter of support has been received. The current site is an eye sore and has been derelict for many years. The village of Bolton Low Houses would benefit from new families to support the local school and amenities.

Report Outline consent is sought for demolition of existing buildings and residential development of 4 dwellings, Land At Brough Hill, Bolton Low Houses, Wigton.

Site

The site, measuring 0.4 hectares lies to the west of the defined settlement limit of Bolton Low Houses. The existing use is agricultural with some agricultural buildings remaining on site, although these are currently unused for this purpose and are derelict. The front of the site is level with the highway it fronts with the rear dropping off to the lower level of the A595 bordered by established hedgerows.

To the north of the site is the A595, agricultural fields to the south, immediate east is a road then residential dwellings and dwellings to the west. The road to the east separates the application site from the defined settlement boundary limit.

Proposal

The applicant seeks outline consent for the erection of four dwellings on the site, with all matters reserved. The works will include the demolition of all the buildings currently residing on the site. The proposal will seek to retain the existing hedgerows where possible.

An indicative plan has been submitted with the application that

Page 69 shows the site layout and the applicant has confirmed that all dwellings will be two storey.

Policy

The proposal is considered to be a departure from current Local Plan Policies as the site is not located within the settlement boundary and therefore has been advertised as a departure to the current Allerdale Local Plan.

It is considered acceptable to continue to apply some weight to the policies within the Allerdale Local Plan.

Assessment

The site lies outside the settlement limits, however immediately adjacent, only separated by the highway road into the village. There are existing residential dwellings lying to the west of the site also outside the defined limits. The proposed dwellings would be seen in line with the existing dwellings, therefore would have a relationship with the existing built format of Bolton Low Houses village. Bolton Low Houses is defined in the current settlement hierarchy as a Limited Growth Village, and is retained in the settlement hierarchy in the proposed Core Strategy as Rural Villages, confirming the Authority’s view that the settlement is a suitable location for further limited development.

Although the site lies outside the current settlement boundary for Bolton Low Houses, and arguably extends the settlement boundary, there appears to be a defined barrier to further development in this location of the village due to the existing adjacent dwellings and open countryside beyond. Given that the Authority acknowledges that some limited development is desirable in the village, the site is considered to be sustainable.

The NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development means that planning permission should be granted unless the

Page 70 development would result in any adverse impact that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

Officers therefore consider the proposal is a satisfactory extension to the built format of Bolton Low Houses and the principle of residential is acceptable.

Two storey dwellings will tie in with the existing dwellings in this part of the village and no objections are raised to this. Each plot will provide 2 parking spaces within the curtilage area with large amenity space, therefore 4 dwellings is not considered to result in overdevelopment of the site. The full design, scale and siting of the dwellings will be considered as part of the reserved matters application.

Affordable Housing

Policy HS14 of the Allerdale Local Plan, seeks affordable dwelling for development of 5 or more dwellings in rural villages. As the proposal only seeks consent for 4 dwellings it would be unreasonable to request an affordable dwelling be provided.

Access/Highways Issues

The indicative plan submitted with the application indicates each plot will have an individual access from the classified road to the front of the site with no access created from the A595. The existing field access from the A595 will be permanently closed.

Although all matters are reserved, the Highways Authority raised concern with the proposed drainage strategy. The applicant is proposing the surface water from the proposed development will be as existing and allowed to continue to diffuse through the buffer zone after which it will enter the highway drainage infrastructure.

This drainage strategy is completely unacceptable to the Highway Authority. The majority of the site is currently Greenfield (not hard surfacing). The historic drainage of the site might have been to highway drains, due to the slope, but is unacceptable for new build.

However as the application seeks outline consent with all matters reserved the Highways Authority do not consider it necessary to recommend refusal, but will seek to condition this element. The Highways Authority therefore considers the application to be acceptable subject to conditions.

Drainage

The foul drainage from the site is to the sewage works, a plan has

Page 71 been submitted showing the vicinity of the point of connection.

A report on the proposed method of surface water disposal was submitted with the application that highlighted the existing surface water is drained to the highway drains. The applicant proposed to retain this method of drainage for the proposed development. However further to objections raised the applicant has amended the surface water drainage and it will now be discharged via an on site attenuation facility into the existing drainage system which take the surface water from the site. The applicant comments the rate of discharge will be no more, potentially less, than the rate of discharge which presently occurs.

The amended form of surface water drainage overcomes the concerns raised by the Highways Authority. United Utilities raise no objections to the proposal and the full details can be provided as part of the reserved matters application.

Risks posed by pollutants to water and land

Environment Agency do not object to the principle of the proposal, however from the submitted details the applicant has not been able to demonstrate that they are able to safely manage the risks by potential pollutants to water and land.

Environment Agency recommended the applicant make further investigation to determine whether it is possible to connect to the mains sewer. This has been done and connection is proposed to the sewers therefore the concerns of the Environment Agency have been addressed.

Ecology

A daytime roost inspection survey and activity survey for bats and barn owls and a hedge survey report have been submitted with the application.

The bat and owl survey relate to works on the buildings that remain standing on the site. Survey work has identified a transient day/night roost used opportunistically by very low numbers of common pipistrelle. A night feeding perch has also been identified, used very infrequently.

Use by bats is considered incidental and occasional and it is considered the proposed works can adequately mitigate for disturbance. The report has included appropriate mitigation measures for the identified roosts, which can be controlled by condition.

Hedgerows border the northwest, northeast and southeast of the

Page 72 development site, with some large trees spread throughout the hedgerow. Development of the site will result in work/removal to part of the hedgerow, therefore a detailed survey has been carried out.

The survey concludes the proposed development will affect two hedges along the southwest boundary of the site. The impact is considered low to moderate if removal is undertaken in the winter and mitigation planting is undertaken. The planting of new species- rich hedgerow will provide increased biodiversity. It is considered also an opportunity to enhance the other hedgerows on site by planting native tree/hedge species and planting native ground flora.

Officers agree with the findings in the report, with the indicative plan submitted with the application showing the applicant is taking all measures with the layout of the site to protect where possible the trees and hedgerow and propose further planting where required.

Noise Assessment

The development site is located immediately southeast of the A595 at Bolton Low Houses, therefore a road traffic noise assessment has been carried out and submitted with the application. The requirements of the report were agreed with the Environmental Health Officers.

Following the findings of the report Environmental Health Officers raised no objections to the proposal subject to adequate conditions relating to the specification of all glazing units, all habitable rooms facing the A595 shall be fitted with acoustic trickle vents and acoustic fencing shall be fitted.

Response to neighbour concerns

The Parish Council and residents have commented that there are a number of existing properties on the market in the village which have not sold, therefore not constituting a demand for housing in the village. This however is not considered a material consideration when assessing the merits of the proposal.

The buildings on the site are currently vacant and derelict. The site is not been used for agricultural farming purposes, therefore the loss of this small agricultural land is not considered significant enough to outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

The relationship between the proposed properties and existing dwellings will be considered in full at reserved matters stage when full details will be provided on the design of the dwellings, to

Page 73 ensure no unacceptable loss of privacy is created as a result of the proposal.

Local Financial Implications

There will be some financial benefits to the Council through the New Homes Bonus Scheme. This has not been accorded significant weight in judging the overall planning merits of the current scheme.

Conclusion

Recommendation: Approved

Conditions/ 1. Before any works commence, details of the layout, scale Reasons: and appearance, access and landscaping (hereinafter called 'reserved matters') shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The application has been submitted as an outline application, in accordance with the provisions of the details of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Procedure) Order 1995.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: 12/059/1 - Location Plan Hedge Survey Report dated August 2012 Daytime Roost Inspection Survey and Activity Survey for Bats and Barn Owls dated August 2012 Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

Page 74 Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

4. The development shall not be brought into use until visibility splays providing clear visibility of 2.4 metres by site maximum, measured down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the major road have been provided at the junction of each of th accesses with the county highway. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, or object of any kind shall be erected or placed and no structures, trees, bushes or other plants which exceed 1m in height shall be planted or be permitted to grow within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: To ensure an acceptable standard of highway access, in compliance with Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations June 2006 (Saved).

5. Details of the proposed crossings of the highway verge and/or footway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The development shall not be commenced until the details have been approved and the crossing constructed. Reason: To ensure a suitable standard of crossing for pedestrian safety.

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 at all times thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management.

7. Before any development takes place, a plan shall be submitted for the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority reserving adequate land for the parking of vehicles engaged in the 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 the completion of the construction works. Reason: The carrying out of this development without the provision of these facilities during the construction work is

Page 75 likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users.

8. Before any of the dwellings hereby permitted is occupied, the application sites existing access to the A595 shall be permanently closed and the highway crossing and boundary shall be reinstated in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise highway danger and for the avoidance of doubt.

9. The works shall be implemented solely in accordance with the mitigation strategy outlined in Section 5 of the Daytime Roost Inspection Survey and Activity Survey for Bats and Barn Owl dated August 2012. Reason: To safeguard the habitat of bats, in compliance with Policy EN32 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

10. Details of glazing for all openings shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and the approved details shall be installed prior to the occupation of the dwellings and retained at all times thereafter. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.

11. All habitable rooms facing onto the A595 shall be fitted with acoustic trickle vents. Details of these shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to any commencement on site and the approved details shall be installed prior to occupation of the dwellings and retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.

12. Prior to commencement of the development specification of the acoustic fencing along the A595 roadside boundary shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be in place prior to the occupation of the dwellings and retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.

14. No development shall take place until a Construction and Demolition Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall include the following: (a) Traffic Management Plan to include all traffic associated with the development, including site and staff traffic; (b) Procedure to monitor and mitigate noise and vibration from the construction and demolition and to

Page 76 monitor any properties at risk of damage from vibration, as well as taking into account noise from vehicles, deliveries. All measurements should make reference to BS7445. (c) Mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts on residential properties from construction compounds including visual impact, noise, and light pollution. (d) Mitigation measures to ensure that no harm is caused to protected species during construction. (e) A written procedure for dealing with complaints regarding the construction or demolition; (f) Measures to control the emissions of dust and dirt during construction and demolition; (g) Programme of work for Demolition and Construction phase; (h) Hours of working and deliveries; (i) Details of lighting to be used on site. The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the duration of the development. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, in compliance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

15. The existing boumdary hedges and propsoed works to the hedges shall be implemented solely in accordance with the mitigation and planting recommendation outlined in section 4 of the Hedge Survey Report dated August 2012. Reason: In order to enhance the appearance of the development and minimise the impact of the development in the locality.

Reasons for Approval

The decision to grant outline planning permission has been taken having regard to the Development Plan, any comments from consultees (including statutory consultees) and any responses from third parties. The decision was taken having regard to relevant planning policy and it was considered that the proposal was acceptable having regard to the national, strategic and local plan policies, supplementary planning guidance/documents and design guidance (set out below) and when taking all other material planning considerations into account. It was considered that there is not a demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance caused by the development that justifies withholding permission.

Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development Policy EN9 - Contaminated/Derelict Land Policy HS14 - Affordable/local needs housing on large sites

Page 77

Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved) Policy HS4 - New housing in open countrysid Policy HS8 - Housing design Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing

National Planning Policy Framework

Proactive Statement

Notes to United Utilities Applicant: A separate metered supply to each unit will be required at the applicant’s expense and all internal pipework must comply with current water supply (water fittings) regulations 1999. On receipt of approval, the applicant should contact United Utilities Service Enquiries on 0845 7462200 regarding connection to the water mains/public sewers.

Please note, due to the public sewer transfer, not all sewers are currently shown on the statutory sewer records, if a sewer is discovered construction, please contact a Building Control Body to discuss the matter further.

Waste

It is a legal requirement to have a site waste management plan (SWMP) for all new construction projects worth more than £300,000. The level of detail that your SWMP should contain depends on the estimated build cost, excluding VAT. You must still comply with the duty of care for waste. You will need to record all

Page 78 waste movements in one direction, so having a SWMP will help you to ensure you meet your duty of care. Further information can be found at: http://www.businesslink.gov.uk under Environment and Efficiency-Waste Legislation and Responsibility

You must apply the waste hierarchy in a priority order of prevention, re-use, recycling before considering other recovery or disposal options. Government Guidance on the waste hierarchy in England is at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13530- waste-hierarchy-guidance.pdf

Pollution Prevention

Pollution Prevention measures on site need to be implemented to protect surface waters and ground waters; these should comply with the Environment Agency pollution prevention guidelines 6 Working at construction and demolition sites. These and further Pollution Guidelines can be downloaded at: ttp://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/business/topics/pollution/39083.aspx

Page 79 2/2012/0740

Page 80

Agenda Item 11

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0823

Reference No: 2/2012/0823 Received: 5 November 2012 Proposed Erection of raised patio, external staircase and boundary wall - Development: Retrospective Location: 52 High Street Maryport Applicant: Mr R Bell

Drawing Numbers: 101 Rev A - Site Location Plan, Block Plan Elevation and Floor Plan WDS/05/2577/02 - Section and Details

Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Conservation Area:,MARYPORT ASCA Area Article 4 Adv Control Exclusion - Maryport

Policies: Aller dale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO2 - Design of alterations in Conservation Areas Policy HS12 - Extensions to dwellings

National Planning Policy Framework

Relevant Planning None relevant History:

Representations: Town Council – A site visit is requested.

Highways Authority – No objections

Environmental Health – No objections.

The application has been advertised on site and in the local paper. Adjoining owners have been notified.

1 letter of objection has been received for the neighbouring property. Their objections are:

• They ask that the application be determined as if no works have been carried out.

Page 81 • No objections are raised to their neighbours improving their property and providing a patio area to make the rear of their property more usable providing their own residential amenities are not compromised. • The level of the raised patio area results in overlooking into the neighbouring property adversely affecting the privacy with the mental and emotional fear of this been a drain on their wellbeing. • The patio and link into the house clearly adversely affects the privacy and residential amenity contrary to Policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan. • One of the reasons offered for the patio to be constructed at this level was to make use of the space below the decking with access from the lower level of the rear yard. It appears the height of the basement to the underside of the decking is approximately 3m. There would appear no reason for this height other than to make the path and patio level with the ground floor of the house. Setting the decking/patio at a lower level would overcome our objections. • By lowering the patio level by the height of the proposed glazed panel (0.694m) the boundary wall, as built, would provide a solid screen of 1.87m on the applicants side and a boundary wall of 1.7m, as now exists, on the objector side, which they consider acceptable. • The proposed glazed panel can only provide a discomforting solution to the loss of privacy. • The height of the boundary treatment as proposed would be 3.37m on the objector sides. • The construction of this when viewed from the objectors lounge, will give a tunnel effect and whilst it is accepted theta the view is of little consequence in the determination of development proposals, the combination of the wall and screen will seriously and adversely affect their visual amenity.

1 letter of support has been received. The patio is the same height as No 54 and is a pleasure to look out of the window and see it instead of a large bleak yard. They will no be able to enjoy the sun like everyone else instead of being in the dark all the time.

Report Part retrospective consent is sought for erection of raised patio, external staircase and boundary wall, 52 High Street, Maryport.

Site

The application site is a mid terraced property lying in the settlement limit of Maryport within Maryport Conservation Area. The property has an Article 4 direction placed on it that also restricts the height of boundary enclosures without requiring planning permission to 2 metres in height.

Page 82

This group of terraces are 2 storey high with steps leading for the footpath up to the front door. There is a lane to the back of the terrace which is on a significantly lower level. Access to the lane can be gained from the rear yard. Many of the properties have a small yard area on the same level as the back lane with a raised patio area similar to the height of the ground floor of the dwelling. The rear boundary walls to the lane of these properties are approximately 4.9 metres in height.

Proposal

The applicant seeks retrospective consent for the erection of a raised patio area, external staircase and boundary wall. The plans submitted also include a further extension to the height of the boundary treatment with this work not been carried out.

The application site previously had to the rear of the property a steep internal staircase, which went from the ground floor of the property to the rear yard area of the site with a basement situated below.

The rear gable of the house is stepped with the raised decking created extending 11.8 metres and 5.1m from the rear gable. Timber balustrade fencing has been erected along the rear part of the patio as a safety measure. Steps lead from the patio area to the yard below. A wall 9.3 in length has been erected at a height of 1.18m when measured from the applicant’s side.

Policy

The proposal would be used for domestic purposes and therefore would be supported under Chapter 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which outlines under paragraph 56 the importance of good design in securing sustainable development and making places better.

It is considered acceptable to continue to apply some weight to Policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan because the purpose of the policy (to preserve residential and visual amenity) is not contrary to guidance within the NPPF.

Assessment

The adjoining properties No 50 and No 54 High Street have raised patios area similar to that proposed under this application. No objections have been raised by either neighbour in relation to the principle of creating a raised patio area.

Page 83 Officers consider the main issues that need to be assessed as part of the planning are:

• Loss of privacy/overlooking created by the raised patio area. • The height of the proposed boundary treatment creating an unneighbourly development for No 50 looking at a high blank wall. • The design of the proposal and impact on the Conservation Area.

Loss of Privacy/Overlooking

The wall that has been built on the applicant’s side is a breeze block wall with coping to the top that measures 1.18 metres in height. The plans show this to be rendered.

The level of the applicant’s patio area is slightly higher than the finished level of No. 50 High Street. Concern is raised that the applicants patio area will overlook both the neighbours yard area and partially into the living room and kitchen windows.

Policy HS12 point (iii) of the Allerdale Local Plan seeks to protect the privacy and visual amenity of adjacent residents.

Officers consider the height of the wall as currently erected would not provide an adequate level of screening to protect the privacy of No. 50 High Street and an unacceptable level of overlooking would be created.

The applicants acknowledge officers concern in relation to overlooking issues and have therefore proposed to erect toughened obscure glazed panels on top of the coping to create a screen of 1.874 in total from the level of the applicant’s patio. No details of the level of obscure glazing have been provided but a condition requesting the level and sample could be attached to an approval.

Officers consider a boundary treatment of 1.874 metres to be acceptable and would overcome the concerns raised with regards to overlooking issues. To obtain a secure fixing of the obscure glazing officers consider the coping currently installed on the wall should be removed and the obscure glazing fixed directly to the wall.

Between the gable wall of the dwelling and the start of the new wall/glazing panels is an existing section of sandstone wall measuring 2.4 metres in length. Part of the wall appears to have crumbled with the height ranging from 1.9 metres to 1.18 metres. The applicants have confirmed verbally their intentions to carry out

Page 84 works to this section of wall to create a finished height to match the wall over the yard area. No. 50 has a small platform at the top of the steps leading from the house to the yard area. Therefore part of this work to increase the height of the wall to 2 metres would be able to be achieved under their permitted development rights. However officers consider this would not extend to the full length of this section of wall. Without full details of how much work can be done under permitted development rights it cannot be fully assessed if a section will be left open creating a small section of overlooking.

The existing boundary treatment between No. 52 and No. 54 High Street is a sandstone wall measuring 1.8m in height. No works are proposed to this wall and officers consider it provides a sufficient form of screening.

Unneighbourly Development

The land level of the patio area on the neighbouring property No. 50 High Street is lower than that created on the application side. Therefore the proposed height of the boundary treatment on the applicant’s side of 1.874 will be increased on the objector’s side.

The objector steps out of the rear of their property and has steps leading down to a patio area, a rear yard on lower ground lower lies beyond at the level of the access lane. The objectors land is slightly sloping away from the property. The wall the applicant has erected would result in the height of the wall on the objectors side been 1.85 metres at the lowest point and 2.05 metres at the highest point. Officers consider this as it stands would be acceptable in terms of providing a neighbourly development but as discussed above would not result in an adequate level of screening.

The addition of the obscure glazing panel would result in the height of the wall on the neighbour’s side being approximately 2.544 metres at the lowest point and approximately 2.744.

Officers consider a blank boundary treatment to a height of 2.744 metres would not be domestic in scale and would significantly impact on the visual amenity of the occupiers of No. 50.

The objectors are concerned that the boundary treatment would reduce the natural daylight to their property. However the section of wall/obscure panel proposed only runs along a small section of the projecting part of the dwelling which is a kitchen. There is a gable window at ground floor level to a dining room/living room.

Officers consider the distance of the wall from the dwelling and the nature of the glazing allowing some light through will not

Page 85 significantly reduce the natural light to the property.

The extension of the wall immediately adjacent to the property may result in some loss of natural light, but this is not part of the application and can be built up to 2 metres without the need of planning permission.

Design and Impact on Conservation Area

The high boundary wall (4.944) to the rear of the site will provide a screen from the development been seen from the rear lane and will therefore not be seen from public views other than the neighbouring properties.

The design of the proposal and the materials used are considered to be compatible with the character and setting of the Conservation Area in which the property lies.

Response to objectors letter

The application has been considered on its full planning merits and no weight has been given to the application forming a partial retrospective application.

The concerns raised with overlooking/loss of privacy and visual amenity has been addressed in the main body of the report. The height of the proposed wall/glazing panel as shown on the objector’s letter is incorrect but the report above includes the correct measurements.

Officers acknowledge that a reduction in height of the patio area could overcome officers concerns with regards to the height of the boundary treatment and overlooking issues. The objectors state that no objections would be raised if this was proposed.

Local Financial Implications

No local financial implications

Conclusion

The principle of the creation of a patio area is considered acceptable without resulting in a detrimental effect on the setting of the Conservation Area.

The form of boundary treatment proposed however between No. 50 and 52 High Street is considered to result in an unneighbourly development contrary to Policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 86 Should members be minded to refuse the application, by virtue of the retrospective nature of the works with significant overlooking of the neighbouring objectors yard from the applicants raised patio, it is also recommended that enforcement action be pursued for the removal of this unauthorised structure.

Recommendation: Refuse

Conditions/ 1. The proposed boundary treatment between No. 50 and No Reasons: 52 High Street, by virtue of its size and position relative to adjoining property, to be a prominent and alien feature harmful to the visual amenities of the occupiers of No. 50 High Street. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

Proactive Statement

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to resolve all those matters within the timescale allocated for the determination of this planning application. However, the Local Planning Authority has clearly set out within its report, the outstanding matters needing to be remedied to address the harm identified within the reasons for refusal– which may potentially lead to the submission of a more acceptable proposal in the future. The Local Planning Authority is willing to provide pre-application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.

Notes to None Applicant:

Page 87 2/2012/0823

Page 88

Agenda Item 12

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0876

Reference No: 2/2012/0876 Received: 20 November 2012 Proposed Outline application for residential development Development: Location: Part Field 7800 Newton Arlosh Wigton Applicant: Mr P Boustead Lakeland Building Design

Drawing Numbers: 12.25.LOC.A - Site Location Plan - Amended Plan - Received 13 December 2012

Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 CZ1-CZ6 ASCA Area EN20

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Policy EN1 - Minimising Travel Policy EN14 - Safeguarding Water Environment Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside Policy EN3 - Landscaping, Allerdale Local Plan Policy EN9 - Contaminated/Derelict Land Policy TR6 - Car parking guidelines Policy EN20 - Protection of AONB

Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved)

Policy HS4 - New housing in open countryside Policy HS8 - Housing design Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing

Relevant Planning No relevant site history History:

Representations: Parish Coun cil – No objections

United Utilities – No objections subject to only foul drainage to the main sewer. Surface water should be to the watercourse as

Page 89 stated on the application form.

Environmental Health – No objections subject to an unexpected contamination condition and the submission of a construction management plan.

Highways Authority – No objections subject to appropriate conditions relating to the submission of details of the access, parking and turning are reserved by condition.

County Archaeologist - No recommendations or comments

Housing – No comments as it is unlikely that planners will be asking for a quota of affordable housing on the site.

The application has been advertised on site and within the local press. Adjoining owners have been notified.

There have been two letters of objection which relate to:

• Inaccurate plans • The plan states field 7800 as the proposed site and shows 7786, is there potential for further development? • There are currently a large number of properties for sale within the village which stands empty • Large properties are not selling within the village • Empty properties could affect the value of other homes within the village • No need for this type of development as there are no employment opportunities to attract people to the area or to sustain the houses that are new and have taken years to sell • The village needs affordable housing for young people and families • The views to the Lake District would be affected. • The site is not within the village plan no housing is shown on this side of the road which was put in place to maintain the beauty and balance of the village • Disruption and noise from the building works

Report Introduction

The proposal is an outline application with all matters reserved for the erection of two dwellings on a greenfield site located within Newton Arlosh. The site is approximately 30m in depth by 30m in width. The site is bound by residential dwellings and the highway to the north west, to the north east is an active agricultural holding/horses and open countryside to the rear and south west.

Page 90

National Planning Policy Considerations

The National Policy Framework (NPPF) would support the policies relevant to this development within the Allerdale Local Plan and regional spatial strategy in terms of housing development and design.

Five Year land Supply

A key objective of the NPPF is to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes.

Local planning authorities are required to identify a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years supply of housing against the identified housing requirement. Where there is a record of under delivery of housing, LPA’s need to provide a buffer of an additional 20% to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planning supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.

Notwithstanding recent planning permissions at Stainburn and Clifton, and including the recent appeal decision relating to ‘The Fitz’ at Cockermouth. Allerdale does not have a 5 year supply of housing land. This is based on the requirements of Policy L4 of the North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (RSS) which, at present, remains part of the Development Plan. Based on past delivery rates it is also necessary to take into account the need to provide an additional buffer of 20% as required by the NPPF.

Local Financial Implications

Page 91 for affordable homes), for the following six years, however this has been accorded little weight in assessing the merits of this proposal.

The Proposal

The application site is located adjacent to the designated settlement limit for Newton Arlosh and backs out onto open countryside. The site lies in a predominately residential area with a variety of types and sizes of dwelling surrounding the site.

Although the site is not located within the settlement limits there are limited sites for development within Newton Arlosh and this site is considered to be an appropriate continuation of the built development reflecting the built pattern and character of the settlement. Officers consider that site frontage development is sufficient related to the existing development within the immediate locality of the site.

The site plan was amended to reduce the site in the interests of residential amenity, due to the fact there is a large agricultural/stable building adjacent to the boundary with the original proposed site. The red line has been reduced so it would now be 36m from the boundary, the councils environmental health department have indicated that the curtilage of the nearest would limit any potential impacts from noise and odour from existing use of the adjacent site. Even with the separation distance from the existing built development on this side of the highway it is still sufficiently well related to the dwellings on the opposite side of the road.

The applicant has amended the indicative plan to show that two detached dwelling could be accommodated on the site while still providing parking, turning areas and amenity space. Two storey properties on this site would be in keeping with other dwellings in the immediate locality, therefore no restriction is required as to type of dwelling.

Highways

The site would be accessed by way of two new vehicular access from the public highway. The Highways Authority has not raised any objections in relation to gaining access, parking or turning within the site and has requested that they are reserved by condition.

The proposal is not considered to cause undue harm to highway safety. It is considered appropriate to impose a condition to require two parking spaces per dwelling due to the limited on street parking.

Page 92

Drainage

Disposal of foul sewage is proposed via the mains sewer and surface water would discharge to the watercourse. A condition relating to the submission of the surface water details would ensure a satisfactory scheme could be achieved.

Residential Amenity

It is considered that a satisfactory distance between the existing dwellings and proposed site can be achieved and therefore a satisfactory level of privacy and amenity can be accomplished for both parties.

Other issues

The hedge adjacent to the highway would be removed in order to provide sufficient visibility from the vehicular access. The loss of the hedge is not considered to be significant and would be acceptable in terms of being in keeping with the existing linear settlement pattern and residential development.

Officers consider that a satisfactory level of development can be achieved on this site that would fit well within its surrounding environs.

The development, with the backdrop of the existing village with its mixed house types is not considered to have a negative effect on the sites location within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Objectors comments

The loss of a view is not considered to be a material planning consideration.

The size of the development does not warrant the need for an affordable dwelling as part of the proposal.

Officers do not consider that there are other dwellings for sale or not selling are grounds for refusal.

Any construction traffic and disturbance from works can be controlled by condition to limit the impacts.

Conclusion

It is considered that the principle of development in this location is acceptable. The layout, siting, access, parking, design and external appearance will be reserved to a later date.

Page 93

Recommendation: Approved

Conditions/ 1. Bef ore any works commence, details of the layout, Reasons: scale and appearance, access and landscaping (hereinafter called 'reserved matters') shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The application has been submitted as an outline application, in accordance with the provisions of the details of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Procedure) Order 1995.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: 12.25.LOC.A - Site Location Plan - Amended Plan - Received 13 December 2012 Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

4. Provision shall be made in the submission of any 'reserved matters' application for a minimum of two parking spaces for each individual dwellinghouse. Reason: To ensure that a minimum standard of off-street parking provision is made for the development and in the interests of highway safety, in compliance with Policy TR6 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

5. Details of the provisions of a vehicle turning space within the site which enables vehicles to access and egress from the site onto the highway in forward gear shall be submitted within any 'reserved matters' application to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The development shall not be brought into use until any such details have been approved and the

Page 94 turning space fully implemented. The turning space shall thereafter be retained at all times and shall not be used for any other purpose. Reason: To ensure that the provision is made for off-street vehicle turning space to enable access and egress from the site in forward gear in the interests of highway safety.

6. Only foul drainage shall be connected to the public sewer. Reason: To ensure a sustainable means of drainage from the site and minimise the risk of water pollution to the local water environment, in compliance with Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations June 2006 (Saved).

7. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Development on the part of the site affected must be halted and a risk assessment carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where unacceptable risks are found remediation and verification schemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These shall be implemented prior to the development (or relevant phase of development) being brought into use. All works shall be undertaken in accordance with current UK guidance, particularly CLR11. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved).

8. No development shall take place until a Construction and Demolition Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall include the following: (a) Traffic Management Plan to include all traffic associated with the development, including site and staff traffic; (b) Procedure to monitor and mitigate noise and vibration from the construction and demolition and to monitor any properties at risk of damage from vibration, as well as taking into account noise from vehicles, deliveries. All measurements should make reference to BS7445. (c) Mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts on residential properties from construction compounds including visual impact, noise, and light pollution.

Page 95 (d) Mitigation measures to ensure that no harm is caused to protected species during construction. (e) A written procedure for dealing with complaints regarding the construction or demolition; (f) Measures to control the emissions of dust and dirt during construction and demolition; (g) Programme of work for Demolition and Construction phase; (h) Hours of working and deliveries; (i) Details of lighting to be used on site. The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the duration of the development. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, in compliance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

9. Details of the siting, height and type of all means of enclosure/screen walls/fences/other means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any such walls/fences etc shall be constructed prior to the approved building being brought into use/occupied. All means of enclosure so constructed shall be retained and no part thereof shall be removed without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area.

10. Prior to the commencement of works, details of the surface water drainage works, including any attenuation measures to demonstrate that no greater run off rate than the existing greenfield site and an additional allowance for climate change shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of any of the dwellinghouses hereby approved. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of surface water drainage and minimise the risk of flooding, in compliance with Policy EN14 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations June 2006 (Saved).

Reasons for Approval

Page 96 planning policy and it was considered that the proposal was acceptable having regard to the national, strategic and local plan policies, supplementary planning guidance/documents and design guidance (set out below) and when taking all other material planning considerations into account. It was considered that there is not a demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance caused by the development that justifies withholding permission.

Proactive Statement

Notes to Applicant:

Page 97 2/2012/0876

Page 98

Agenda Item 13

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0789

Reference No: 2/2012/0789 Received: 10 October 2012 Proposed Change of use of land to provide community garden area Development: Location: Site At Garth Road Westfield Workington Applicant: Mr Benjamin Brinicombe Derwent And Solway Housing Association

Drawing Numbers: 12.0014.09A - Site Location Plan 12.0014.06A - Proposed Layout Plan Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Top Study (amendment received 7/11/2012)

Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 British Coal Area Adv Control Exclusion - Workington

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CZ5 - Control of pollution Policy EN37 - Protection of open land in urban areas Policy EN5 - Pollution Control Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development Policy EN9 - Contaminated/Derelict Land Policy L3 - New leisure/community facilities

National Planning Policy Frameowrk March 2012 Achieving sustainable developement

Relevant Planning None History:

Representations: Town Council – No objections Highway Authority – No objections subject to condition Environmental Protection – No objection subject to conditions

The application has been advertised on site and adjoining landowners have been notified.

Four letters of objection have been received from nearby residents regarding the proximity of the garden to their properties and the

Page 99 potential for overlooking, loss of privacy, anti- social behaviour, crime, on-street parking congestion, and vermin.

A 21 signature petition of objection has also been received from Garth Road and Ghyll Road addresses. No specific reason for objection has been given. However it can be safely assumed that general residential amenity is of concern.

Report Proposal

Application for the change of use of land to create a ‘community garden’.

The plans submitted with the application show the general layout of the proposed garden. The layout will provide planting areas and raised beds, greenhouse, storage buildings, landscaping and secure means of enclosure around the site. The proposed garden will extend to the very edge of the enclosed private rear gardens of the houses on the perimeter of the site.

Application Site

The site comprises a piece of open land enclosed and overlooked by residential development on all sides. The site has pedestrian access and limited vehicle access between two houses from Garth Road.

The land is essentially rough grassland and scrub undergrowth. The last known use of the site was as individual allotment gardens many years ago with evidence of a single remaining allotment. It is therefore considered that the site has had a previous lawful use but has regenerated itself to become a ‘greenfield site’.

It is brought to Members’ attention that two other applications for similar community gardens have been approved under delegated powers at Hillary Close and Wastwater Ave (refs 2/2012/0790 and 2/2012/0791). A full overview of the project for all three sites as described by the applicant is as follows.

Project Overview

Based in the Moss Bay and Moorclose Wards of Workington, Cumbria, the project is community-led and designed to promote local food growing by setting up a series of community gardens. The aim is to address health inequality and promote financial inclusion, as well as improve quality of life. Although the scheme name makes reference to the term ‘allotments’, the term is used in this case to describe food growing areas and not traditional “multipurpose” allotments. 3 significant and carefully managed community growing areas will be created through the initiative

Page 100 utilising land made available from Social Landlords and managed through the project to enable local people to be able to grow their own food. The project will employ two co-ordinators to facilitate works to establish growing areas and develop volunteer schemes to help implement and manage all aspects of the project. The project will work over an initial 2 year programme to establish and begin management of the community growing areas. Each area has a specific requirement in terms of capital investment. Further funding has also been set aside in the project towards supporting local elderly residents to grow food alongside local volunteers in gardens across south Workington.

The project will be delivered by employing two HEAT Coordinators to deliver/promote healthy eating, health improvement and community activity. They will also oversee the establishment of the community growing areas in the three areas of land, one on the Frostoms estate, one in the Westfield area and one in Salterbeck. The Coordinators will be ‘hosted’ by Derwent & Solway Housing Association and their base will be in Frostoms in the former Neighbourhood Management Offices. They will be expected to be out and about working with community groups and on the planting areas. It will also be possible to gain Information about the scheme and how to get involved at the Oval Centre.

The programme will be managed through the Derwent & Solway Projects & Regeneration Team as project applicant and overseen by the South Workington Allotment Partnership Steering group made up of community representatives and leaders. Details of the project are as follows:

Site Management : Site layout and design will need to take account of the following needs: To reduce odour, noise and pests. To ensure that composting areas are situated away from neighbouring properties and recreational facilities. To allow for spaces with shade and protection. To allow for suitable human access. A strict code of conduct will be in place for site users to ensure that the site is not abused or inappropriately developed.

Management of Plots : Should an individual wish to manage a plot within the sites, there will be strict controls on the approach they can adopt. Some key controls can be identified as : (i) Plot Boundaries are to be installed and maintained in partnership with Derwent & Solway. This means that there will be no “ad hoc” boundaries of “chicken wire and metal sheeting” which could damage the aesthetics of the site established by individuals. (ii) Noise will be monitoring and restricted. Site users proved to be creating noise nuisance for local residents will not be allowed to continue to use the site.

Page 101 (iii) Times of use: “opening times” will be established for the gardens over the summer and winter months. No use of the site will be allowed outside of these times unless in exceptional circumstances

Outcomes : There are 5 key outcomes associated with the project: 1. Creation of 3 sustainable community gardens within the first year of the project which produce food for local communities through both cooperative growing schemes and individual growing plots. 2. Creation of over 100 volunteering opportunities and 2 apprenticeship opportunities associated with managing the growing spaces over the first 2 years of the project. 3. Development of the South Workington Allotment Partnership into a social enterprise or third sector provider in order to maintain delivery of the initiative post completion of Local Food Funding and able to roll out similar initiatives in other deprived communities in West Cumbria. This will be achieved through the identification and development of opportunities to produce food and accessing funding packages to support training initiatives. 4. Greater levels of community participation in growing schemes through support for individuals wishing to grow food in local gardens. This will be achieved through works to Gardens in partnership with residents and support from the developing volunteer network. More than 15 gardens will be improved for local growing opportunities during the life of the project. 5. Improved health and well-being of project participants through partnership with NHS services providing health checks for volunteers.

Timetable: Funding has been secured from the Big Lottery and the project aims to commence in October 2013 with a view to preparing areas for the next growing season.

Exit Strategy : Big lottery land and building requirements dictate that the growing sites need to be made available to the project over a term of at least 5 years. As a result, as project applicant Derwent & Solway will need to have a lease on each site for a term of 5 years. Revenue funding for staff posts and capital works will be available from Big Lottery for years 1 and 2 of the initiative. In years 3 and 4 there will be a reduction in revenue costs as there will no longer be a need for 2 staff posts to manage the sites. Funding will be sought from local bodies and Cumbria Housing Partners to continue to support training and development opportunities in the initiative over this period. Derwent & Solway will also be supporting the initiative through its Estates Services team during this time in terms of monitoring use and general site upkeep. By year 5, South Workington Allotment Partnership will be

Page 102 maintaining an overview of each of the 3 sites, providing management support through a volunteer network. From year 6, leased sites will return to their land owning social landlord. It is assumed that by this time the growing sites will be well established under the leadership of SWAP which has representation from officers and residents of each of the 3 key landlords in south Workington.

Assessment

The proposed change of use is to create a communal community garden managed by Derwent and Solway Housing Association and for the use by local residents. The application has received significant objection by petition from local residents and is therefore before the Planning Committee for determination.

Of some significance is that two other applications for similar community gardens approved under delegated powers at Hillary Close and Wastwater Ave (refs 2/2012/0790 and 2/2012/0791) have been subject to far less objection. The assessment of this application is consistent with that of the other two referred to above.

It is Officer opinion that the proposed use will provide a valuable community facility and can be conditioned for further details to safeguard general amenity. The creation of the community garden is seen to outweigh any value that the site has in its undeveloped state. It contributes little to the townscape or open space provision in the area and its change of use is in accordance with Policy EN37.

A Desk Top Study has been submitted regarding possible site contamination with the concerns over food production. Allerdale Environmental Protection has responded to the findings with standard conditions for implementation of the recommendations within the report.

The Highway Authority has recognised that the site has no parking provision with only on street parking available in the neighbourhood.

This has raised some concern due to the potential for users of the garden to visit the site by car thus adding to the demand for on street parking. The garden is intended for local residents and the Highway Authority has requested an appropriate condition restricting use in this way to minimise car borne visitors to the site. Such a condition is considered unreasonable and unenforceable. It is Officer opinion that the use of the site will be self-regulatory under the control and management of the Housing Association. Under such management, only local residents will be users of the

Page 103 garden thus minimising impact upon on street parking and highway safety.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications to the Council. This has no significance upon this recommendation.

Conclusion

It is Officer opinion that the garden use proposed is not considered to be detrimental to residential amenity. It is not anticipated that the activity will create excessive noise, odour or un-neighbourly or anti-social behaviour. The existing means of enclosure and that proposed will minimise overlooking and privacy is not considered to be unreasonably compromised.

Furthermore, the long term management of the site by the Housing Association and planning conditions to control the appearance and use of the site are considered adequate measures to safeguard general amenity.

The highway issues regarding parking congestion have been documented within the report. On balance the objections raised are not considered defensible reasons for refusal.

On balance the change of use will have minimal impact generally and can be supported. The application can be approved in accordance with current Local Plan policies screened alongside the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012.

Recommendation: Approved

Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before Reasons: the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: 12.0014.09A - Site Location Plan 12.0014.06A - Proposed Layout Plan Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Top Study (amendment received 7/11/2012) Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development. 3. Before development commences further details of the

Page 104 design, appearance and siting of any proposed buildings, greenhouses or other structures shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing. The development shall be implemented only in accordance with the approved details. Reason : In the interests of visual and residential amenity 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2008 (or in any Statutory Instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no buildings or structures of any kind shall be constructed without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority upon an application submitted to it. Reason: The Local Planning Authority wishes to retain control over any proposed buildings or structures in the interests of the appearance of the site and safeguard the amenities of adjacent properties. 5. Details of the siting, height and type of all means of enclosure/screen walls/fences/other means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any such walls/fences etc shall be constructed prior to the approved building being brought into use/occupied. All means of enclosure so constructed shall be retained and no part thereof shall be removed without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area. 6. No development approved by this permission shall commence until all necessary site investigation works within the site boundary have been carried out to establish the degree and nature of the contamination and its potential to pollute the environment or cause harm to human health. The scope of works for the site investigations should be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved). 7. Should land affected by contamination be identified under the desk top study under condition 6 is found which poses unacceptable risks to human health, controlled waters or the wider environment, no development shall take place until a detailed remediation scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include an appraisal of remediation options, identification of the preferred option(s), the proposed remediation

Page 105 objectives and remediation criteria, and a description and programme of the works to be undertaken including the verification plan. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved). 8. Should a contamination remediation scheme be required under condition 7, the approved strategy shall be implemented and a verification report submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the development (or relevant phase of development) being brought into use. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved). 9. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Development on the part of the site affected must be halted and a risk assessment carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where unacceptable risks are found remediation and verification schemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These shall be implemented prior to the development (or relevant phase of development) being brought into use. All works shall be undertaken in accordance with current UK guidance, particularly CLR11. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved). 10. There shall be no keeping of animals or livestock of any kind. Reason : In the interests of public health and residential amenity Reasons for Approval

The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the Development Plan, any comments from consultees (including statutory consultees) and any responses from third parties. The decision was taken having regard to relevant planning policy and it was considered that the proposal was acceptable having regard to the national, strategic and local plan policies, supplementary planning guidance/documents and design guidance (set out below) and when taking all other material planning considerations into account. It was considered that there is not a demonstrable harm to general amenity and highway safety and interests of acknowledged importance caused by the development that justifies withholding

Page 106 permission.

Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CZ5 - Control of pollution Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development Policy EN7 - Location of pollution sensitive development Policy EN9 - Contaminated/Derelict Land Policy L3 - New leisure/community facilities Policy EN37 – Protection of open land in urban areas

National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 Achieving sustainable developement

Proactive Statement

Notes to Prior to the commencement of the chemical analysis outlined in Applicant: the submitted Phase 1 Geo-environmental Desk Top Study, the develper is advised to contact Allerdale Environmental Protection for further strategic guidance.

Page 107 Page 108

Agenda Item 14

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0817

Reference No: 2/2012/0817 Received: 30 October 2012 Proposed Two storey extension Development: Location: South Maia Anthorn Wigton Applicant: Mr Ian Grant

Drawing Numbers: P1 - Proposed Elevations P2 - Proposed Floor Plans P3 - Site Plan P4 - Location Plan

Constraints: Hadrians Wall Setting,CO24 Flood Zone 2 English Nature Conservation Area ASCA Area EN20

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Policy CO24 - Protection of setting of Hadrians Wall Policy EN20 - Protection of AONB Policy HS12 - Extensions to dwellings Policy HS13 - Extensions to dwellings outside settlements,

National Planning Policy Framework

Relevant Planning No relevant site history History:

Representations: Parish Co uncil – No objections

Environmental Health – No objections

Natural England - The proposal does not appear to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes, or have significant impacts on the conservation of soils, nor is the proposal EIA development. Would encourage the LPA to provide further information on protected species. The LPA should assess the application against the standing advice related to protected species.

Page 109

Highways – No objection

English Heritage – No comments

The application has been advertised on site and within the local press. Adjoining owners have been notified.

No representations have been received to date (13/12/12)

Report Introduction

The application seeks approval for the extension of a dwelling to provide a replacement kitchen/dining area, expanded utility and conservatory at ground floor and the addition of first floor living accommodation.

Policy considerations

The NPPF would support the policies relevant to this development within the Allerdale Local Plan and regional spatial strategy in terms of housing development, environmental considerations and design.

Policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan seeks to ensure “there is no harmful effect on the visual amenities of the immediate locality and on the character and appearance of the dwelling itself”, this is supported by Chapter 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires developments to have good design; in particular paragraphs 56 and 58. It is therefore considered acceptable to continue to apply some weight to this policy as they do not conflict with the guidance within the NPPF.

Due to the property having only 2 bedrooms any extension to the property should not exceed 50% of the original floor space of the dwelling to be in compliance with Policy HS13 of the Allerdale Local Plan. Policy HS13 seeks to retain a stock of smaller dwellings within rural areas that are more affordable and provide accommodation for smaller households.

The Proposal

The main footprint of the existing dwelling would remain unchanged; with a new two storey extension to the north east a replacement conservatory to the front elevation and an extended

Page 110 utility to the rear which would be single storey.

The height of the building would be increased to allow for a more habitable space for living accommodation within the roof space. The existing dwelling is 4.5m in height; the application seeks to increase the height to 5.7m an increase of 1.2m. The increase in height is not considered to be excessive and would not detract from the site and its surroundings. The existing property is not of great architectural merit and the increase in height and external alterations are considered to improve the overall appearance of the dwelling.

The internal floorspace of the original dwelling would be increased from approximately 111.94m² to 195.48m² which is an increase of 74%; considering the increase in floor space is in excess of 50% the development is considered to be a departure from the policy HS13 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

Officers have documentary evidence in the form of a recent land registry sold price; the price is considered to be significantly in excess of the affordability criteria for the area. Therefore it is considered that as the property would no longer affordable and therefore can be accepted as a departure from policy HS13.

The site provides sufficient parking and turning for the extended dwelling, which would not be affected by the proposal.

The materials would be white uPVC windows and doors, rendered walls and a slate roof; it is considered that these materials would be acceptable and would match existing buildings within the locality and the existing dwelling.

There is sufficient space within the curtilage to accommodate the proposal without compromising the existing garden or private space available to the dwelling.

Residential Amenity

Dormers and velux roof lights would be inserted to the front elevation which looks onto the estuary and the highway. The new windows on the gables are set back from the boundaries and look onto solid walls. The development is not considered to overlook any more than the existing situation.

It is considered the extension would not affect the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties.

Flood Zones

In terms of the flood zone the house is located within flood zone 1

Page 111 and a small section of the front garden and access adjacent to the highway is situated within flood zone 2 and 3. The dwelling would not be in any greater risk from flooding from the alterations than the existing situation and the floor levels would not be altered from the existing levels.

Ecology

Officers have considered the development against the standing advice provided by Natural England and have concluded that the development is unlikely to have a negative effect of protected species. The roof of the building could be recovered without the need for planning permission; also the roof void is already utilised within the space of the dwelling. The development is considered to have limited potential impacts on bats.

The site is located within the goose and swan sensitivity area; considering the domestic nature of the proposal the development is considered not to affect the activities or feeding area of these species.

The site is in an area which is frequented by natterjack toads and it is therefore considered appropriate to include a note to the applicant in terms of these protected species.

Designated Areas

The proposal is not considered to have any negative impacts on the AONB or the setting of Hadrians Wall.

Conclusion

It is considered that the design and materials are satisfactory and there would be no harmful effect on the visual amenities of the immediate locality or on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Recommen dation: Approved

Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun Reasons: before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out solely in accordance with the following plans: P1 - Proposed Elevations P2 - Proposed Floor Plans

Page 112 P3 - Site Plan P4 - Location Plan Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 and Section 91 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Reasons for Approval

Proactive Stateme nt

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any stakeholder representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Notes to The following precautions in relation to natterjack toads should be Applicant: considered:

• During 1 March – 31 October of any year, any excavations or holes are to be left open for the minimum period possible and are to be covered at night to prevent natterjack toads from falling in.

• Any holes are to be checked in the morning (even if they were covered over at night) to ensure that no toads have got trapped in the holes overnight.

• Minimise storage of materials on the ground. All storage materials have to be moved carefully in case natterjack toads are hidden underneath

• Where possible, materials are to be stored on pallets and hard standing to reduce the chance of natterjack toads hiding under storage materials.

• If any natterjack toads are found, work is to stop until advice has been sought from Natural England.

Page 113 2/2012/0817

Page 114

Agenda Item 15

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0859

Reference No: 2/2012/0859 Received: 14 November 2012 Proposed Extension to existing porch Development: Location: 1 St Kentigerns Way Aspatria Wigton Applicant: Mr & Mrs Hanley

Drawing Numbers: 12.0006.01 - Site Location Plan 12.0006.02a - Block Plan 12.0006.04A - Proposed Elevations and Floor Plan

Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 British Coal Area Adv Control Exclusion - Aspatria

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy HS12 - Extensions to dwellings

National Planning Policy Framework

Relevant Planning 2/2010/0491 – Extension to gable - Approved History:

Representations: Parish Council – No response to date

County Archaeologist – No comments or recommendations

Environmental Health – No objections subject to a mining note to applicant

Highways – No objections

The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have been notified.

No objections have been received to date (17/12/12)

Report Introduction

The proposal is for the erection of a porch to the front elevation of the property. There is an existing pitched roofed canopy which will

Page 115 remain and would be extended as the roof of the porch area.

National Planning Policy Considerations

The proposal

The wall would be brick with upvc doors and windows to match the main dwelling house and the roof materials would be tile to match the existing roof. The proposal would measure 2.1m in width x 1.35m in projection and would be 3.3m in height.

The extension covers a small area and is considered acceptable and would not affect the setting of the existing dwelling. The existing garden area would not be compromised by the proposal.

There would be no overlooking or amenity issues arising from the proposal.

The proposal would not affect the highway or visibility gained from the curtilage of the dwelling.

The site is adjoining the curtilage of a listed church; the development would not affect the setting of the listed building.

Conclusion

It is considered that the design and materials are satisfactory there would be no harmful effect on the visual amenities of the immediate locality or on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

Recommendation: Approved

Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun Reasons: before the expiration of three years from the date of this

Page 116 permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out solely in accordance with the following plans: 12.0006.01 - Site Location Plan 12.0006.02a - Block Plan 12.0006.04A - Proposed Elevations and Floor Plan Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 and Section 91 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Reasons for Approval

Proactive Statement

Notes to Mining advisory note to applicant Applicant:

Page 117 2/2012/0859

Page 118