Development Panel Will Meet on Tuesday 13 November 2012 at 1.00 Pm in the Wave - Maryport

2 November 2012 Development Panel Will meet on Tuesday 13 November 2012 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 Visit will take place:

2/2012/0596 – Extension to provide disabled persons accommodation – Resubmission, 11 Thirlmere Avenue, Workington.

Members of the Development Panel will be picked up from Allerdale House, Workington and the bus will leave at 9.30am prompt. Agenda 1. Minutes (Pages 1 - 40)

To sign as a correct record the minutes of the meetings held on Tuesday 9 October 2012 and Tuesday 16 October 2012.

2. Apologies for absence

3. Declaration of Interest

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

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 -0691 - Change of use from bank to licensed restaurant/cafe - 30 King Street, Aspatria, Wigton (Pages 41 - 48)

6. Development Panel - 2-2012 -0498 - Single Wind Turbine - Lane Head Farm, Boltongate, Wigton (Pages 49 - 70)

7. Development Panel - 2-2012 -0597 - Residential Development - Land South West, Brigham Road, Cockermouth (Pages 71 - 84)

8. Development Panel - 2-2012 -048 8 - Single wind turbine - Land off Charity Lane, Workington (Pages 85 - 102)

9. Development Panel - 2-2012 -0708 - Change of use of condition 2 to change turbine specification - Moorhouse Farm, Workington (Pages 103 - 126)

10. Development Panel - 2-2012 -0656 - Change of use to play centre - 6a & 6b Blackwood Road, Lillyhall Industrial Estate, Workington (Pages 127 - 134)

11. Development Panel - 2-2012 -0668 - Cycle Track - Maryport to Allonby (Pages 135 - 154)

12. Development Panel - 2-2012 -0450 - Rebuild of dwelling - Harrison House, Ireby (Pages 155 - 162)

13. Development Panel - 2-2012 -0706 - Single Wind Turbine - Land at Clea Mire, Westward, Wigton (Pages 163 - 180)

14. Development Panel - 2-2012 -0699 - Rear and gable extensions - 6 Moorfields, Broughton Moor (Pages 181 - 186)

15. Development Panel - 2-2012 -0596 - Extension - 11 Thirlmere Avenue, Workington (Pages 187 - 190)

16. Developmen t Panel - 2-2012 -0717 - Meteorological mast - Brackenridge, Woodside Farm, Broughton Moor (Pages 191 - 198)

17. Development Panel - 2-2012 -0670 - Double Garage - 18 Braeside, Seaton (Pages 199 - 204)

18. Development Panel - Ap peal Decision - 2-2012 -0412 - Midcroft, Dean (Pages 205 - 206)

19. Development Panel - Appeal decision - 2-2012 -0459 - 4 South Street, Cockermouth (Pages 207 - 208)

20. Development Panel - Appeal Decision - 2-2011 -0800 - Stone raise Farm, Wigton (Pages 209 - 210)

21. Development Panel - Appeal Decision - Enforcement Appeal - 39 Washington Street, Workington (Pages 211 - 212)

22. Development Panel - Appeal Decision - Enforcement Appeal - Old School H ouse, Flimby Brow, Maryport (Pages 213 - 214)

Corporate Director & Deputy Chief Executive

Date of next meeting Tuesday 11 December 2012 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 9 October 2012 at 1.00 pm

Members

P Bales (Chairman)

J Armstrong P G Kendall C M Armstrong J Lister B Bacon B Miskelly N Cockburn S Standage L Davies M G Wood C Garrard J Wright J Holliday

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

Staff Present

T Gear, K Kerrigan, S Long and P McKenzie.

275 Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 11 th September 2012 were signed as a correct record, subject to the following amendment:

Minute number 210 item 9 be amended to read ‘Due to being Ward Councillors’.

276 Declaration of Interest

5. Development Panel - 2-2012-0628 - Refurbishment of existing centre - Kirkgate Centre, Kirkgate, Cockermouth (site visit). Councillors Len Davies and Sam Standage; Other Registrable Interest; 2/2012/0628 - Due to being members of Cockermouth Town Council.

6. Development Panel - 2-2012-0629 - Conservation area consent for part demolition - Kirkgate Centre, Kirkgate, Cockermouth (site visit). Councillors Len Davies and Sam Standage; Other Registrable Interest; 2/2012/0629 - Due to being members of Cockermouth Town Council.

7. Development Panel - 2-2012-0293 - Wind Turbine - Land To The East Of Pennygill Road, Flimby, Maryport (site visit). Councillors Peter Kendall and Martin Wood; Other Registrable Interest; 2/2012/0293 - Due to being members of Maryport Town Council.

8. Development Panel - 2-2012-0445 - Erection of 2 detached bungalows - Land At Coldgill Avenue, Great Broughton. Councillor Nicky Cockburn; Other Registrable Interest; 2/2012/0445 - Due to being the Ward Councillor.

Page 1

9. Development Panel - 2-2011-0704 - Residential Development for 78 dwellings - Land at Browside Road, Dearham. Councillors Joe Holliday and Jim Lister; Other Registrable Interest; 2/2011/0704 - Due to being members of Cumbria County Council.

11. Development Panel - 2-2012-0546 - Replacement windows - Harrington Methodist Church, Harrington, Workington. Councillors Carole Armstrong; Peter Bales; Bill Bacon; Billy Miskelly; and Joan Wright; Other Registrable Interest; 2/2012/0546 - Due to being members of Workington Town Council.

12. Development Panel - 2-2012-0624 - 2 wind turbines - Dundraw Farm, Dundraw, Wigton. Councillor Jim Lister; Other Registrable Interest; 2/2012/0624 - Due to knowing the applicant.

277 Questions

None received.

278 Site Visits

The following Councillors were present at the site inspections, planning references 2/2012/0293 - Erection of a 67m single wind turbine, Land to the east of Pennygill Road, Ewanrigg Hall Farm, Flimby, Maryport and 2/2012/0628 - Refurbishment of existing centre, Kirkgate Centre, Kirkgate, Cockermouth and 2/2012/0629 - Conservation area consent for part demolition - Kirkgate Centre, Kirkgate, Cockermouth.

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

279 Public participation

The following objectors/applicants addressed the Panel.

M Bell and R Evans on behalf of S Coombs outlined their objections to application 2/2012/0628. The agent A Jones and K Parry exercised their right of reply.

M Fitzgerald outlined her objections to application 2/2012/0293. The agent R Walters exercised his right of reply.

R Evans on behalf of S Atkinson, B Kelly and J Wilson outlined their objections to application 2/2012/0445. The agent K Thompson exercised his right of reply.

M Fitzgerald, C Marshall and Edward Newstead outlined their objections to application 2/2012/0524. The agent R Walters exercised his right of reply.

H Harrington outlined her objections to application 2/2012/0546. The agent S Taylor exercised his right of reply.

Page 2 280 Development Panel - 2-2012-0628 - Refurbishment of existing centre - Kirkgate Centre, Kirkgate, Cockermouth (site visit)

The application: Refurbishment of existing centre by part demolition of west and east gables, addition of two storey extensions for café, bar, reception, toilets, kitchen, offices, and escape stairs – Resubmission on 2/2012/0127, The Kirkgate Centre, Kirkgate, Cockermouth.

The Head of Development Services recommended approval subject to planning conditions.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history - 2/2012/0127 - Extensions and alterations. 2/2012/0128 - Conservation Area consent for demolition works associated with the above development. Refused.

Members were advised of 13 emails/letters of objection and a petition of 266 signatures in objection.

Members were informed of two additional letters of objection, a petition of 348 signatures of support and Cockermouth Town Councils objections that appeared on the late list.

Councillor C Garrard moved approval. This was seconded by Councillor M Wood.

Councillor J Lister moved refusal. This was seconded by Councillor N Cockburn.

A vote was taken, 8 in favour of refusal, 6 against and 0 abstentions.

The motion in favour of refusal was carried.

The decision: Refused.

Reasons: The local planning authority consider the proposed extensions unacceptable by virtue of the use of unsympathetic modern materials adversely impacting on the appearance of the building and the contribution it makes to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposed development was therefore contrary to Policy CO2, C03,CO12 and C018 of the Allerdale Local Plan (saved) and Policy E38 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (saved).

281 Development Panel - 2-2012-0629 - Conservation area consent for part demolition - Kirkgate Centre, Kirkgate, Cockermouth (site visit)

The application: Conservation area consent for part demolition of west and east gables – resubmission of 2/2012/0128, The Kirkgate Centre, Kirkgate, Cockermouth.

Page 3 The Head of Development Services recommended approval.

Due to the previous application being refused the Head of Development Services changed his recommendation from approval to refusal.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history - 2/2012/0128 - Conservation area consent for part demolition of west and east gables. Refused.

Members were advised of 6 letters of objection and a petition of 266 signatures in objection.

Members were informed of two additional letters of objection, a petition of 348 signatures of support and Cockermouth Town Councils objections that appeared on the late list.

Councillor N Cockburn moved refusal. This was seconded by Councillor J Armstrong.

A vote was taken, 12 in favour of refusal, 1 against and 1 abstention.

The motion in favour of refusal was carried.

The decision: Refused

Reasons: The local planning authority consider that in the absence of the proposed development demonstrating that it would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, the proposed demolition works would be contrary to Policy CO12 of the Allerdale Local plan (saved ) and policy E38 of the Cumbria and Lake District joint Structure Plan 2001- 2016 (saved).

282 Development Panel - 2-2012-0293 - Wind Turbine - Land To The East Of Pennygill Road, Flimby, Maryport (site visit)

The application: Erection of a 67m single wind turbine, Land to East of Pennygill Road, Ewanrigg Hall Farm, Flimby, Maryport.

The Principal Planning Officer recommended approval.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history – 2/2012/0191 – Anemometer mast. Approved.

Members were advised of 3 letters of objection.

Members were informed of one further letter of objection relating to cumulative impacts on the landscape and an attached appeal report for information that appeared on the late list.

Page 4 Councillor J Armstrong moved refusal. This was seconded by Councillor J Lister.

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

A vote was taken, 3 in favour of approval, 11 against and 0 abstentions.

The motion in favour of approval was lost.

A vote was taken, 11 in favour of refusal, 3 against and 0 abstentions.

The motion in favour of refusal was carried.

The decision: Refused.

Reasons: The Local Planning Authority considered the proposed turbine by virtue of its site, size and design, in association with the existing/approved turbines at Oldside, Siddick, Voridian, Wythmoor Syke (Seaton) and Flimby Brow would have a detrimental cumulative impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding landscape contrary to policy EN19 and EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan (saved) and Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (saved) .

283 Development Panel - 2-2012-0445 - Erection of 2 detached bungalows - Land At Coldgill Avenue, Great Broughton

The application: Erection of 2 detached bungalows (resubmission of 2/2011/0762), Land at Coldgill Avenue, Great Broughton, Cockermouth.

The Principal Planning Officer recommended approval.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history – 2/2011/0762. Withdrawn.

Members were informed that the proposed development was outside the settlement limits and therefore considered to be a departure from current Local Plan Policies and therefore had been advertised as a departure to the current Allerdale Local Plan.

Members were advised of 21 letters of objection received from 11 addresses.

Councillor J Wright moved deferral for a site visit. This was seconded by Councillor B Miskelly.

Councillor N Cockburn moved refusal. This was seconded by Councillor J Lister.

A vote was taken, 4 in favour of refusal, 7 against and 3 abstentions.

Page 5

The motion in favour of refusal was lost.

A vote was taken, 4 in favour of deferral for a site visit, 5 against and 5 abstentions.

The motion in favour for deferral for a site visit was lost.

P Kendall moved approval. This was seconded by Councillor S Standage.

N Cockburn moved refusal. This was seconded by Councillor J Lister.

A vote was taken, 6 in favour of refusal, 7 against and 1 abstention.

The motion in favour of refusal was lost.

A vote was taken, 7 in favour of approval, 5 against and 2 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: AT/KT/12/01A - Site Location Plan and Proposed Elevations (amendment received 10/8/2012) AT/KT/11/02A - Proposed Floor Plans (amendment received 26/7/2012) AT/KT/11/06A - Proposed Block Plan (amendment received 26/7/2012) AT/KT/12/05A - Proposed Cross Sections (amendment received 26/7/2012) Phase 1. Environmental Audit/Desk Study Report. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

3. 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,

Page 6 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).

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 alterations, extensions, outbuildings or means of enclosure shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the Local Pla nning Authority upon an application submitted to it. Reason: The Local Planning Authority wishes to retain control over any proposed development or alterations of the dwellings in the interests of the appearance of the site and to safeguard visual amenity.

5. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed above plinth level until details of all external and roofing materials have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Only the materials so approved shall be used in the development as approved. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area, in compliance with Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations June 2006 (Saved).

6. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a 1m square free-standing panel of the stone to be used in the proposed development has been constructed on the site and the materials approved by the Local Planning Authority. The panel shall be retained on site until such times as the development is completed. The development shall thereafter be solely implemented in accordance with the approved sample materials. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area, in compliance with Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations June 2006 (Saved).

7. Notwithstanding the approved plans, 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

Page 7 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 L ocal Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area.

8. The proposed landscaping as shown on the approved plans that will form an integral part of the means of enclosure subject to Condition 7 shall be implemented during the first planting season on completion of the first dwelling. Any tree or hedgerow species that becomes diseased or dies within 5 years of planting shall be replaced with a similar species. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area in accordance with Policy EN3 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

9. Details of 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 crossings have been constructed. Reason: To ensure a suitable standard of crossing for pedestrian safety.

10. Access gates, if provided, shall be hung to open inwards only away from the highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

11. Details of all measures to be taken by the applicant/developer to prevent surface water discharging onto or off the highway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to development being commenced. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained operational thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management.

12. The developments shall not be brought into use until visibility splays providing clear visibility delineated by straight lines extending from the extremities of the frontage of the sites with the highway to points 2.4m along the centre line of the access drives measured from the edge of the adjacent highway has been provided. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed, and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grow within the visibility splay which obstructs the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

Page 8 13. 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.

14. The frontage footway shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to a standard suitable for adoption and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. These details shall be in accordance with the standards laid down in the current Cumbria Design Guide. 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.

284 Development Panel - 2-2011-0704 - Residential Development for 78 dwellings - Land at Browside Road, Dearham

The application: Proposed residential development of allocated housing site to provide 78 dwellings including associated roads, public open space, childrens' play area, affordable housing, landscaping, remediation and remodelling of colliery spoil mound and capping of mine shaft, Land at Browside Road, Dearham, Maryport.

The Head of Development Services recommended approval subject to a section s106 planning obligation (£63,000 education contribution, affordable housing, highway improvements, play area and other requirements as appropriate) and appropriate conditions to determined by officers.

Councillor J Armstrong moved approval subject to a section s106 planning obligation (£63,000 education contribution, affordable housing, highway improvements, play area and other requirements as appropriate) and appropriate conditions to determined by officers. This was seconded by Councillor B Bacon.

A vote was taken, 13 in favour of approval subject to a section s106 planning obligation (£63,000 education contribution, affordable housing, highway improvements, play area and other requirements as appropriate) and appropriate conditions to determined by officers, 0 against and 1 abstention.

The motion in favour of approval subject to a section s106 planning obligation (£63,000 education contribution, affordable housing, highway improvements, play area and other requirements as appropriate) and appropriate conditions to determined by officers was carried.

The decision: Approved subject to a section s106 planning obligation (£63,000 education contribution, affordable housing, highway improvements, play area and other

Page 9 requirements as appropriate) and appropriate conditions to determined by officers.

285 Development Panel - 2-2012-0524 - Wind Turbine - The Flatt Farm, Great Orton, Kirkbampton

Councillor J Wright left the meeting for the following applications.

The application: Erection of a 67m single turbine and associated sub-station, The Flatt Farm, Great Orton, Kirkbampton, Carlisle.

The Principal Planning Officer recommended approval.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history - 2/2012/0200 - 50m Anemometer Mast. Approved. SCR/2012/0038 - Screening opinion for wind turbine. Not EIA development.

Members were advised of 20 letters of objection.

Members were informed of four further letters of objection and further representation received from the parish council outlining a number of points that appeared on the late list.

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

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

A vote was taken, 9 in favour of refusal, 3 against and 1 abstention.

The motion in favour of refusal was carried.

The decision: Refused.

Reasons: The Local Planning Authority considered the proposed turbine by virtue of its site, size and design, in association with the existing/approved turbines at Gt Orton airfield and its surrounding area would have a detrimental cumulative impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding landscape contrary to policy EN19 and EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan (saved) and Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (saved).

286 Development Panel - 2-2012-0546 - Replacement windows - Harrington Methodist Church, Harrington, Workington

The application: Replacement of existing timber windows with upvc, Harrington Methodist Church, Ellerbank, Harrington, Workington.

Page 10 The Principal Planning Officer recommended approval.

Councillor J Holliday moved approval. This was seconded by Councillor M Wood.

A vote was taken, 11 in favour of approval, 0 against and 2 abstentions.

The decision: Approved.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: SP01 - Site Location Plan BP01 - Block Plan DR01 - Proposed Windows Brochure 1 - Proposed Windows Window types received 17/08/12 Window details received 18/09/12 Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

287 Development Panel - 2-2012-0624 - 2 wind turbines - Dundraw Farm, Dundraw, Wigton

The application: Proposed erection of 2 no. wind turbines mounted on 15m towers with 5.6m rotors, Dundraw Farm, Dundraw, Wigton.

The Principal Planning Officer recommended approval.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history - A screening opinion was carried out as part of the application and it was determined the proposal does not constitute EIA development.

Members were advised of two letters of support.

Members were informed of one letter of objection that appeared on the late list.

Councillor L Davies moved approval. This was seconded by Councillor M Wood.

A vote was taken, 9 in favour of approval, 0 against and 4 abstentions.

The motion in favour of approval was carried.

The decision: Approved.

Page 11

2. The development hereby permitted sh all be carried out solely in accordance with the following plans: Loc – Site Location Plan 1 – Block Plan Rev C – Turbine details Kingspan KW6 Wind Turbine Noise Performance Test Ecological Assessment email received 19 September 2012. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 and Section 91 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

3. This permission shall remain valid for a period of 25 years from the date that electricity from the development is first produced ('First Export Date'). The date of the first production of electricity shall be notified in writing to the Local Planning Authority within 28 days of the event occurring. Reason: To ensure that this site within open countryside is restored to an appropriate standard, in accordance with Policies EN25 and EN10 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

4. Not later than 12 months before the end of this permission, a decommissioning and site restoration scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall make provision for the removal of the wind turbines and the associated above ground equipment and foundations to a depth of at least one metre below ground. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented within 6 months of the expiry of this permission. Reason: To ensure that this site within open countryside is restored to an appropriate standard, in accordance with Policies EN25 and EN10 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

5. If any turbine hereby approved ceases to be operational for a continuous period of at least 6 months, the turbine shall be removed and the land restored in accordance with a decommissioning and site restoration scheme approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The decommissioning and site restoration scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within three months of the continuous six month cessation period coming to an end. The land shall be restored in accordance with the approved scheme within 6 months of the scheme's approval by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that this site within open countryside is restored to an appropriate standard, in accordance with Policies EN25 and EN10 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

6. Within 6 months of the completion of the construction works, any temporary working areas around the turbine shall be removed.

Page 12 Reason: To ensure that this site within open countryside is restored to an appropriate standard, in accordance with Policies EN25 and EN10 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

7. Prior to the erection of the first wind turbine, the developer shall provide written confirmation to the Local Planning Authority, NATS en-route plc, and the Ministry of Defence of the proposed date for commencement; the anticipated date of completion of construction, the height above ground level of the highest structure and the position of each turbine in latitude and longitude. Reason: In the interests of air safety.

8. All wind turbine blades shall rotate in the same direction. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

9. All cabling between the turbines and between the turbines and the substation shall be laid underground. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

10. The following background noise levels shall not be exceeded when the wind farm is in operation: a) Night time noise limits (11 p.m. to 7 a.m.) - The LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise level shall not exceed 45dB (A) when assessed and measured 3.5m from the façade of the nearest financially involved noise sensitive use, namely Dundraw Farm, Dundraw, CA7 0DP (in existence at the date of this permission) or 5dB above the night time LA90 background noise level at wind speeds not exceeding 12m/s, whichever is the greater. b) Day time noise limits (7 a.m. to 11 p.m.) - The LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise level shall not exceed 45dB (A) when assessed and measured 3.5m from the façade of the nearest financially involved noise sensitive use, namely Dundraw Farm, Dundraw, CA7 0DP (in existence at the date of this permission) or 5dB above the quiet day time LA90 background noise level at wind speeds not exceeding 12m/s, whichever is the greater. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

11. In the event of a complaint being received in writing by the Local Planning Authority alleging noise nuisance at a residential property or properties due to the wind turbine, the wind turbine operator shall, at its expense, employ an independent consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority to measure and assess the level of noise emissions from the wind turbine at the location of the complainants property. The results of the independent consultant's assessment shall be provided in writing to the Local Planning Authority within three months of the date of notification of the complaint. If a breach of the noise limits specified in Condition 10 is confirmed in the assessment the operation of the turbines shall cease until the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that the turbines can operate within the noise limits specified in Condition 10. The operator of the development shall be under no obligation to follow the procedure set out in this condition where the complaint

Page 13 relates to a residential property more than 3 kilometre[s] from the wind turbine generator. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

12. In the event that a written complaint is received relating to electromagnetic interference a written scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority setting out a protocol for the assessment of electro-magnetic interference, including remedial measures. Operation of the turbines shall take place in accordance with the agreed protocol unless the Local Planning Authority gives its prior written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

13. Prior to the First Export Date a written scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority setting out a shadow flicker protocol for the assessment of shadow flicker in the vent of any complaint from the owner or occupier of a dwelling (defined for the purposes of this condition as a building within a C3 or C4 Use Class of the Use Classes Order) which lawfully exists or had planning permission at the date of this permission. The written schemes shall include remedial measures. Operation of the turbine shall take place in accordance with the approved protocol unless the Local Planning Authority gives its prior written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

14. During the construction phase no vehicle shall leave the site in a condition that would give rise to the deposit of mud, dust or other debris on the public highway. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

15. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Management Plan for approval. All identified highway works shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highways Authority prior to work commencing on site. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

16. The works shall be implemented solely in accordance with the mitigation and compensation strategy outlined in the Ecological Assessment received 14 August 2012. Reason: To safeguard the habitat of bats, in compliance with Policy EN32 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

288 Development Panel - 2-2012-0580 - Extension - Whinlatter, Shaw Wood Road, Thursby

The application: Extension to side and front to form new bedroom, en-suite bathrooms and garage

Page 14

The Principal Planning Officer recommended approval.

Councillor P Kendall moved approval. This was seconded by Councillor C Armstrong.

A vote was taken, 13 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: WF/01 - Proposed Plans and Elevations WF/03 - Proposed Site Plan WF/04 - Roof Plan WF/05 - Location Plan. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 and Section 91 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

The meeting closed at 5.55 pm

Page 15 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 16 At a meeting of the Development Panel held in The Oval Centre, Salterbeck Drive, Workington on Tuesday 16 October 2012 at 1.00 pm

Members

P Bales (Chairman)

J Armstrong P G Kendall C M Armstrong J Lister B Bacon B Miskelly J Crouch R Munby L Davies M A Snaith B Finlay S Standage C Garrard M G Wood J Holliday J Wright C M Jackson

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors W H Jefferson.

Staff Present

S Brook, T Gear, S Long and P McKenzie.

289 Public participation

The following objectors/applicants addressed the Panel.

Mr J Hogg and Ms H Collins outlined their objections to application 2/2012/0483. The agent Mr D Abercromby exercised his right of reply.

Ms J Hill, Ms S Steel and Mr M Gillam outlined their objections to application 2/2012/0544. The agent did not exercise their right of reply.

Mr H Ward and Mr J B Ward outlined their objections to application 2/2011/0973. The agent did not exercise their right of reply.

Ms M Fitzgerald and Mr C Walsh outlined their objections to application 2/2012/0429. The agent Mr W Skelton exercised his right of reply.

290 Declaration of Interest

4. 2-2012-0411 Development Panel - Residential Development - Main Road, High Harrington. Councillors Bill Bacon; Peter Bales; Carole Armstrong; Billy Miskelly and Joan Wright; Other Registrable Interest; 2/2012/0411 - Due to being members of Workington Town Council.

5. 2-2012-0483 - Development Panel - Residential Development - Main Road, High Harrington.

Page 17 Councillors Bill Bacon; Peter Bales; Carole Armstrong; Billy Miskelly and Joan Wright; Other Registrable Interest; 2/2012/0483 - Due to being members of Workington Town Council.

6. 2-2012-0544 - Development Panel - Erection of turbine - Wellington Farm, Cockermouth. Councillor Chris Garrard; Other Registrable Interest; 2/2012/0544 - Due to objectors being in his ward.

6. 2-2012-0544 - Development Panel - Erection of turbine - Wellington Farm, Cockermouth. Councillor Len Davies; Other Registrable Interest; 2/2012/0544 - Due to being a member of Cockermouth Town Council.

6. 2-2012-0544 - Development Panel - Erection of turbine - Wellington Farm, Cockermouth. Councillors Margaret Jackson and Sam Standage; Other Registrable Interest; 2/2012/0544 - Due to being members of Cockermouth Town Council.

6. 2-2012-0544 - Development Panel - Erection of turbine - Wellington Farm, Cockermouth. Councillor Nicky Cockburn; Other Registrable Interest; 2/2012/0544 - Due to being the Ward Councillor and objectors being in her ward.

8. 2-2011-0973 - Development Panel - Erection of wind turbine - Brayton Park, Aspatria. Councillor Bill Finlay; Other Registrable Interest; 2/2011/0973 - Due to being the Ward Councillor and a member of Aspatria Town Council.

8. 2-2011-0973 - Development Panel - Erection of wind turbine - Brayton Park, Aspatria. Trevor Gear; Other Registrable Interest; 2/2011/0973 - Due to being a member of Aspatria Town Council.

11. 2-2012-0429 - Development Panel - Erection of wind turbine - Homerigg Farm, Bullgill. Councillor Jim Lister; Disclosable Pecuniary Interest; 2/2012/0429 - Due to home being in close proximity of proposed turbine.

11. 2-2012-0429 - Development Panel - Erection of wind turbine - Homerigg Farm, Bullgill. Councillor Peter Kendall; Other Registrable Interest; 2/2012/0429 - Due to being a member of Maryport Town Council.

12. 2-2012-0599 - Development Panel - Conversion to 7 apartments - Carlton Ceramics and Cafe, Senhouse Street, Maryport. Councillor Martin Wood; Other Registrable Interest; 2/2012/0599 - Due to being a member of Maryport Town Council.

13. 2-2012-0596 - Development Panel - Extension to provide disabled persons accommodation - 11 Thirlmere Avenue, Workington.

Page 18 Councillors Bill Bacon; Peter Bales; Carole Armstrong; Billy Miskelly and Joan Wright; Other Registrable Interest; 2/2012/0596 - Due to being members of Workington Town Council.

291 Questions

None received.

292 2-2012-0411 Development Panel - Residential Development - Main Road, High Harrington

The application: Outline application for residential development with matters of estate layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved, Land West of Main Road, High Harrington, Workington.

The Principal Planning Officer recommended approval.

Members noted 16 letters of objection, a petition of 96 signatures in objection and 4 letters of support.

Members were informed of a response from Cumbria County Council relating to the education contribution that appeared on the late list.

Councillor J Armstrong moved approval subject to a 106 agreement. This was seconded by Councillor M Wood.

A vote was taken, 19 in favour of approval subject to a 106 agreement, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

The motion in favour of approval subject to a 106 agreement was carried.

The decision: Approved subject to a 106 agreement.

Conditions: 1. Approval of details of the layout, 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: 000247.90.9.SL.LP - Rev A - Site Location Plan (amendment received 29/6/2012)

Page 19 224 STO_101 Rev C - Illustrative Development Framework (amendment received 19/7/2012) 224 STO_100 Rev B - Outline Plan (amendment received 29/6/2012) SH102-1 - Topographic Survey SH102-2 - Topographic Survey SH103-3 - Topographic Survey DR1 - Transport Statement May 2012 DR3 - Ecological Desk Study May 2012 DR3A - Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey July 2012 (amendment received 5/7/2012) DR4 - Odour Dispersion Modelling Statement February 2012 DR5 - Archaeological Desk Based Assessment and Geophysical Survey Ref Y034/11 DR7 - Noise Assessment Report DR8 - Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Ground Investigation Ref 2584 DR9 - Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage Assessment Ref NS/2584 May 2012 Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Ref CS/054342-01-16 July 2012 (amendment received 20/8/2012) Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Technical Note Ref VACE/elc/ITM7095-003TN August 2012 (amendment received 20/8/2012) EMAIL dated 27/9/2012 regarding - confirmation of proposed outline application with matters reserved. (amendment received 27/9/2012) 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. The details required by the reserved matters shall include a layout that retains a 40 metre separation distance between the extremity of any housing plot and the nearest source of odour being the existing slurry pit at Whins Farm adjacent to the development site. Reason - To minimise the impact of odour in the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policy EN7 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

5. The carriageway, footways, footpaths, cycleways etc, 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 work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is complete.

Page 20 Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety. 6. The development shall not commence until the traffic calming works described within Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Ref CS/054342- 01-16 July 2012 and Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Technical Note Ref VACE/elc/ITM7095-003TN August 2012 are complete to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, in consultation with the Highway Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

7. No dwelling shall be occupied until improvements are made to FP 262004. These improvements to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to any works starting on site Reason: In the interests of highway safety, accessibility and to aid in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives.

8. The development shall not commence until the visibility splays shown on Drawing no IMT7095-GA-001 (Appendix B Transport Statement May 2012) is provided, These splays should provide clear visibility down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the major road at the junction of the access road with the county highway. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grown within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

9. No dwellings shall be occupied until the estate road including footways and cycleways to serve such dwellings has been constructed in all respects to base course level and street lighting where it is to form part of the estate road has been provided and brought into full operational use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

10. The whole of each of the access areas bounded by the carriageway edge, entrance gates and the splays shall be constructed and drained to the specification of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

11. 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 construction operations associated with the development hereby approved, and that land, including vehicular access thereto, shall be used for or be kept available for these purposes at all times until completion of the construction works. Reason: The carrying out of this

Page 21 development without the provision of these facilities during the construction work is likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users.

12. Within 6 months of the development (or any part thereof) being occupied, the developer shall prepare and submit to the Local Planning Authority for their approval a Travel Plan which shall identify the measures that will be undertaken by the developer to encourage the achievement of a modal shift away from the use of private cars to visit the development to sustainable transport modes. The measures identified in the Travel Plan shall be implemented by the developer within 12 months of the start of any construction works of any subsequent phases starting. Reason: To aid in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives.

13. An annual report reviewing the effectiveness of the Travel Plan and including any necessary amendments or measures shall be prepared by the developer/occupier and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Reason: To aid in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives.

14. PROW (Footpath) number 262004 lies adjacent to/runs through the site, and the Applicant must ensure that no unauthorised obstruction to the footpath occurs during, or after the completion of the site works. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian access and safety.

15. 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.

Page 22 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).

16. Details of the siting, height and type of all means of enclosure (including acoustic wall/fencing to roadside plots as recommended in the Noise Assessment Report January 2012 ) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any such means of enclosure 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 and in the interests of noise abatement and general residential amenity in accordance with Policies HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration June 2006 (Saved) and Policy EN7 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

17. 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).

18. Prior to the commencement of works, details of the surface water drainage works, including any attenuation measures to demonstrate no greater run-off rate than the existing greenfield site plus 20% to allow 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 dwelling/houses 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). 19. No residential development shall commence until full details of the layout of the Local Area of Play/locally equipped area of play have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Area of Play shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of the sixteenth dwelling/house on the site.

Page 23 Reason: To ensure the satisfactory provision of open space in accordance with Policy L1 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations June 2006 (Saved).

20. Before development commences, details of all noise mitigation proposals for those properties highlighted within page 16 of 24 of the Noise Assessment Report January 2012 shall be provided to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation of the dwellings. The approved details shall be fully implemented as approved prior to the occupation of each respective dwelling. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policy EN7 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Notes to Applicant: Coal Authority/Mining standard (housing) The content of the letter received from United Utilities Ref DC/12/2526 is brought to the attention of the applicant/developer In the interests of biodiversity the developer is encouraged to incorporate a variety of bird and bat boxes within the development. The applicant/developer is reminded that a Section 278 agreement will be required regarding the traffic calming measures to the public highway.

293 2-2012-0483 - Development Panel - Residential Development - Main Road, High Harrington

The application: Outline application for the development of up to 80 dwellings including a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom properties, Land at Main Road, High Harrington, Workington.

The Principal Planning Officer recommended Approval to outline planning permission subject to planning conditions and section 106 legal agreement to secure the maintenance of public open space/Locally Equipped Area for Play, an education contribution, maintenance of a surface water scheme and affordable housing provision for social rent.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history – Screening opinion. No EIA required, letter dated 3 February 2012 (SCR/2012/0001).

Members were advised of 19 emails/letters of objection.

Members were informed of 2 further letters of objection setting out concerns over highway safety and a response from Cumbria County Council relating to the education contribution that appeared on the late list.

Page 24 Councillor M Wood moved approval to outline planning permission subject to planning conditions and section 106 legal agreement to secure the maintenance of public open space/Locally Equipped Area for Play, an education contribution, maintenance of a surface water scheme and affordable housing provision for social rent. This was seconded by Councillor J Lister.

Councillor C Armstrong moved refusal. This was seconded by Councillor J Wright.

A vote was taken, 4 in favour of refusal, 13 against and 2 abstentions.

The motion in favour of refusal was lost.

A vote was taken, 12 in favour of approval to outline planning permission subject to planning conditions and section 106 legal agreement to secure the maintenance of public open space/Locally Equipped Area for Play, an education contribution, maintenance of a surface water scheme and affordable housing provision for social rent, 4 against and 3 abstentions.

The motion in favour of approval to outline planning permission subject to planning conditions and section 106 legal agreement to secure the maintenance of public open space/Locally Equipped Area for Play, an education contribution, maintenance of a surface water scheme and affordable housing provision for social rent was carried.

The decision: Approved outline planning permission subject to planning conditions and section 106 legal agreement to secure the maintenance of public open space/Locally Equipped Area for Play, an education contribution, maintenance of a surface water scheme and affordable housing provision for social rent.

Conditions: 1. Before any works commence details of the layout, 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. 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: 12/01/749-01 - Site Location Plan 12/01/749-02 - Indicative Master Plan (access only) Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

Page 25 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. 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).

5. 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 their commencement. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory remediation of the site and minimise risk to public health, in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

6. Where land affected by contamination 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

Page 26 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 ensure the satisfactory remediation of the site and minimise risk to public health, in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

7. Should a remediation scheme be required, 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 ensure the satisfactory remediation of the site and minimise risk to public health, in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

8. 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 work shall be undertaken in accordance with current UK guidance, particularly CLR11. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory remediation of the site and minimise risk to public health, in compliance with Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

9. Prior to development on site, details of glazing units shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any approved dwellings and maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority thereafter. Prior to development on site, all habitable rooms facing the Main Road, Harrington shall be fitted with acoustic trickle vents and shall be installed prior to the occupation of the dwellings and shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority thereafter. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity in compliance with saved Policy EN7 of the Allerdale Local Plan June 1999.

10. Prior to development on site, details of the specification of acoustic fencing, to be installed alongside the roadside boundary, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and shall be installed prior to the occupation of any dwelling on site and shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority thereafter. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity in compliance with saved Policy EN7 of the Allerdale Local Plan June 1999.

Page 27 11. 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.

12. Prior to the commencement of works, details of the surface water drainage works, including any attenuation measures to demonstrate no greater run off rate than the existing greenfield site (plus 20% to allow 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 dwelling/houses 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).

13. No residential development shall commence until full details of the layout of the Locally Equipped Area of Play have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Locally Equipped Area of Play shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of the 16th dwelling/house on the site. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory provision of open space in accordance with Policy L1 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations June 2006 (Saved).

14. Prior to the occupation of the first dwelling, the developer shall prepare and submit to the Local Planning Authority for their approval a Travel Plan which shall identify the measures that will be undertaken by the developer to encourage the achievement of a modal shift away from the use of private cars to visit the development to sustainable transport modes including targets and the appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator. The Travel Plan shall be the subject of annual review for a period of five years following the occupation of the first dwelling. Reason: To aid in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives and Structure Plan Policy T31.

15. Measures to protect species by law and enhance habitats shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations set out in the Reptile Survey 2012 relating to the Common Lizard (Zootoca vivipara) as set out in para 9.1.2., and with regard to breeding birds the Ecological Scoping Survey report 2012. Reason: In order to protect species protected by law in accordance with saved Policy EN32 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

Page 28

16. A cycle way/footway fronting the entire frontage of the development measuring at least 2.5 metres in width, linking the site to Moorclose Cycle way to be in place prior to any dwelling being occupied. Details of the aforementioned cycle/footway to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority, prior to any works commencing on site.

Reason: To aid the delivery of sustainable transport objectives and in the interests of highway safety.

17. The carriageways, footways, footpaths, cycleways etc, shall be designed, constructed, drained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in this respect further details, including longtitudinal/ cross sections, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is complete. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety.

18. The development shall not commence until the visibility splay shown on the indicative masterplan (70m x 2.4 x 90m) is provided. The splay should provide clear visibility down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the major road at the junction of the access road with the county highway. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to be grown within the visibility splay which obstructs the visibility splay. The visibility splay shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

294 2-2012-0544 - Development Panel - Erection of turbine - Wellington Farm, Cockermouth

The application: Single wind turbine with hub height of 55.6 metres and blade tip height of 79.6 metres and associated metering units, Land at Wellington Farm, Lamplugh Road, Cockermouth.

The Principal Planning Officer recommended refusal.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history - A screening opinion SCR/2011/0040 was issued by the Local Planning Authority for the proposed turbine on a site north of the current proposal near the summit of the hill, which concluded it constituted EIA development by virtue of its potential impact on the Lake District National Park. However a screening direction by the Secretary of

Page 29 State overturned this decision advising that he did not consider it constituted EIA development.

Another screening opinion for the current proposal SCR/2012/0020 also determined it was EIA development, referring to the proximity to the National Park and potential cumulative impact. This decision was also overturned in a subsequent screening decision by the secretary of state who remained of the opinion that it did not constitute EIA development.

Members were advised of 64 letters of objection.

Members were informed of 5 further letters of objection and Natural England reconfirmed their original comments and considered the amendments were unlikely to have significant different impacts than the original proposal that appeared on the late list.

Councillor R Munby moved refusal with an additional reason for refusal. This was seconded by Councillor C Armstrong.

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

A vote was taken, 2 in favour of deferral, 17 against and 0 abstentions.

The motion in favour of deferral was lost.

A vote was taken, 17 in favour of refusal with an additional reason for refusal, 2 against and 0 abstentions.

The motion in favour of refusal with an additional reason for refusal was carried.

The decision: Refused with an additional reason for refusal.

Reasons: 1. The Local Planning Authority considered that insufficient evidence had been submitted to demonstrate the individual and cumulative impact of the proposed turbine of the landscape character of the site and its surroundings in the open countryside , contrary to policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (saved).

2. The Local Planning Authority considered insufficient evidence had been submitted to demonstrate the individual and cumulative visual impacts of the development to sensitive receptors of the site and its surroundings contrary to Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Saved).

3. The Local Planning Authority considered insufficient evidence had been submitted within the application to demonstrate that the scale and size of the proposed turbine constitutes the least visual environmentally harmful option of providing any 500kw turbine at the site, to the detriment of the

Page 30 surrounding landscape and the visual amenity of its receptors contrary to Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001- 2016 (saved).

295 2-2012-0614 - Development Panel - Change of use to gym - Dobies Business Park, Workington

Councillor M Snaith left the meeting for the following applications.

The application: Change of use from car showroom to D2 assembly and leisure for use as a fitness studio, Former Peugeot Showroom, Dobies Business Park, Lillyhall, Workington.

The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history – 2/2011/0758 – Change of use of car showroom to office accommodation.

The applicant had previously gained planning permission for a gym on the Lillyhall Industrial Estate at Unit 6B Blackwood Road – planning ref. 2/2011/0692.

This planning approval was subject to a subsequent legal agreement signed by the applicant and owner of the site at 6B Blackwood Road which states that this permission will not be invoked.

A further application for a gym at Unit 2 Joseph Noble Road was subsequently withdrawn (2/2012/0251).

Members were advised of 13 emails/letters of objection and a petition of 266 signatures in objection.

Members were informed of Environmental Health’s response that appeared on the late list.

The Senior Planner advised that the use of the gym was understood to have commenced and that therefore the change of use would be considered retrospective.

Councillor B Finlay moved approval. This was seconded by Councillor J Crouch.

A vote was taken, 18 in favour of approval, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

The motion in favour of approval was carried.

The decision: Approved.

Conditions:

Page 31 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: LB/KT/12/02 - Site Location Plan, floor plans and elevations Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development. 3. The application site shall be used as a gym/fitness facility only, and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class D2 of the Schedule to the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2005, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order). Reason: The Local Planning Authority wishes to re-assess any change of use and to maintain control over any future alternative land uses at this industrial estate’s out of town location.

Notes to Applicant: Mining Advisory Note

296 2-2011-0973 - Development Panel - Erection of wind turbine - Brayton Park, Aspatria

The application: Installation of a single 500kw wind turbine together with associated control equipment resubmission of planning application 2/2010/0370, Brayton Park, Brayton, Aspatria, Wigton.

The Principal Planning Officer recommended approval.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history - 2/2010/0370 – Wind Turbine 62m to tip. Approved.

Members were advised of 9 letters of objection.

Members were informed of further representation that appeared on the late list.

Councillor M Wood moved approval. This was seconded by Councillor M Jackson.

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

Following debate both motions where withdrawn.

Councillor J Holiday moved deferral. This was seconded by Councillor C Armstrong.

Councillor J Armstrong moved Refusal. This was seconded by Councillor N Cockburn.

A vote was taken, 10 in favour of refusal, 8 against and 0 abstentions.

Page 32

The motion in favour of refusal was carried.

The decision: Refused.

Reason: 1. The Local planning Authority considered the proposed turbine, by virtue of its greater scale and design to the former allowed turbine under 2/2010/0370, would constitute a prominent and unsympathetic feature in the surrounding open countryside to the detriment of the visual amenity of its surroundings and its associated sensitive receptors contrary to Policy EN25 and EN19 of the Allerdale Local Plan (saved) and Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016(saved).

297 2-2012-0451 - Development Panel - Variation of condition in relation to occupancy - Cumberland Lodge, Winscales

The application: Variation of condition 1 of planning approval 2/2003/0832 to remove the occupancy restriction relating to the Managers house (the detached dwelling), Cumberland Lodge, Winscales, Workington.

The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval subject to receipt of a unilateral undertaking restricting the number of horses to be accommodated on site.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history - 2/2012/0575 - Change of use of existing stable block to holiday lets (Phase 1, four units).

2/1997/0895 - Stables (28) and a trainer’s flat.

2/1999/0213 - Outline application for a dwelling. Withdrawn.

2/1999/0475 - Outline application for a dwelling.

2/2000/0038 - Outline application for a proposed hotel and horse racing stables development including manager’s house and accommodation for stable hands. Approved 12 May 2000.

2/2002/0712 - Erection of horse racing stables, detached manager’s dwelling and gallops. Approved 28 November 2002.

2/2003/0832 - Proposed stables, gallops and manager’s dwelling, (resubmission). Approved 29 th August 2003.

2/2003/0857 - Variation of condition 3 of approval 2/2000/0038 to extend time limit for submission of reserved matters for the hotel complex only. Approved 19 th November 2003.

Page 33 2/2006/1240 - Erection of hotel, as amended by letter and plan received on 19 February 2007 – 21 st February 2007.

2/2008/0098 - Change of use of an approved hotel site to caravan site (100 caravans). Refused 3 rd November 2008.

2/2009/0011 - Change of use of a lawful hotel site to erect 49 lodges and associated works. Refused 13 th March 2009.

2/2011/0362 - Variation of condition 1 on planning approval 2/2003/0832 for the removal of occupancy condition insofar as it relates to the manager's dwelling. Refused 12 th August 2011.

Councillor J Holliday moved approval. This was seconded by Councillor J Wright.

Councillor M Jackson moved refusal. This was seconded by Councillor S Standage. A vote was taken, 9 in favour of refusal, 6 against and 3 abstentions.

The motion in favour of refusal was carried.

The Panel unanimously agreed to withhold enforcement action if marketing commences.

The decision: Refused.

Reasons: 1. The application failed to demonstrate that the restrictive condition attached to the property had become redundant, in particular, that the property had been adequately marketed to demonstrate that the restrictive condition was no longer required. Therefore, the proposal would result in an unrestricted, non-essential dwelling within the open countryside, contrary to saved policy EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan and saved policy HS4 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alteration.

298 2-2012-0575 - Development Panel - Change of use to four holiday lets - Stables, Cumberland Lodge, Winscales

The application: Change of use of stable block to holiday lets (Phase 1 – four units), Cumberland Lodge, Winscales, Workington.

The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history - 2/1997/0895 – Stables (28) and a trainer’s flat.

2/1999/0213 - Outline application for a dwelling. Withdrawn.

2/1999/0475 - Outline application for a dwelling.

Page 34 2/2000/0038 - Outline application for a proposed hotel and horse racing stables development including manager’s house and accommodation for stable hands. Approved 12 May 2000.

2/2002/0712 - Erection of horse racing stables, detached manager’s dwelling and gallops. Approved 28 November 2002.

2/2003/0832 - Proposed stables, gallops and manager’s dwelling, (resubmission). Approved 29 th August 2003.

2/2003/0857 - Variation of condition 3 of approval 2/2000/0038 to extend time limit for submission of reserved matters for the hotel complex only. Approved 19 th November 2003.

2/2006/1240 - Erection of hotel, as amended by letter and plan received on 19 February 2007 – 21 st February 2007.

2/2008/0098 - Change of use of an approved hotel site to caravan site (100 caravans). Refused 3 rd November 2008.

2/2009/0011 - Change of use of a lawful hotel site to erect 49 lodges and associated works. Refused 13th March 2009. Appeal dismissed.

2/2011/0362 - Variation of condition 1 on planning approval 2/2003/0832 for the removal of occupancy condition insofar as it relates to the manager's dwelling. Refused 12 th August 2011.

Councillor M Jackson moved deferral. This was seconded by Councillor M Wood.

Councillor J Holliday moved approval. This was seconded by Councillor L Davies.

A vote was taken, 6 in favour of approval, 8 against and 4 abstentions.

The motion in favour of approval was lost.

A Vote was taken, 9 in favour of deferral, 1 against and 8 abstentions.

The motion in favour of deferral was carried.

The decision: Deferred.

Reasons: 1. The application was deferred to allow the appropriate marketing of the property subject of application 2/2012/0451, which is interrelated to this application.

299 2-2012-0429 - Development Panel - Erection of wind turbine - Homerigg Farm, Bullgill

Page 35 Councillor J Lister declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest and left the meeting for the rest of the applications.

The application: Construction of a 20kw wind turbine with an overall blade tip height of 27.1m, Homerigg Farm, Bullgill, Maryport.

The Principal Planning Officer recommended approval.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history – 2/2011/0917. Approval of 27m high turbine.

Members were advised of one letter of support and four letters of objection.

Councillor N Cockburn moved refusal. This was seconded by Councillor R Munby.

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

A vote was taken, 9 in favour of approval, 8 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: 001 - Site Location Plan 002 - Block Plan 003 – Elevations. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 and Section 91 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Page 36 and the associated above ground equipment and foundations to a depth of at least one metre below ground. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented within 6 months of the expiry of this permission. Reason: To ensure that this site within open countryside is restored to an appropriate standard, in accordance with Policies EN25 and EN10 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

5. If any turbine hereby approved ceases to be operational for a continuous period of at least 6 months unless an extension of time is agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority it shall be removed and the land restored in accordance with a decommissioning and site restoration scheme approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The decommissioning and site restoration scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within three months of the continuous six month cessation period coming to an end. The land shall be restored in accordance with the approved scheme within 6 months of the scheme's approval by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that this site within open countryside is restored to an appropriate standard, in accordance with Policies EN25 and EN10 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

6. Within 6 months of the completion of the construction works, any temporary working areas around the turbine shall be removed. Reason: To ensure that this site within open countryside is restored to an appropriate standard, in accordance with Policies EN25 and EN10 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

7. In the event that a written complaint is received relating to electromagnetic interference a written scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority setting out a protocol for the assessment of electro-magnetic interference, including remedial measures. Operation of the turbine shall take place in accordance with the agreed protocol unless the Local Planning Authority gives its prior written consent to any variation. Reason: In order to minimise the risk of nuisance.

8. The following background noise levels shall not be exceeded when the wind turbine is in operation: a) Night time noise limits (11pm-7am) – The LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise level shall not exceed 43dB (A) when assessed and measured 3.5m from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive use, namely “5 Station View, Bullgill, Maryport, CA15 6TP” (in existence at the date of this permission) or 5dB above the night time LA90 background noise level at wind speeds not exceeding 12m/s, whichever is the greater. b) Day time noise limits (7am-11pm) – The LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise level shall not exceed 40dB (A) when assessed and measured 3.5m from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive use, namely “5 Station View, Bullgill, Maryport, CA15 6TP” (in existence at the date of this permission) or 5dB above the quiet day time LA90

Page 37 background noise level at wind speeds not exceeding 12m/s, whichever is the greater. Reason: In the interest of amenity and in accordance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

9. In the event of a complaint being received in writing by the Local Planning Authority alleging noise nuisance at a residential property or properties due to the wind turbine, the wind turbine operator shall, at its expense, employ an independent consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority to measure and assess the level of noise emissions from the wind turbine at the location of the complainants property. The results of the independent consultant's assessment shall be provided in writing to the Local Planning Authority within three months of the date of notification of the complaint. If a breach of Condition 8 was confirmed in the assessment the operation of the turbine will cease until the Local Planning Authority is satisfied the turbine can operate within the noise limits specified in Condition 8. The operator of the development shall be under no obligation to follow the procedure set out in this condition where the complaint relates to a residential property more than three kilometres from the wind turbine generator. Reason: In the interest of amenity and in accordance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

Notes to Applicant: The development is adjacent to operational Electricity North West land; the applicant must ensure that the development does not encroach over either the land or any ancillary rights of access or cable easements. The applicant should verify details by contacting Electricity North West, Estates and Wayleaves, Frederick Road, Salford, Manchester M6 6QH.

The applicant should be aware of the following documents produced by the Health and Safety Executive in connection with operations near electricity services:-

HS(G)47 – Avoiding danger from underground services. GS6 – Avoidance of danger from overhead electric lines.

300 2-2012-0599 - Development Panel - Conversion to 7 apartments - Carlton Ceramics and Cafe, Senhouse Street, Maryport

The application: Conversion of first and second floors to 7 apartments consisting of 3 two bedroom and 4 one bedroom units, Carlton Ceramics and Café, 24 Senhouse Street, Maryport.

The Principal Planning Officer recommended approval.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history - 2/2007/1202 Proposed conversion of former cinema to chinaware decoration business, tearoom, retail shop and 'paint your own' centre. Approved.

Page 38 Councillor P Kendall moved deferral for a site visit. This was seconded by Councillor C Armstrong .

Councillor C Garrard moved approval. This was seconded by Councillor M Wood.

A vote was taken, 14 in favour of approval, 3 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: 1 - Site Location Plan 120601- 04 - Block Plan 120601-03 Edition C - Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations (amendment received 18 September 2012) Email received 14 September 2012 Email received 25 September Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 and Section 91 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Notes to Applicant: A separate metered supply to each until 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 planning approval, the applicant should contact United Utilities Service Enquiries on 0845 7462200 regarding connection to the water mains/public sewers.

United Utilities offer a sully 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 any assets that may cross the site and any proposed development.

Please note, due to the public sewer transfer, not all sewers are currently shown on the statutory sewer records, if a sewer is discovered during construction, please contact Sue Lowe [email protected] to discuss the matter further.

301 2-2012-0596 - Development Panel - Extension to provide disabled persons accommodation - 11 Thirlmere Avenue, Workington

Page 39 The application: Extension to provide disabled persons accommodation – Resubmission, 11 Thirlmere Avenue, Workington.

The Senior Planning Officer recommended refusal.

Members were advised of the relevant planning history – 2/2012/0449. Refused.

Members were informed of a letter received from the applicant’s doctor that appeared on the late list.

Councillor B Finlay moved refusal. This was seconded by Councillor M Jackson.

Councillor J Armstrong moved deferral for a site visit. This was seconded by Councillor S Standage.

A vote was taken, 15 in favour of deferral for a site visit, 2 against and 0 abstentions.

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

The decision: Deferred for a site visit.

302 2-2011-0802 - Development Panel - Appeal Decision - Lorton Road, Cockermouth

Members noted the appeal decision.

303 2-2012-0051 - Development Panel - Appeal Decision - Harrington Parks Farm, Harrington

Members noted the appeal decision.

304 2-2012-0292 - Development Panel - Appeal Decision - 1 Lorne Villas, Workington

Members noted the appeal decision.

The meeting closed at 5.30 pm

Page 40 Agenda Item 5

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0691

Reference No: 2/2012/0691 Received: 12 September 2012 Proposed Change of use from bank to licensed restaurant/cafe Development: (Resubmission of 2/2012/0542) Location: 30 King Street Aspatria Wigton Applicant: Mr Stuart Richardson Derwent Brewery

Drawing Numbers: SR-02 - Proposed Plans SR-03 - Location Plan SR-04 - Block Plan

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

Policies: Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) NPPF - National Planning Policy Framework Policy RG7 - Non retail uses in town centres, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Relevant Planning No Relevant Planning History History:

Representations: Cumbria Highways – No Objections.

Environmental Health – No objections, subject to the inclusion of recommended conditions.

Aspatria Parish Council - No Objections.

UU – No Objections. The developer should however make sure that the grease traps are fitted and maintained.

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

Page 41 Fifteen letters of objections have been received to date. The concerns raised in the letters are:

• Concerns that the proposal will take business away from the existing public houses within the town.

• Concerns that there is insufficient parking and that the road to the front will be blocked with deliveries to the pub.

• Concerns have been raised regarding problems with refuse collections at the site.

Report Site

The application site is a two story building with all three floors being vacant office units. Adjacent to the site are retail units on the ground floor with flats above on the first floor.

Proposal

The proposal is for the change of use of a vacant former Bank (HSBC) premises to a licensed restaurant/cafe at 30 Kings Street. The hours of operation are 8.30am and 11.00pm Mondays to Fridays, 8.30am and 11.30pm on Saturdays, and between 8.30 and 11.30 on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Policy

Officers consider that the proposal would satisfy the objectives of Saved Policy RG7 of the Allerdale Local Plan. The proposed use is one where there is a high element of face to face contact through free access by the public.

Officers consider that the proposal would not result in such a proportion of non-retail frontages as would be likely to jeopardize the retail vitality of any given group. It is deemed that the proposal would not result in dead frontages arising either through the individual use or the coalescence of uses in the prime shopping area. The proposal is in line with both the NPPF pro-development agenda policies and the emerging Local Plan preferred policies. The scale and character of the proposal is in keeping with the visual character and scale of the adjacent frontages.

The issue of competition with other similar land uses in the town is not a material planning consideration.

Page 42 Assessment

Officers consider there to be two main planning issues. Firstly, the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential property in relation to noise and disturbance. Secondly, whether the proposal would cause an unacceptable harm to the safety of the highway to the front of the site.

The application site is a two storey building fronting onto the highway. Adjacent to the site are retail units with residential units on the opposite side of the road are residential units.

It is officer’s opinion that the residential dwelling to the rear of 30 Kings Street could experience an increase in noise from the proposed beer garden. However, planning officers consider that with conditions restricting the use of the beer garden to 9.00pm and with the rear doors accessing the rear garden being a self closing mechanism the level of the noise and disturbance will not be sufficient enough to cause unacceptable harm to the residential amenity of any neighbouring property. Furthermore, it must be noted that Environmental Health has stated that they have no objections to the proposal subject to the inclusion of their recommended conditions.

Regarding objections concerning disposal of food waste and concerns with the lack of access from the rear of site for refuse collection a condition has been included stating that arrangements for the storage and disposal of waste from the premises shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

It is officers opinion therefore that the proposal would not have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential property in relation to smells, noise and disturbance.

Highways

The concerns relating to the lack of parking and the potential for deliveries to block the highway have been taken into account. It is considered that the use as a restaurant/bar compared to the previous usage as a bank will not exacerbate any existing highway issues currently at the site. It is considered that the number of deliveries will be similar to that of a previous use as a bank with a similar number of customers using the bank and the cash machine. Furthermore, it must be noted that Cumbria Highways have stated that they have no objections to the proposal.

The objections concerning the increase in competition for the

Page 43 existing public houses within Aspatria is not a material planning consideration and has not been taken into account.

It has been brought to officer’s attention that internal works have begun in renovating the property. However, these internal works do not require planning consent and as such no breach of planning has occurred.

Conclusion

Taking all of the above into account the proposal is recommended for approval subject to the inclusion of conditions.

Recommendation: Approved

Conditions/ 1. The develop ment 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 solely in accordance with the following plans: SR-02 - Proposed Plans SR-03 - Location Plan SR-04 - Block Plan Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 and Section 91 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

3. The premises hereby shall solely operate between the hours of 8.30am and 11.00pm on Mondays to Fridays, and between 8.30am and 11.30pm on Saturdays, and between 8.30 and 11.30 on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason : To protect nearby residential amenity in accordance with Policies EN6 and RG6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

4. Before the use commences, details of the kitchen extraction system and odour abatement measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to development. The approved details shall be fully implemented prior to the commencement of the use and retained at all times thereafter for the lifetime of the development. Reason : To protect nearby residential amenity in accordance with Policies EN6 and RG6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

5. Noise emanating from the premises shall not exceed NR35 when measured 3 metres from the facade of the

Page 44 nearest noise sensitive use when measured and rated in accordance with BS 7445, parts 1, 2 and 3. Reason : To protect nearby residential amenity in accordance with Policies EN6 and RG6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

6. Before the use commences, full details of the arrangement for the storage and disposal of waste from the premises, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority .Upon commencement of the use hereby approved the waste shall thereafter at all times be stored and disposed off in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure potentially odour polluting activities do not adversely affect pollution sensitive development in the locality, in accordance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

7. The placing of bottles into receptacles kept outside on the site shall not take place between 8.00 pm and 8.00 am on any day except Sunday when no such disposal shall take place before 10.00 am. Reason : To protect nearby residential amenity in accordance with Policies EN6 and RG6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

8. No deliveries shall be taken to or despatched from the development outside the hours of 8.00am to 8.00pm on any day except Sunday when no deliveries shall take place before 10.00 am. Reason : To protect nearby residential amenity in accordance with Policies EN6 and RG6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

9. The rear doors giving access to the designated outside drinking area shall be permanently fitted with a self closing mechanism. Reason : To protect nearby residential amenity in accordance with Policies EN6 and RG6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

10. There shall be no live or recorded music entertainment carried out or any external speakers erected within the external seating area . Reason : To protect nearby residential amenity in accordance with Policies EN6 and RG6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

11. The external seating area shall not be occupied by any person after 9:00pm on any day of the week.

Page 45 Reason : To protect nearby residential amenity in accordance with Policies EN6 and RG6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

12. The occupation of the first floor residential flat at the application site shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed at the ground floor restuarant, together with any member of that person's family residing with that employee. Reason : To protect nearby residential amenity of the first floor flat in accordance with Policies EN6 and RG6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

13. Prior to the erection of any speakers or televisions onto the internal wall of the premises adjoining 28 King Street, a scheme of sound insulation (including acoustic mounts) shall is submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the use any speakers or telesion on this wall, the sound insulation works shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained at all times thereafter. Reason : To protect nearby residential amenity in accordance with Policies EN6 and RG6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

Notes to Applicant:

Page 46 Page 47

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 48 Agenda Item 6

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0498

Reference No: 2/2012/0498 Received: 25 June 2012 Proposed Erection of a single wind turbine 61 metres to blade tip and Development: associated metering units Location: Lane Head Farm Boltongate Wigton Applicant : Mrs Mary Ruth Harker

Drawing Numbers: T7-PLAN-LOC-1 - Site Location (1 of 2) T7-PLAN-LOC-2 - Site Location (2 of 2) T7-PLAN-LAY - Site Layout T-SPEC-DETAIL1 - Switch Room and HV Metering Unit Detail 1000913 - Proposed Turbine Details

Constraints: Radon Assessment British Coal Area

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Policy EN5 - Pollution Control Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development Policy EN9 - Contaminated/Derelict Land Policy EN10 - Restoration, after uses cease Policy EN14 - Safeguarding Water Environment Policy EN19 - Landscape Protection Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law Policy CO18 - Setting of a Listed building

Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Saved)

Policy R44 - Renewable energy outside the Lake District National Park and AONBs Policy E35 - Areas and features of nature conservation interests other than those of national and international conservation importance Policy E37 - Landscape character Policy E38 - Historic environment

Page 49 North West Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 Policy DP1 - Spatial principles Policy DP9 - Reduce emissions and adapt to climate change Policy EM17 - Renewable Energy

National Planning Policy Framework

Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document July 2007

Relevant Planning 2/2011/0864 – Erection of single wind turbine 79m in height - History: Refused

Representations: Boltons Parish Council – The application fails to signify the huge impact this development would have on receptors. • Landscape, Local Heritage and the community will be affected detrimentally, which would be unsatisfactory and impossible to address with planning conditions • The collective negative impact of this planning application significantly overshadows any of its benefits • The turbine will be significantly visible from many viewpoints and have a high level of cumulative impact • The LVIA and photomontages do not fully and honestly exhibit properties/number of houses affected • We strongly believe that the impacts and effects are far from ‘negligible’, as claimed in this proposal and are not consistent with local development plan or national planning policy We therefore respectfully request in the strongest terms, that this application be refused.

Ireby and Uldale Parish Council – Object to the proposal due to the size of the turbine which will be visible from various view points in the parish, it is considered it will have a detrimental affect on the visual amenity of the local landscape.

Highways - No objections

United Utilities - No objections

Natural England - No comments refer the authority to their standing advice

MOD - No objections subject to the installation of aviation lighting

Environmental Health – No objection subject to a condition relating to noise

CAA - No site specific comments

NATS - No safeguarding objection

Page 50

Lake District National Park - No comments to date

English Heritage - Even with the revised position and height English Heritage indicate that the turbine has an adverse impact on the setting of the Grade I listed church and advise that the application is refused.

English Heritage advised on the importance of the Grade I listed Church and its setting. The application should be considered in the context of Sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (LB&CA) Act 1990 which requires that special attention should be paid to the preservation of listed buildings, their settings and any features of special architectural and historic interest they possess. The proposal should also be measured against the requirements of the NPPF generally and section 132 which requires that “great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting.” English Heritage has also issued guidance on The setting of heritage assets (October 2011).

From the information supplied they consider that the application will have a harmful effect on the setting of the exceptional Grade I listed ALL Saints church, Boltongate and therefore recommend that the application is refused as contrary to NPPF section 132.

Friends of The Lake District on behalf of CPRE – Cumbria Association

Comment that Saved Local Plan Policy EN19 seeks to conserve and enhance the landscape. Detailed guidance on local landscape character is given in the recently updated Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (LCGT).

The LCGT defines the area within which the site lies as Landscape Sub-Type 12b: Rolling Fringe. The LCGT describes a ‘simple, open landscape’, where ‘views are often expansive’, which exhibits ‘tranquillity and a sense of peacefulness’. The LCGT goes on to note that ‘These transitional landscapes are traditionally fragile in nature and new development may further exaggerate this trend eroding distinctive characteristics The Government’s commitment to renewable energy could see an interest in large scale wind energy schemes in this open area, which could change key open views and the feeling of wildness felt in parts of this area.’ Guidelines are given to ‘Avoid development in the transitional, fragile and exposed areas that will degrade their character, specifically tall or vertical energy infrastructure developments such as large scale wind turbines and pylons Avoid siting large scale wind energy in open and prominent

Page 51 areas where they could degrade the rural character of the area.’

The site lies in close proximity to the northern boundary of the Lake District National Park. The LCGT highlights the linkage in landscape terms – stating that Landscape Sub-Type 12b continues into the National Park, being classified as Type I – Upland Limestone Farmland in the Lake District Landscape Character Assessment and Guidelines (LDLCAG). Given this linkage, the nature of the development proposed, and the fact that it will be clearly visible in views both from and towards the National Park, the LDLCAG should form an important material consideration in the assessment of this proposal.

The LDLCAG echoes many of the characteristics identified in the LCGT. The openness of the landscape, which facilitates panoramic views in places, is identified as a Definitive Attribute for Type I. The LDLCAG goes on to state that ‘The area is popular with artists and wind turbine development occurring on important skylines would have a significant impact on landscape quality.’ Guidelines are subsequently given to: ‘Protect skylines and key views to and from the area from tall and vertical large-scale developments that may erode the open and undeveloped character of the area.’

The LDLCAG breaks down the identified landscape types into more detailed Areas of Distinctive Character. The Area of Distinctive Character which abuts Landscape Sub-Type 12b is Area 2: Bassenthwaite and Uldale. The LDLCAG notes that ‘The area has a strong sense of tranquillity due to minimal sources of artificial noise and lack of major roads and developments.’ Distinctive Characteristics include: ‘Distinctive topographical unit (rounded fell) of Binsey with a heather covered top to the east, rising to a height of 447m, affording significant 360 degree views’. The LCAG goes on to note that these views are vulnerable to interruption. Guidelines are subsequently given to conserve the views from Binsey, and to protect the strong sense of tranquillity within the area.

FLD have concerns in regard to the impact this proposal is likely to have in landscape and visual terms, given the characteristics and sensitivities identified above. The turbine is of a significant height, and will be sited on a prominent ridge. It will be clearly visible from Binsey, to the south, breaking the skyline in the middle distance. It will be clearly visible in the local landscape, and will have a dominant effect upon the small village of Boltongate.

Arqiva - No objections

Cumbria County Council – Will not be responding from a strategic planning perspective as the development is not a

Page 52 Category 1 Application. Not withstanding this, it is requested that, in addition to using your current Development Plan policies relating to renewable energy to determine the application you also consider the potential cumulative impacts of this proposal.

As I am sure you appreciate, proposals for seemingly small and innocuous single turbines can have significant impacts on the landscape and visual amenity when the cumulative effects are considered. In order to assist your decision making, it is recommended that you use the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document, the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit and the Cumbria Renewable Energy Capacity and Deployment Study.

Furthermore, Policies E37 (‘Landscape Character’) and R44 (‘Renewable energy outside the Lake District National Park and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty’) from the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan are still in place until the abolition of the North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy. It is therefore advised that you take these policies into account when determining the application.

Carlisle Airport – No objections

There has been 87 letters of objection which relate to:-

• Proliferation of wind turbines within Allerdale • Cumulative impacts • The decision should be made bearing in mind the recent Planning Inspector’s decision at Broughton Lodge dismissing a developers appeal on grounds of cumulative harm to the character and appearance of the landscape • The application does not take into account other turbines/wind farms that are proposed at High Pow/Little Waver • Affects on tourism • The previous application raised public outcry • Significant landscape implications • Affects on outlook from residential properties • Potential to set a precedent • The turbine would be highly visible from the National Park especially Binsey and the Caldbeck Fells • Would affect the views towards the National Park • The development could threaten the limestone uplands that form much of the fringe of the National Park • The turbine would be visible from the surrounding road network • Noise implications • Noise monitoring has not been undertaken, background

Page 53 noise levels should be included as part of the assessment • The noise cannot be dealt with under the simplified approach under ETSU-R-97 • Cumulative noise implications with existing turbines • Existing properties are already affected by the High Pow development which is over 1km from dwellings • Vibration • Affects from shadow flicker • Devaluation of property • Industrialisation of the countryside • The application is financially motivated • The subsidies for these proposals are funded by the tax payer • The turbine is too large a smaller 15m turbine would be more suitable • The photographs are taken in positions to obscure the views of the turbine not in locations where the turbine would be seen • The submitted documents fail to identify premises which would suffer loss of amenity and fail to quantify the number of premises affected • The application is little changed from the previous refusal only a reduction in height from 79m the proposal is still for a small industrial turbine • The diameter of the blades has increased from the previous application • The development would not be in line with local or national planning policies • The negative impacts outweigh any benefits • The standard of documentation is such that a decision of approval cannot be made • Negative effects on local heritage assets • Negative effects on local amenity • Negative effects could not be satisfactorily addressed by planning conditions • The size of the turbine cannot be classed as small • Potential to affect the viability of the area • The turbine will dominate the skyline • The turbine is in a prominent position on a hill • Views from the costal plains to the mountains will be disrupted • The photomontages are deceptive and deliberately misleading • Screening by hedgerows cannot be relied upon as they are frequently maintained and in parts have been recently been laid which is an ongoing process • Negative effects on the local economy

Page 54 • The turbine would be visible from residential properties and would be a prominent feature • The documentation does not take into accounts cumulative implications • Wind turbines are an inefficient and expensive form of renewable energy • Potential to cause ill health • Affects on the Grade I listed church • Affects on Quarry Hill parkland, house and gardens • An independent heritage assessment should be undertaken • An independent noise assessment should be undertaken • An independent landscape assessment should be undertaken • The decision should not be made until the new local plan is brought into force as this takes into account local views • Potential to damage local roads • Potential to affect wildlife • The applicants objected to the High Pow wind farm on wildlife grounds • Potential to affect horse riders along the roads and bridleways • Potential to affect local springs • A full water impact should be undertaken • The power is not for the farm itself but for the national grid therefore • There is no need established for the development • The site is located on top of a historic copper mine

Report Introduction

The proposed site is on land near to Lane Head Farm, Boltongate; the application seeks planning consent for the construction of a single wind turbine up to 61m in height to blade tip (35m hub height with a 52m rotor diameter) generating a capacity of 500kw. The scheme would also incorporate a small switch room. The proposal would be for a 25 year period, after which the scheme would be decommissioned, unless an application was submitted to renew the application.

Planning Policy

Renewable energy developments are supported by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which outlines that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development under paragraph 14. Under Chapter 10 of the NPPF it outlines there is a presumption to approve applications for renewable energy proposals unless material considerations indicate otherwise (paragraph 98).

Page 55

The NPPF states that the delivery of low carbon energy and associated infrastructure is central to the economic social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. In determining planning applications, LPA’s should:

• not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and • approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable

The NPPF is considered to support policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan. Saved Policy R44 of the Joint Structure Plan states that outside the Lake District and AONB, proposals for renewable energy, including any ancillary infrastructure or buildings, will be favourably considered subject to a number of criteria relating to landscape character, biodiversity and natural and built heritage, local amenity, local economy, highways or telecommunications.

As the property is not located within any special landscape designations (including local) the proposal would be in compliance with Policy EN25 of the Local Plan when read in conjunction with the NPPF chapters 109, 110 and 115. The Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan, under Policy E37, stipulates that development should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of the landscape, requiring future proposals to be assessed in terms of relevance, visual intrusion, scale in relation to the landscape and remoteness and tranquillity.

The objectives of Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan seek to safeguard sensitive development from pollution generating proposals which would concur with the objectives of the NPPF.

The proposal as a whole is considered to be in line with the NPPF.

Overall (as reflected in the policies) the merits of the proposed development relate to balancing whether the economic, social and environmental benefits of the proposed renewable energy development outweigh any environmental impact of the proposed turbines.

Financial Implications

There would be no local financial implications associated with this development.

Page 56 Need for and Environmental Impact Assessment

The Local Planning Authority have issued a screening opinion on 31 July 2012 indicating that the proposed development does not constitute EIA development and therefore the application in officers opinion is considered to contain sufficient information within the supporting documentation to assess the proposal.

Needs/Benefits

The needs and benefits of the proposal are important elements in the overall planning balance. The NPPF continues to give support to all forms of renewable energy development.

The increased development of renewable energy resources is vital to facilitating the delivery of the Government’s commitments on both climate change and renewable energy. Positive planning which facilitates renewable energy developments can contribute to the Government’s overall strategy on sustainability and renewable energy development, as emphasized in the Energy White Paper (2007), The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009) the UK Energy Road Map (2011) and a significant number of other policies and commitments. The NPPF continues to give support to all forms of renewable energy development.

In order to mitigate the effects of climate change, the North West Regional Spatial Strategy (NWRSS) policy EM17 encourages the use of renewable energy development in order to achieve 15% of the electricity supplied within the Region from renewable energy sources by 2015, rising to 20% by 2020. The RSS includes indicative generation targets and for Cumbria, these are:

2010 – 237.3MW 2015 – 284.8MW 2020 – 292.4 MW

The Courts have determined that the government’s intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies is a material consideration. However, in the context of renewable energy development, this intention is not considered to carry significant weight, given the binding legal targets relating to carbon and greenhouse gas emissions within the Climate Change Act.

Page 57 Energy Strategy recognises the importance of both electricity and heat from renewable sources and seeks around 35% of electricity and heat to come from renewable and low carbon (non nuclear) sources by 2020. Of the overall figure deployed or consented within Cumbria, 70% is located within the district of Allerdale.

As such, the consented/installed capacity for power and heat from renewable energy development is considered to be substantial and to make a positive contribution to addressing climate change.

Regardless of these figures, the imperative for further renewable energy within national policy and strategy is clear. Therefore, the weight to be attached to the deployment of renewable energy is not considered to have diminished.

Whilst this scheme would make only a small contribution towards regional and national targets for the production of energy from renewable sources, it remains valuable, thus contributing to meeting the objectives of the Climate Change Act. Whilst the local economic benefits cannot be precisely quantified there would be some in terms of the economic benefits to this local business. Achieving the binding national targets for the proportion of energy from renewable sources and the reductions sought in greenhouse gases can only be done by an accumulation of local projects of varying scale. Thus, based solely on national performance, a need for developments of this type exists. These are material considerations that weigh significantly in the planning balance.

Site History

Planning application 2/2011/0864 recommended that a wind turbine 79m in height,110m to the south of the proposed site was refused on the following grounds:

1. Adverse impact on the setting of the Church of All Saints at Boltongate, a Grade I Listed Building.

2. Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to adequately assess the noise implications of the proposal on the residential amenity of the nearest noise sensitive properties.

3. Inadequate information has been submitted with the application to allow an appropriate assessment of the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development, either individually or cumulatively.

Site and surroundings

The application site for the proposed turbines is within an

Page 58 agricultural field located approximately 574m to the north of Boltongate. The site occupies an elevated location on the western slopes of the hillside.

The site is in agricultural use, and would be accessed via a track to the public highway from land that is within control of the applicant.

The surrounding area is rural in nature, with a number of interspersed single dwellings or farms and small clusters of dwellings; Boltongate is the nearest settlement 547m to the south, Bolton Low Houses is 2.72km to the north, Wigton is 6.3km to the north east and Ireby is 2.29km to the south with Torpenhow 2.99km to the south west and Mealsgate 2.15km to the north west. The National Park boundary is approximately 2.9km from the site and approximately 11km from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

There are numerous wind farm developments within this part of the borough, High Pow windfarm consisting of 3 large scale turbines is approximately 2km to the north east and has recently had a scoping opinion for extension and a further scoping has been issued for Little Waver adjacent to the proposed area at for the High Pow extension. Wharrels Hill wind farm (8 turbines) is 6.44km to the south west. Parkhead windfarm is 13km to the north west and 14.6km to the north east is Great Orton wind farm.

A single wind turbine at Brayton Park (6km) has been approved and three large scale wind turbines have approval at Westnewton (8km); construction has not commenced on these schemes. Tallentire windfarm 12.8km to the south west has recently commenced construction.

The access to the site is via an access from a minor highway connecting the A595 to Boltongate. Some upgrade would be necessary to the existing access to facilitate the development, including the formation of a temporary 4.0m wide access track from the filed gate to the turbine position. The track being of a temporary nature could be conditioned to be removed once the turbine is operational.

The application states that they have lowered the turbine height by approximately 20m, the original application was a height of 79m with the new turbine being 61m therefore the reduction in height is 18m.

Landscape and Visual Impact Implications

In order for Members to assess the scale of the proposal, the following table provides a guide on the size and number of other

Page 59 turbine sites.

No. of Height of Turbines Turbines Tallentire 6 86m Wharrels Hill 8 62m Parkhead 4 121m High Pow 3 95m Flimby 3 115m Oldside and Siddick 16 61m Voridian 2 107m Winscales Moor 7 81m Winscales I and II 11 71m Great Orton 6 69m

The applicants report refers to the Cumbria’s Wind Energy SPD, but highlights that this refers to larger turbines (95-120m to tip height) whereas as the current proposal is significantly smaller at 61m to tip height.

The applicant has submitted a planning report, landscape and visual impact assessment report, a ZTV plan and photomontages.

The ZVI plans outlining where turbines would be visible within a 20km radius of the site is misleading as the model is not an accurate reflection of the turbines within the area with a number of turbine developments missing. The turbine would be visible from a wider area than identified within the ZVI.

The photomontage evidence submitted to support the application shows a misleading view of the development as the locations of the photomontages have been selected with obstructions of the turbine development where clear views of the development are available nearby e.g. by trees and buildings.

The design of the turbine is considered to be commercial in scale and design rather than for the needs of the farm.

Landscape and Visual

The site is located within Landscape Character 12b Rolling Fringe as identified within the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. The landscape sensitivity of 12b has landscape sensitivity in the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document of moderate/high and has a low/moderate capacity. The site is adjacent to subtype 5a and 5b and the Lake District National Park Authority landscape character area Type I Upland Limestone Farmland. A moderate/high sensitivity in terms of landscape would be affected by the introduction of turbine developments.

Page 60

The guidance describes subtype 12b as being found “around the fringe of the Lake District National Park, near Ullock in the west, from Tallentire to Caldbeck in the north and from Stainton to Drybeck in the east. The sub type continues into the national park and is classified as Type I – Upland Limestone Farmland in the Lake District National Park Landscape Character Assessment.”

12b is defined as having the following characteristics: • Large-scale undulating topography • Large fields of improved pasture • Stone walls mainly in the east, occasional hedges and fence boundaries • Very sparse tree cover • Some large scale conifer plantations • Small streams and rivers cut through the rolling topography

The landscape is described as “simple, open landscape, with a more intimate feel in the valleys, and a contrasting feel of wildness in the moorland areas. Views are often expansive across to the Lakeland Fells. Otherwise the landscape has a pastoral feel with some tranquillity and a sense of peacefulness.” The guidance goes on to comment on renewable development within this landscape “The Government’s commitment to renewable energy could see an interest in large scale wind energy schemes in this open area which could change key open views and the feeling of wildness felt in parts of this area..Avoid development in the transitional, fragile and exposed areas that will degrade their character, specifically tall or vertical energy infrastructure developments such as large scale wind turbines and pylons..Avoid siting large scale wind energy, other vertical structures such as telecommunications masts, pylons and overhead transmission lines in open and prominent areas where they could degrade the rural character of the area.”

Officers consider it important to protect the setting of nationally designated landscapes; in this case when viewed from the north of the proposed site with the backdrop of the Lake District National Park it is considered to be visually prominent. The development is considered to have a negative effect on the setting of the National Park.

The hillside on which the application sits is agricultural in nature, sparsely populated with small villages, individual dwellings and farmsteads interspersed by agricultural fields and small pockets of woodland. The landscape is devoid from large scale manmade features apart from the three turbines at High Pow and the television masts at Sandale and Brocklebank.

Page 61 The design of the wind turbine with a hub height of 35m and a roter diameter of 52m the turbine blades would be 9m from the ground level giving the appearance of a squat turbine. Officers consider that the design of the turbine would add to the negative visual effects of the turbine. The size of the turbine is more akin to a wind farm than a standalone single wind turbine.

The three existing turbines are located at a lower level of approximately 155m AOD where the proposed turbine would be 185m AOD; the difference in land levels and 2km distance from the site would mean that the relationship with the turbines at High Pow would be disconnected from this scheme. The proportions of the turbine are also considered to add to the disjointed relationship with the existing scheme.

The development is considered to detract from the landscape sub category 12b and that of the lake district fells to the south of the site. The turbine would also been seen to detract from the landscape when viewed from within the Lake District fells themselves.

Cumulative

In terms of cumulative effects it is considered that a single turbine 61m in height in this elevated position is considered to add a tall vertical structure in a prominent position on this open hillside and there is the potential to add cumulatively with the High Pow and Wharrels Hill turbines; but, considering the distance from other wind farms within Allerdale and other smaller turbine development the significance of the cumulative effect is not considered significant enough to warrant refusal of the application on this ground.

Visual Amenity

Officer are concerned that the visual amenity of nearby residential dwellings has not been sufficiently examined and therefore officers consider that the application does not provide sufficient evidence for the council to assess the affects on the amenity on nearby residential properties. There are a number of the properties which could directly at the site namely Well Head, Mealsgate, and The Close and in particular the properties located within the northern section of Boltongate.

The turbine is considered to be able to be viewed from the properties with windows facing onto the site. The landscape report indicates that a representative example of view points from nearby dwellings would be from the church yard, officers consider that this would not be representative of properties to the north of the church which have unrestricted views towards the turbine. Viewpoints

Page 62 would be available from the highway near to one of the properties in question (Fellview) which would provide a more accurate reflection of the views gained by properties within the northern section of Boltongate.

View points adjacent to the residential property Well Head which is considered to be one of the most affected properties would be available from the public right of way adjacent to the dwelling; the viewpoint taken from the public highway at the entrance to The Close is some 420m from the property and therefore is not considered to be an accurate reflection when viewed from Well Head. The applicants landscape reports that the potential affect on this residential receptor of high sensitivity the resultant visual effect will be major/moderate and therefore significant.

The owner of Quarry Hill indicated to the agents during the course of the last application that they were happy for the landscape assessment to be undertaken from their property subject to appropriate permission being sought. As the photomontage is taken 250m from the property at an obscure angle it is not considered to show an accurate representation of the potential affects of the amenity of this property.

Public Rights of Way

The nearest public right of way is approximately 220m although visual amenity of users would be affected it is not considered significant enough to warrant a refusal on this ground.

There is sufficient topple distance in relation to the proximity of the nearby rights of way; and would be at a distance greater than the height of the turbine.

Noise

The applicant has submitted some supporting noise information which has been generated by a software programme; no site specific background readings have been undertaken.

The council has received noise complaints from properties within the locality from the operational windfarm at High Pow, these properties are over 1km from the wind farm.

The applicant contests that the guidance provided in ETSU-R-97 relating to simplified noise assessments allows this issue to be covered by condition. The Councils environmental health department consider that the separation distance between the proposal and the nearest dwellings is sufficiently large as outlined within ETSU-R-97 and therefore the standard conditions are considered to be acceptable in this case.

Page 63

Shadow Flicker

In terms of shadow flicker, the standard assessment would be that properties within 10 rotor diameters of the turbine could potentially be affected by shadow flicker; this is also influenced by the position of the sun within the sky. In this case the rotor diameter is 52m. There are residential properties within 520m of the turbine. Three properties could potentially be affected by shadow flicker however the number of instances and level of disturbance is less than that accepted on other wind farm sites allowed at appeal.

This element of the proposal could be controlled be condition which would see the turbine shut down at time when this is phenomenon is likely to occur using computer modelling. It is considered that the negative effects of the shadow flicker are not sufficient to warrant refusal of the application on this issue.

Historic Environment

The site is located near to a number of listed buildings and the property known as Quarry Hill which is recorded with Cumbria County Council as a Historic Park and Garden. The Grade I Church of All Saints, Boltongate is approximately 678m from the site, a Grade I and Grade II* property Ireby Old Church and Aisle Columns of Ireby Old Church are 2.24km from the site, Weary Hall is Grade II* and is within 1.35km from the site. Also, there are a number of Grade II listed buildings within the locality including two at Boltongate (630m), Well Rash (1.26km), and numerous listed properties within Ireby (2.29km).

The applicant has provided a desk top assessment of the potential impacts on cultural heritage. The applicant’s assessment of the impacts of the development on cultural heritage including Quarry Hill and the Church of All Saints concludes that there would be indirect impacts of a visual nature to be of the magnitude minor negative. The report also considers that it is not deemed that the significance of the effect on the sites is such to warrant the proposed development unsuitable from a heritage perspective. The report also indicates that it is considered that existing screening afforded by the landscape (not within the applicants control) are sufficient in reducing any potential visual impact and no further mitigation measures would be deemed necessary.

The Church of All Saints, Boltongate which is a Grade I listed building is the nearest building considered to be of significant importance in terms of its listing. English Heritage under the previous application outlined the importance of the church “as a building largely of the fourteenth century, designed in the Perpendicular style, but clearly sits on work of a much earlier

Page 64 period. It was, with some justification, described by the eminent architectural historian Sir Nikolasu Pevsner as “one of the architectural sensations of Cumbria” in his original volume of The buildings of England; Cumberland and Westmorland (1967) – a judgement repeated in the new revised edition of the book published last year. Owing much to Scottish and French precedent, its rare stone barrel-vault is supported by similarly vaulted porches and transepts to the north and south elevations, and a vestry, creating a church of considerable strength and presence in the landscape. Additionally, the suggestion of a pele tower in the treatment of the embattled parapet, within which much of the church sits, is characteristic of the fortified churches of the Border, such as found at Newton Arlosh (also Grade I), and are a significant feature of ecclesiastical architecture of Cumbria and for an important part of its local distinctiveness.”

English Heritage has confirmed its concerns in relation to the new position and turbine design and sustains its objection when considered in light of the submitted heritage assessment. They have indicated that the turbine would have a harmful impact on the setting of the Grade I All Saints Church.

It is considered that the setting of the church and associated graveyard would be adversely affected by the erection of a turbine of this magnitude and would severely affect its setting particularly as the proposal is on significantly higher ground than the church and its grounds. In considering section 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act, the Local Planning Authority must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Considering the advice of English Heritage, it is considered that the proposal would not preserve the setting of this building, contrary to local and national policy.

The two Grade II listed buildings located within Boltongate are noted within desk based cultural heritage assessment however have not been individually assessed. Officers are of the opinion that due to the orientation and position of The Rectory and the main view point of Bolton Gate Farm looks from the highway away from the turbine the affects on the setting of these listed buildings would not be significant enough to warrant a ground for refusal. English Heritage have not provided any comments pertaining to the Grade II listed buildings.

Quarry Hill and its associated grounds are considered to be of local importance and is identified within the Allerdale Local Plan as a historic park and garden (but is not registered on the English Heritage list). Policy EN24 resists inappropriate development that would adversely affect their special character and appearance; this

Page 65 is not exclusive to those registered on English Heritage’s list. Considering the development will be readily visible within the grounds and landscape that surrounds Quarry Hill, officers consider that the introduction of this feature is likely to be detrimental to the setting of this property.

Although the development is considered to have some negative impacts on the setting of Quarry Hill, officers consider that as the designation is a local rather than a national designation the development should not be refused on this basis alone.

Electromagnetic Interference (EMI), Aviation and RADAR

The CAA, NATS and the MOD have all been consulted on the proposal and have raised no objections with regards to the proposal. Conditions are requested relating to aviation lighting and notification when the turbine is erected. The scheme is considered acceptable in terms of aviation safety and radar. Electromagnetic interference could be dealt with by condition.

Highways

The Highways Authority has not objected to the proposal and although the roads are narrow in the proximity to the site entrance it is considered that the turbine can be satisfactorily be brought onto the site.

The projected levels of traffic would be low and would be at its highest during the construction phase. Any transport route and details of transportation could adequately be dealt with by condition and would not be considered as a ground for refusal.

Ecology

The proposed turbine would not be located within an identified designated site or habitat. There are no specific ecological designations (SAC, SSSI, and SPA) within 3km of the site.

Natural England has not raised concerns on the landscape impact.

A phase 1 habitat survey has been submitted to support the proposal that does not raise concerns in relation to impacts on designated sites, habitats or protected species including bats and birds.

The ground works in associated with the turbine and access would be limited and is unlikely to cause significant harm to any habitats, due to the nature of the limited works.

The siting of the turbine and blade sweep has been located over

Page 66 50m from any hedgerows, therefore when considered against best practice for assessing bats a survey would not be required.

Tourism/local economy

The issue of potential effects on local tourism within the locality has been raised within several of the objection representations.

However, the Inspector on the Parkland/Hellrigg appeal and more recent appeal at Brayton Park, in evaluating impact on tourism including the AONB, considered that if there was not a significant impact on the landscape then the degree of effect on attracting visitors would be limited. He considered the evidence of Scottish research submitted at the appeal indicated that the small number of people discouraged from visiting was insignificant. In the absence of any conclusive evidence on this issue, officers consider it would be difficult to sustain to a reason for refusal at appeal.

Other Issues

A number of objections raise issues in relation to the effects on springs within the locality. The ground at times may become saturated and temporary springs may appear. Allerdale Borough Council’s engineer is unaware of any permanent springs within the area that would be affected by the development.

Due to the limited depth of the ground works required for the development, is unlikely to cause any significant changes to any springs that are within the immediate locality of the site.

The site is not located within any areas of significant archaeology.

Officers are not aware of any historic mining for copper in the area.

Conclusions

In determining applications for turbine development, it is necessary to assess and balance whether the environmental harm arising from the development outweighs the substantial weight attached to the development of renewable energy development as stated within national and regional policy and their associated targets.

Officers consider that the level of information provided with the application is insufficient to allow an appropriate assessment of the development in terms of visual effects on residential receptors.

Considering the advice of English Heritage, the application is also considered to be detrimental to the setting of a Grade I listed building, Church of All Saints at Boltongate.

Page 67

Officers consider that the proposal would have a significant negative effect on the landscape sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.

Officers consider that the benefits of providing renewable energy do not outweigh the Council’s concerns relating to landscape and therefore the application is recommended for refusal.

Recommendation: Refused

Conditions/ 1. The proposed development would have an adverse Reasons: impact on the setting of Church of All Saints Boltongate, a Grade I Listed Building. The proposal therefore is contrary to Policy CO18 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policy E38 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Modifications, September 2005).

2. The proposal, by reason of its siting, design and elevated level, would constitute a prominent and incongruous feature within the landscape, and would cause unacceptable indidual and cumulative harm to the landscape character and appearance of the locality. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Saved).

3. In the absence of detail to prove the contrary, the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the proposal will not have a harmful impact on the visual amenity of its locality, with particular significant impact on sensitive residential receptors at Well Head, Mealsgate, The Close, Mealsgate, properties at Quarry Hill, Mealsgate and within the settlement of Boltongate contrary to Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Saved).

Notes to Applicant:

Page 68 Page 69

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 70 Agenda Item 7

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0597

Reference No: 2/2012/0597 Received: 02 August 2012 Proposed Outline application for residential development of 12 dwelling Development: considering site access. Location: Land to the South West of Brigham Road Cockermouth Applicant: Mr Leigh Stamper Messrs Stamper

Drawing Numbers: 11/03/719-01 - Site Location Plan 11/03/719-02a - Indicative Site Plan (amendment received 12/10/2012) Email 12/10/2012 regarding reserved matters of outline application. (amendment received 12/10/2012). Extended Phase I Habitat Survey GB11PH1006 24/5/2011 Road Traffic Noise Survey 01548 revA 4/7/2012 Flood Risk Assessment D/I/D/90390/02 April 2012 Flow and Load Assessment D/I/D/90390/03 February 2012 Foul Water and Utilities Assessment D/I/D/90390/01 April 2012 90390/2002 Drainage Layouts Existing and Proposed

Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Radon Assessment Leisure Policy CL2 ASCA Area Adv Control Exclusion - Cockermouth

Policies: Allerdale L ocal Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CL2 - Allocation of open space, Brigham Road Policy E35 - Areas and features of nature conservation interests other than those of national and international conservation importance Policy EN1 - Minimising Travel, Allerdale Local Plan Policy EN14 - Safeguarding Water Environment Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law Policy EN35 – Creation of new wildlife habitats Policy EN37 - Protection of open land in urban areas, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development Policy EN7 - Location of pollution sensitive development Policy EN4 – Tree and hedgerow preservation orders.

Page 71 Policy H19 - Affordable housing outside the Lake District National Park Policy HS14 - Affordable/local needs housing on large sites Policy HS5 - New housing in settlements Policy L1 - Provision of open space in housing development,

Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved) 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 2006 (saved) Policy ST4 - Major development proposals Policy ST5 - New development and key service centres outside the Lake District National Park Policy TR11 - Provision for cyclists, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy TR13 - Provision for pedestrians, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Relevant Planning None History:

Re presentations: Town Council – Recommend approval Allerdale Housing Services – No objection subject to the requirement for a percentage of affordable homes Highway Authority – No objections subject to conditions United Utilities – No objections subject to conditions Allerdale Environmental protection – No objections subject to conditions Environment Agency – No objections Cumbria County Council Spatial Planning Team – No objections Allerdale Drainage engineer – No comments Allerdale Access Officer – No objections regarding disabled access

The application has been advertised on site and in the local press. Adjoining landowners have been notified. Five letters of representation have been received with objection regarding increased traffic, highway safety, drainage, ecology and general visual and residential amenity Report Proposal

Outline application for residential development with details reserved except for the point of access from the public highway. The site area measures 0.83 ha and an illustrated layout relate makes provision for up to approximately 12 units of varying house types.

Page 72

The proposal includes the means of access.

The Site

The application site lies on the south west extremity of the town enclosed by existing residential estates and the A66 trunk road. The undeveloped site is of rough pasture with scattered trees within the site and with groups of trees on the boundaries. A number of trees have been identified as having significant value to local visual amenity and in the interests of their future retention a Tree Preservation Order has been issued.

The land is generally level with an embankment on the roadside boundary. It is fully open to public view from Brigham Road and is overlooked by a number of existing dwellings.

Planning History

The site has been subject to a Screening Opinion to assess the potential for any significant environmental impact from residential development that would require a formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The screening of the proposals and the characteristics of the site resulted in the decision that an EIA was not required.

Policy Context.

The development is within the Settlement Limit as defined in the current Allerdale Local Plan Adopted (1999) Saved. However, the land is allocated as protected open space under Policy CL2 and is therefore considered a ‘departure’ and therefore subject to Development Panel decision.

The relevant policies of the Allerdale Local Plan are considered to be in general conformity with the National Planning Policy Framework and can continue to carry some weight in the determination of applications.

The National Planning Policy Framework was published in March 2012 and the guidance must now be afforded significant weight.

Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Saved)

North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 From a strategic point of view, the North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy is still currently part of the development plan and is a material planning consideration, although the Government has made clear their intentions that they may abolish at some point Regional Spatial Strategies and Saved Structure Plan Policies,

Page 73 following the enactment of the Localism Act 2011.

The Cumbria Community Strategy 2008–2028 Prepared by the Cumbria Strategic Partnership this strategy aims to create: safe; strong and inclusive communities; health and well being throughout life; a sustainable and prosperous economy; effective connections between people and places; and a world class environmental quality. The Community Strategy seeks to energise the county’s communities, health, economy, connections and environment over the next 10-20 years. It brings together aspirations and ambitions from a range of thematic and geographic strategies.

The Cumbria Strategic Partnership Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy (SRSpS) This document sets out the spatial framework. This enables actions that affect specific areas and locations to serve the delivery of the Community Strategy, and it provides the sub- regional spatial framework for the preparation of Local Development Frameworks in Cumbria.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

As a departure to the Local Plan (Policy CL2) the aims and objectives of the NPPF are a key in the assessment of this application and are explained below.

Policy Statements have now been replaced by the planning guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published March 2012.

The NPPF advises the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development which has 3 dimensions.

“These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles:

• ‘an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; • a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and

Page 74 • An environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy”.

The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts, should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF does however provide considerable emphasis in the need to have an up-to-date plan in place and the weight that should be given to out-of-date plans.

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. When considering planning applications this means:

“where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless:

• any adverse impacts of doing so 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”.

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

Page 75 required by the NPPF.

Principle of Development

As a site within the Settlement Limit of Cockermouth (Key Service Centre) and associated with adjacent housing, the principle of residential development is acceptable in accordance with Policy HS5. The site is genuinely sustainable in terms of housing provision at this location and meets all the criteria of the NPPF including the required percentage of affordable housing.

Policy CL2 Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved)

With the principle of development accepted in accordance with the NPPF, the proposals are assessed against Policy CL2 as follows.

The loss of the site as allocated open space (Policy CL2) is not considered to have an adverse residential or visual impact. As existing, the site offers a pleasant outlook for adjacent housing and offers a green-space within a suburban setting. However, the proposed development is planned as low density with many trees retained on the boundary of the site with individual and groups of trees protected by a TPO. Furthermore, the general suburban layout naturally contributes to the setting of the locality with large private gardens with mature planting.

In terms of amenity value, the site is not accessible to the general public. Open space offering informal recreation is widely available in and around the town.

Policy CL2 was allocated many years ago with regard to the former Southern Allerdale Local Plan (SALP) and carried forward to the Allerdale Local Plan in 1999. The current NPPF that presumes in favour of sustainable development would appear to outweigh Policy CL2 which is now considered rather dated; particularly where the five year housing land supply for the District including 20% buffer is yet to be reached.

Access

The proposed vehicular access from Brigham Road is sited as to achieve the necessary visibility splays and designed to serve an appropriate estate road for a development of this type. The Highway Authority does not object with appropriate conditions. Details of the estate road and associated parking and turning remain Reserved Matters.

Pedestrian access to the site is achievable by means of the existing infrastructure with good connectivity beyond to local services and the town centre.

Page 76

Residential Amenity

A number of properties on Harrot Hill and Brigham Road have elevations and gardens facing the proposed site. Despite some objection from adjacent residents the illustrative layout and separation distances appear to avoid any unneighbourliness. The means of enclosure and the choice and distribution of house types subject to a Reserved Matters application will address any possible issues of impact upon residential amenity.

Noise

A noise assessment has also been provided that concludes that traffic noise from the adjacent A66 (trunk) is not unreasonably harmful to residential amenity. The report concluded that the development is likely to be subject due to excessive noise levels from traffic. In that respect acoustic double glazing is considered appropriate and with the provision of an acoustic means of enclosure to certain plots. Allerdale Environmental Protection agrees to a condition to implement the findings of the noise assessment.

Ecology

An ecological report has been provided. This recognises the site as a common habitat of semi-improved grassland of no specific wildlife interest. There is however potential for the nesting of breeding birds and bats. An appropriate condition can be imposed to safeguard nature conservation interests whilst the legislation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act can control the protection of wildlife during construction. A ‘note to applicant’ is considered adequate.

Contamination

The site is not within any consultation zone and as an undeveloped ‘greenfield site’ is considered uncontaminated.

Drainage.

A qualified drainage report has been provided in consultation with United Utilities. Comprehensive details have been provided regarding foul and surface water and load and flow calculations.

Foul water drainage is proposed to the main sewer. An update from United Utilities regarding the Cockermouth Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) has confirmed some improvements that are currently being monitored but do allow additional capacity. In order to balance the load and flow of discharge from the

Page 77 proposed site the applicant has proposed the following drainage solution.

Foul water will be discharged directly to the main sewer and onward to the Cockermouth WwTW. To balance the load and flow from this, additional discharge 3 existing road gullies on Brigham Road will be redirected from the mains combined sewer thus reducing surface water discharge into the mains combined sewer. Any works within the highway will be conditioned and secured by a Section 278 agreement.

This redirected surface water will combine with surface water from the development site to be piped via on-site attenuation tanks to the existing surface water drain that eventually meets the River Derwent. Surface water discharge rates will be no greater than the undeveloped site.

The attenuation system can be conditioned and the maintenance thereof secured for the future via a Section 106. The report confirms that there is no flood risk and the site is not in a designated flood zone.

United Utilities has responded with no objections in principle. They have recommended appropriate conditions and a standard ‘note to applicant’.

Section 106 Legal Agreement.

With regard to the number of dwellings proposed and the characteristics of the infrastructure and servicing of the site, a Section 106 Legal Agreement (Section 106) is required to secure a number of matters as follows. The applicant has provided Heads of terms for the following maters to which the Council agrees in principle

Affordable Housing

Policy H19 of the Structure Plan dictates the need for 20% affordable housing to meet proven local need where 10 or more dwellings are proposed in urban areas.

Allerdale Housing Services has recommended a proportion of affordable housing including house type and tenure in accordance with the most up to date Housing Needs Survey April 2012. The required 20% of the total units proposed amounts to 2 dwellings for social rent.

Negotiations with the applicant have been concluded and Heads of Terms agreed to provide one, two bedroomed house to be let at a social rent and one, two bedroomed house to be sold as a low

Page 78 cost home for sale (at 65% of the agreed market value of an open market equivalent).

The usual affordable housing terms relating to locality and nominations etc. will apply. This compromise is acceptable to officers and details of the Section 106 can be finalised at a later date.

Drainage Attenuation

The surface water drainage proposed requires attenuation within the site to manage and control discharge. Such attenuation tanks and associated equipment will require ongoing maintenance. This can be conditioned for further details and secured via a Section 106.

Landscaping Management

With the site layout and landscaping a Reserved Matter it is possible that the development will provide common areas or open space requiring landscape and grounds maintenance. A Section 106 can safeguard such long term management if required.

Reserved Matters

This outline application considers the principle of development and the point of access only. In that respect the Reserved Matters of layout, design and appearance and landscaping are for further consideration at a later stage. However, the illustrative layout clearly demonstrates that a satisfactory standard of development can be achieved.

Summary

As a well related site within the settlement limit, the proposed development is considered sustainable and acceptable in compliance with current local and national policy guidelines. The dwellings will contribute significantly to the shortfall in the future housing supply for the area and can be supported. The development is considered to have no significant impact upon visual and residential amenity of the locality and the loss of the open space is not considered unreasonably harmful to local amenity.

Local Financial Implications

There are financial implications for the Council in relation to

Page 79 payments from the new homes bonus scheme.

Recommendation

On balance the proposals are acceptable and can be approved in accordance with current Local Plan policies screened alongside the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012. The outline approval will be subject to a Section 106 Agreement with regard to the matters described above of affordable housing, surface water drainage attenuation and landscape maintenance.

Recommendation: Approved

Conditions/ 1. Before any works commence, details of the layout, estate Reasons: road, scale and appearance,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: 11/03/719-01 - Site Location Plan 11/03/719-02a - Indicative Site Plan (amendment received 12/10/2012) Email 12/10/2012 regarding reserved matters of outline application. (amendment received 12/10/2012) Extended Phase I Habitat Survey GB11PH1006 24/5/2011 Road Traffic Noise Survey 01548 revA 4/7/2012 Flood Risk Assessment D/I/D/90390/02 April 2012 Flow and Load Assessment D/I/D/90390/03 February 2012 Foul Water and Utilities Assessment D/I/D/90390/01 April 2012 90390/2002 Drainage Layouts Existing and Proposed 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

Page 80 and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 4. The carriageway, footways, footpaths, etc shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is complete. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety. 5. The development shall not commence until visibility splays providing the clear visibility shown on Drawing no 11/03/719-02a, 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, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grown within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 6. Full details of the surface water drainage system shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to development being commenced. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained operational thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and environmental management. 7. 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. 8. Details of the siting, height and type of all means of enclosure/screen walls/fences/other means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any such walls/fences etc shall be constructed prior to the approved building being brought into use/occupied. All

Page 81 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. 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 re ference 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 protect ed 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 duri ng 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). 11. Before development commences, details of the noise mitigation proposals including acoustic glazing and acoustic fencing for those properties adjacent to the A66 or with an oblique view of the A66 as recommended within page 11 of the Road Traffic Noise Survey 01548revA dated 4/7/2012 shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority . Such measures shall be implemented as approved before the dwellings are occupied and not removed or altered thereafter without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason - In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policies EN6 and EN7 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Page 82 12. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for foul and surface water drainage (including a maintainance programme) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage scheme submitted for approval shall be in accordance with the principles set out in the "foul Water and Utilities Assessment" dated April 2012 ref no. D/I/D/90390/01 and "Flow and Load Assessment" dated February 2012 ref no. D/I/D/90390/03, including drawing ref no. 90390/2002 proposing surface water discharging into the local watercourse and removal of surface water from the combined sewer by disconnecting the road gullies along Morland Place. 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 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). 13. Before development commences, a bat activity survey, as recommended by the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey GB11PH1006.001, shall be undertaken to assess usage of the site by foraging and commuting bats. The results of this survey should be used to inform the detailed design of the proposed development; specifically lighting. Reason : In the interests of the protection of wildlife in accordance witrh Policy EN32 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved). 14. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until each tree under Tree Preservation Order Ref 4/2012 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).

Page 83 Page 84

Agenda Item 8

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0488

Reference No: 2/2012/0488 Received: 02 July 2012 Proposed Erection of a single wind turbine (79.6m high to blade tip) with Development: associated metering units - Resubmission Location: Land Off Charity Lane High Harrington Workington Applicant: Mr David Reed

Drawing Numbers: T90-PLAN-LOC - Site Location T90-PLAN-LAY - Site Layout T- SPEC-DETAL1 - Switch Room & HV Metering Unit Detail T- SPEC-DETAIL2 - Proposed Turbine

Constraints: British Coal Area

Policie s: Policy CZ5 - Control of pollution, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)

National Planning Policy Framework

NWW Regional Spatial Strategy

Policy DP7 - Promote environmental quality Policy EM17 - Renewable Energy

Cumbria and lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001- 2016(saved ) Policy R44 - Renewable energy outside the Lake District National Park and AONBs

Allerdale Local Plan(saved)

Policy EN10 - Restoration, after uses cease, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN19 - Landscape Protection, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Page 85 Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Relevant Planning A screening opinion was issued by the Local Planning Authority in History: June 2012 in response to the former application 2/2012/0450. This opinion stated that the proposal did not constitute EIA development.

The former application was withdrawn.

Representations: Workington town Council - Recommend refusal on the loss of visual impact on the area and detrimental impact on the ecological environment.

Disington parish No reply to date

Copeland Borough Council No reply to date

Civil Aviation Authority - Consultations for wind energy related development is exceeding the resource available to respond within LPA timeframes. Should consult with NATS and MoD and relevant aerodromes. The CAA has no responsibility for safeguarding sites other than within its own property.

NATS – No safeguarding objections

MoD - No objection. If permission is granted, the MOD requires the installation of lighting details in the interests of air safety.

United Utilities – No reply to date

County Council Highways No objection subject to conditions requiring the road to be kept clear of mud during the construction phase and that a Traffic Management Plan be submitted for approval.

County council - consider the proposal does not constitute a category 1 application and therefore do not wish to comment from a strategic perspective. The proposal should be determined in accordance with Development plan policies.

Natural England – Advises that the proposal does not affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes. If the council is aware that the proposal may affect any protected species under the Biodiversity action plan, further survey evidence should be sought. Additional guidance can be sought from Natural England’s standing advice.

Environmental Health – The applicant has provided additional

Page 86 evidence requested by the Env Health officer. The officer’s comments on this additional evidence will be reported at the panel meeting.

County Archaeologist – No objections.

RSPB – No reply to date

Fire Officer –No reply to date

Cumbria Wildlife Trust – No reply to date

Aquiver No objections

A call in request has been received for the proposal.

The application has been advertised by site notice and neighbour letter.

31 letters of objection have been received to the proposal. The grounds of objection are based on the following:

• Clutter and further industrialisation of the landscape. • Location of renewable energy facilities in the countryside will not address the energy requirements • Detrimental visual impact on residential properties and the surrounding area (including Whinmill Farm) • Too close to a nearby residential estate(Broadacres) • Loss of view of the Lakeland fells • Devaluation of property • Detrimental impact on any future housing in Harrington • A pavement along Charity Lane would be of greater benefit to the local community • Detrimental impact on the landscape character • Similar to Winscales it would act as a precedent for further turbines • Add to existing cumulative impact around Workington including Eastman / Kodak, Winscale Moor, behind Whinmill kennels, plus those in Copeland.(Lowca and at Robin Rigg) • Alternative less prominent locations with greater wind speed are available in the landscape near the applicants address • The proposal is subsidised by tax payers • Allerdale should not be drawn into in attaining the renewable targets and be supporting any support of these details on the grounds of any business rate incentives • Better alternative site e.g. Corus • Large size of the proposed turbine • Potential noise disturbance from the turbine

Page 87 • Interruption to TV reception • No benefits to High Harrington • Distraction to drivers on the highway Detrimental impact on local amenity facilities , Golf Driving range and the local footpath network • Inadequate buffer zone from local settlements which is below that allowed in other European countries • Detrimental impact on the health of local residents • Insufficient technical evidence to demonstrate that the derated turbine complies with Of gems requirements • Are wind turbines viable and reliable? • Preferable alternative sites on the edge of existing wind farms • Harmful impact on wildlife; birds, owls, bats and red squirrels • It will blight the skyline • Adverse disruption to local road network • The submitted ZVI demonstrates the wide visual impact of the turbine which is of greater impact than local significance • Harmful to public safety the site of the turbine conflicts with the separation guidance required from the Highway agency for turbines in proximity to trunk roads (estimated at 129.6m). Although the local highway is not a trunk road this principle should also apply to the local highway as the same danger applies( examples provided of turbine toppling accidents at Conisholme Lincolnshire and Hesket Newmarket Cumbria • Inaccurate submitted evidence on use and details of Whinmill Farm which is not used to sell caravans and only one window on the front elevation is used for commercial purposes which includes a domestic conservatory • Unrepresentative viewpoint from Whinmill farm obscuring views by a tree • Sporadic development

FORCE also lodged an objection and recommend refusal on the grounds of;

(i) Size and scale of the turbine- disputes the agents claim that it is a small turbine contesting its medium size will have a proportional impact. No evidence is provided to demonstrate that the supply is for the landowner’s farm, with no local benefit. The turbine concerned has the capability of generating 800kw and assume the reduced rate of 400kw is to attract the tariff i.e. turbine is not used to its maximum potential. Given these circumstances it would be preferable to adopt a smaller turbine. Derating the turbine with Ofgem can only be pursued when it is ready to become operational and is not guaranteed.

Page 88 (ii) Local Amenity /impact- Residential properties are of a high sensitivity. The impact on Whinmill Farm (378m) distance would be significant and any existing tree screening is seasonal. Significant impacts will also be experienced at four nearby residential dwellings, Seadown Drive and west Ghyll Farm It will also be visible from West gill estate and Branthwaite care home Significant visual impact views will also be experienced by walkers on the Westgill to Disington footpath and patrons of the nearby golf driving range In the context of noise disturbance they consider there is the need for further noise monitoring to establish background noise levels. Noise problems occur on other sites e.g. High Pow with a separation distance to the complainant’s property of 1000m.

(iii) Landscape and Cumulative impact- The site is located within the “Lowland sub type 5d landscape character designation. Although the Cumbria Wind Energy SPD document suggests this landscape has the capacity of 3-5 turbines (and 6-9 turbines in exceptional cases) the area already has a large number of turbines within it. Reference is made to the existing turbines at Winscales, Lowca, Fairfield, Oldside ,Siddick and the offshore turbines at Robin Rigg are also visible. FORCE refers to the dismissed appeal at Broughton lodge which included substantial weight being attached to cumulative impact. They consider the applicant’s cumulative impact is subjective and weight should be given to localised cumulative impacts and sequential effects.

(iv) Wildlife habitats-The site is located close( 200m) from the bird breeding habitat of the Harrington Railway Line County wildlife site and is also sited in proximity to the Hen Harrier designation (1.5km) and Harrington Reservoir Local nature reserve (2km) which have the potential to act as a foraging area.

Supporting information question whether the LVIA is impartial and unbiased and also seek clarification on any pre application advice. Report Proposal

The proposal is for a single Erercon E48 turbine (max 400Kw output); The three bladed turbine would be 55.6m to hub height and 79.6mm to tip height and would be finished in a pale grey matt finish. The turbine’s circular foundation base would be 16m in diameter. A small switch room and HV metering cabin building measuring 2.95m in length, 3.05m wide and 2.44m height to eaves level (with a shallow sloping roof ) Two small container units will be sited at the base to house the switch gear

Access to the site will be via a temporary 4m wide, 110m length of

Page 89 track (utilising temporary ground panels) from Charity Lane for construction and decommissioning purposes. The panels will be removed after construction

The application has been supported by an access and design statement, landscape and visual impact assessments, environmental noise assessment; phase 1 habitat survey, shadow flicker and planning statement.

The supporting documents does not directly specify the use of the electricity generated but indicates that it will reduce the applicants carbon footprint and that any environmental harm will be outweighed by the projects benefits.

Site

The plan provided indicates the turbine’s position within an open agricultural field which abuts Charity Lane on the southern urban fringe outskirts of High Harrington. The immediate locality comprises of farmland, with a typical field and hedge pattern.

A line of pylons supporting an overhead line is sited to the south of the site.

The nearest residential property is Whinmill Farm (378m) and Harrington settlement limit is located 0.5km to the north and Distington 0.8km to the south.

The existing turbines at Lowca windfarm are visible from the site, as are the turbines at Fairfield. There is also some manmade skyline apparatus at the nearby Lillyhall industrial estate(0.7km) The site is slightly sloping with the contours falling away from the road.

The site is positioned 15km from the Solway AONB and 10km from the National Park boundary.

Assessment

Policy

National planning guidance is generally supportive of renewable energy production. Renewable energy targets are now binding through the Climate Change Act 2008.

The National Planning Policy Framework has as two of its core principles:

• To take account of the different roles and character of

Page 90 different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it; • Support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change, and encourage the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy);

When determining planning applications for renewable energy development, local planning authorities should:

• Not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and • Approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

At the regional level, RSS Policy EM17 encourages the installation of renewable energy generation, where certain criteria are met. The courts have determined that the government’s intention to abolish RSS through the Localism Bill remains a material consideration.

Saved policy R44 of the Joint Structure Plan states that outside the Lake District and AONB, proposals for renewable energy, including any ancillary infrastructure or buildings, will be favourably considered subject to a number of criteria relating to landscape character, biodiversity and natural and built heritage, local amenity, local economy, highways or telecommunications. Specifically for wind turbines, the policy indicates that measures should be included to secure satisfactory removal of structures /related infrastructure and remediation of land following cessation of operation of the installation. The County Council has also produced the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document.

Policy EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan restricts development within the open countryside to that which is ‘essential’ to meet a local need. No Allerdale Borough Council policies specifically relating to renewable energy have been ‘saved’. However, the NPPF does not place a specific restriction on schemes for renewable energy within the open countryside. Such schemes will often need to be located where there is the resource and where economically feasible.

Page 91 Needs/Benefits

The needs and benefits of the proposal are important elements in the overall planning balance. The NPPF continues to give support to all forms of renewable energy development.

2010 – 237.3MW 2015 – 284.8MW 2020 – 292.4 MW

The Cumbria Renewable Energy and Deployment Study (August 2011) confirmed that the capacity of operational or consented renewable energy schemes within Cumbria totalled 285.36MW. This figure is not directly comparable to the RSS targets because the RSS specified electricity generation only; whilst the Cumbria Renewable Energy and Deployment Study considered renewable energy schemes for both power and heat. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy recognises the importance of both electricity and heat from renewable sources and seeks around 35% of electricity and heat to come from renewable and low carbon (non nuclear) sources by 2020. Of the overall figure deployed or consented within Cumbria, 70% is located within the district of Allerdale.

As such, the consented/installed capacity for power and heat from renewable energy development is considered to be substantial

Page 92 and to make a positive contribution to addressing climate change.

Landscape Impact

The applicant has submitted an assessment on landscape impacts with some supporting information has been provided with the application by way of photomontages.

The applicants landscape assessment advises that:

No national landscape designations apply.

The site is located within landscape classification 5d Lowland/Urban Fringe. Other landscape character types within the vicinity of the site include; sub type 5a Ridge and Valley and sub type 9a open Moorlands. – The applicant has assessed the proposal in the context of the landscape sensitivities and characteristics outlined in the wind energy in Cumbria SPD.

The applicant’s evidence concludes that the landscape is attractive, but not designated. Although the proposal would be discernible it would remain similar to the existing baseline with the magnitude of change being moderate. The overall landscape impact is considered to be moderate, with only slight impact on the sensitive designated landscapes.

The council had an independent assessment of the scheme undertaken by a landscape consultant.

The council’s consultant concluded the applicant’s methodology of impact on the landscape, viewpoints and landscape characters are

Page 93 considered acceptable.

The councils consultant advises that the applicants cumulative assessment lacks reference to the turbines at Moorhouse Farm (less than 0.5km) and Harrington park (less than 1.5km). It concluded the proposal would have medium impact on the landscape character which is not considered significant.

Officers acknowledge the consultants comments and the significant change of circumstances through the recent turbine appeals allowed in Copeland under (APP/20923/A12/2169010) and the Harrington Parks appeal under (APP/G0908/A/12/2174364/NWF) both of which attached significant weight that the size, site and contour of the appellants turbines and their impact on the landscape as constituting an extension of the group of the existing 7 turbines at the Lowca windfarm.

Landscape Character 5d, is assessed as having a moderate sensitivity and capacity to accommodate wind energy development (3 – 5 turbines), exceptionally a large group (6 – 9). However the council’s consultant was of the opinion that the proposal, unlike the appeal applications would not be seen as part of the group but would act as a stand alone scheme. Consequently he has verbally advised that the landscape capacity under the SPD would not be breached.

Therefore officers conclude the individual impact of the scheme despite the existing windfarm and the unimplemented appeal decisions would not have a significant detrimental impact on the character of the surrounding landscape.

Cumulative Impact

There are man-made structures within the immediate vicinity of the site.

Existing wind turbine development within a 5km radius of the site includes:

7 x turbines (64m to tip) at Lowca – 2.7km to SW The existing windfarm at Fairfield in Copeland is also visible from the site.

Additional approved but as yet unimplemented turbines within a 5 km radius include ;

1 x turbine (47.5m to tip) at Moor House Farm– 0.5km 1 x turbine (61m to tip) at Harrington park, 1.5km

Page 94 A recent appeal allowed an 80m tip height turbine at Green house Farm, Lowca, in Copeland.

The council’s independent consultant in evaluating all the turbines considered that the addition of this single turbine would not have a significant cumulative impact on the landscape character.

Visual receptors would experience cumulative impacts along the main highway corridors especially along the A597. However there is a significant difference in height to the nearest turbine at Moor House farm. However their separation distance would enable a suitable transition in elevations.

The landscape will remain the dominant feature and would be described as a landscape with windfarms and not a windfarm landscape. As such, the councils consultant considered the cumulative landscape impact of the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

Therefore the council’s consultant concludes there would be no cumulative landscape and visual impact significance.

There is a degree of clustering of turbine development around the perimeter of Workington and to the south in Copeland, However given the Inspectors comments in the recent appeal decisions at both Harrington Parks (which occupies a more elevated prominent location) and at Green House Farm, Lowca in Copeland, any refusal grounds on the issue of sequential cumulative impact may be of limited weight.

Visual Impact

The applicants supporting evidence has assessed the receptors and the landscape and visual effects of the proposed turbine. This document refers to the Wind Energy in Cumbria SPD document which suggests that the prominence of a wind farm in the landscape up to a distance of 2km, relatively prominent from 2-5km and only prominent in clear visibility as part of the landscape from 5-15km. Account also has to be made of the orientation of buildings , local topography and screening can affect the visibility of the structure

The applicants assessment states the following visual impacts;

1. A597 corridor. The views from Cumbria County councils learning centre (500m from the site) are of medium sensitivity as the pylons already intrude on this view. Similar views will be experienced from the 4 semi –detached houses and northern bound travellers on the A597 but as the residential receptors are of high sensitivity the visual impact will be

Page 95 major/moderate and therefore significant.

Whinmill Farm is sited to the north of the A597 at approx 80-90 AOD and includes a caravan and kennel business with a car park at the front of the premises. The turbine is approx at 70 AOD at approx 350m distance would be prominent at the front of Whinmill farm but the applicant contests that it is partially screened by trees and that the predominantly commercial frontage of this property results in it being moderate in its change of visual effect but major /moderate and significant due to the high sensitivity for the residential element of this building.

The road junction of Charity lane with the A597 would experience moderate/ substantial change but as medium receptors it would not have a significant impact.

2. High Harrington: The southern section of High Harrington is approx 400m from the site, but the orientation of dwellings on the A597 within the settlement limits any visual impact. The applicants report accepts the estate on the eastern edge of town, at 600m distance from the turbine will experience a moderate change but given their high sensitivity will experience a major/moderate effect and therefore significant impact. This is also applicable to the residents on the eastern perimeter of Harrington with clear view will result in major/moderate impact which would be significant. Travellers on this road on the westgill road to the A597 will not encounter significant effects.

3. Charity Lane: As a result of the proximity of the turbine to this highway, travellers on this highway would experience a substantial magnitude of change resulting in major/moderate impact which is significant

4 Disington: The local topography prevents views of the turbine from the nearest dwellings in this village. Any views from the western properties in the village and the Disington to Gilgaan road will be slight/minor/moderate and therefore not significant

5. Lillyhall: The industrial units would experience a moderate/slight impact and therefore not significant. Views from Moorhouse Farm were judged to be moderate.

6. Additional views from Branthwaite Care Home and Moorclose were classed as slight and moderate

7. Highways The visual impact from the local highway network was also assessed by the applicant. The turbine would be prominent from the northern section of the Disington bypass but will have the backdrop of the existing turbines resulting in a moderate effect. There was no other significant effects from the surrounding

Page 96 highway network

8 Recreational viewpoints. Walkers on the Westgill to Disington footpath (within 300m of the site) and High Harrington to Charity Lane will experience major /moderate effects which would be significant.

Visual impact on views from Workington Golf course would be slight, but users of the nearby Distington Golf Driving range which overlooks the site would encounter a significant impact and as a medium sensitivity it is considered significant

The council’s independent landscape consultant also appraised the applicant’s visual impact evidence. Although the overall magnitude of impact was considered to be moderate, there would be significant visual impact in the immediate vicinity of the site particularly to the occupiers of Whinmill Farm and the users of the footpath cycleway and the Golf range. Other impacts on visual amenity would not be significant.

Officers in assessing the visual impact evidence consider that overall it is evident that the size of the turbine at this site would have significant adverse visual impacts on its immediate locality.

Of particular relevance is the high sensitivity receptor of Whinmill Farm. Contrary to the applicants evidence this property has a larger number of residential windows (including a conservatory on the front elevation) which faces directly in front of the proposed turbine.

Despite the turbines lower contour, its size and distance from this property (378 m) would have a prominent and overbearing impact on the living standards of its occupiers. There is some screening at the edge of this properties front car park, but it has limited screening value which would be seasonal. Given these circumstances the overbearing visual impact from the turbine is of sufficient weight to warrant refusal of the application.

The other nearest residential properties are those located at Harrington, some of which have elevations facing towards the turbine. Views of the turbine from these properties are also significant, but given the longer separation distance, it is not considered that these turbines would not appear as visually dominant or overwhelming to residents of these properties. Wind turbines cannot be refused on visual impact grounds simply because they can be seen, the scale and proximity must be such that the proposal would be overly dominant to the point that residential amenity is adversely affected.(As emphasised in the recent Seaton turbine appeal decision) This is not considered to

Page 97 be the case in this instance. Biodiversity

The proposed turbine has been sited over 50m from field hedges in accordance with Natural England advice on bats.

The applicant has submitted a revised habitat survey. It concludes that there are no statutory or non statuary designated sites of ecological value that will be affected by the development, although some species are known in the wider area. The site is also not considered sensitive by the RSPB for wintering birds (The Hen Harrier designation is 1.5km from the site) No evidence of badgers or red squirrels was recorded. Given the location of the turbine within an open field, the proposal will not impact directly on any barn owl nest/roost.

Advice on the Barn Owl Trust website is that there is currently no evidence to suggest that wind turbines in the UK are having any effect on Barn Owls. The main reason that Barn Owls are unlikely to be affected is due to the way they forage. As hearing is the primary sense utilised, Barn Owls must fly at comparatively low altitudes in order to hear their prey, typically not more than three metres above the ground. Most wind turbine blades have a ground clearance well in excess of this. Additionally, a wind turbine does not act like a propeller. Whereas a propeller accelerates air and actually ‘pulls in' objects in front of it, a wind turbine slows the air down.

Based on this information and the advice of consultees, it is considered that the proposal is unlikely to significantly harm wildlife species or habitats.

Noise

The visual impact or overbearing impact of the proposal in relation to residential amenity has been discussed above,

Noise is a further environmental concern, especially as the applicants submitted evidence indicates the turbine type will be derated to operate at only part of its overall capacity to be limited at 400kw. This would in itself require Of gems approval. Officers acknowledge the objectors concerns on the applicant not using the turbine to its maximum potential and whether the applicants target energy output could be fulfilled by a smaller sized turbine. However the derating process by Ofgem is a separate matter i.e. not a material planning consideration and it is for members to assess (irrespective of output) whether the size of the turbine proposed would be visual harmful to its local environment. The need to control the generation capacity of the turbine is considered essential to ensure compliance with any planning noise

Page 98 level conditions. The applicant has provided evidence of a planning condition adopted in Aberdeen to control this issue and monitoring output ETSU – R – 97 The assessment and rating of noise from wind turbines, is the standard guidance document relating to wind turbines. This indicates that noise from wind turbines should be limited to: • 5dB(A) above background noise level for both day and night time • In low noise environments, daytime noise level should be limited to an absolute level within the range of 35-40dB (A) • The fixed limit for night-time is 43 dB (A) • Day and night time levels of 45 dB (A) for any related property • For single turbines or large separation distances, simplified limit of 35dB (A) up to wind speeds of 10m/s should not require background noise measurements.

The application includes some acoustic information. Environmental Health has requested additional information which has been provided but needs to be evaluated. Details on this issue will be reported at the Panel meeting.

Shadow Flicker

The turbines 48m diameter rotor results in Whinmill farm being within the zone of influence of shadow flicker. There are no other related or unrelated residential properties within 10 rotor diameters of the turbine. The applicant has provided a shadow flicker study accounting for the two nearest properties in a worst case scenario which indicates there would not be any significant effects A planning condition will be attached to address any possible future complaints relating to this subject (This practice has been applied within other allowed appeal turbine decisions.) As such, shadow flicker is not anticipated to be significant and would not justify grounds for refusal.

Electromagnetic Interference (EMI), Aviation and RADAR

NATS and the MoD have raised no objections to the proposal. As such, the scheme is considered acceptable in terms of aviation safety and radar. These organisations have requested notification of approval of the scheme and erection of the structures, plus aviation safeguarding lighting details. This can be a condition of the permission.

Given that the precise implications of the wind turbine in respect to reception is not known, a precautionary condition is suggested to

Page 99 safeguard this issue requiring a formal procedure for dealing with any complaints made in respect of interference, should a complaint be made.

Highway/Traffic Impact

The Companion Guide to the now withdrawn PPS22 Renewable Energy suggests a separation distance between turbines and roads or railways of the height of the turbine plus 10%, to reduce any risks from toppling or icing, (the instances of such occurrences are noted as being rare). The separation distance proposed is well in excess of this. As such, it is considered that the proposal would not adversely affect the highway in an unacceptable manner in terms of safety.

The Highways Authority has raised no objection subject to conditions requiring the road to be kept clear of mud during the construction phase and that a Traffic Management Plan be submitted for approval.

On the advice of the Highways Authority, the highway implications of the proposal are considered to be acceptable.

Objections

It is considered that the majority of objections have been addressed as part of the above assessment. The remaining issues are considered here: • The ‘Wind Turbines (Minimum Distance from Residential Premises) Bill’ has not yet had a second reading in the House of Lords and is yet to be considered in the commons. As a proposed bill, this cannot be given any significant weight in the determination of this current application. • Tariffs are not a material planning consideration • Devaluation is not a material planning consideration • At the current time there is no national planning advice that indicates that there is health issues associated with turbines. Noise can be a factor and this has been considered above. • A screening opinion has been conducted by the Council for the proposal which determined that the proposal was not EIA development. • Allerdale has approved more wind turbine development than any other part of Cumbria but this is not in itself justifiable grounds to refuse further development, there must be material planning grounds. • Other alternative less sensitive sites are not material considerations i.e the proposal should be judged solely on

Page 100 the merits of the application site.

Conclusion

In balancing the harmful environmental effects of the proposal, which are in the main limited to the impact on local visual amenity receptors, against the benefits arising from the promotion of renewable energy development, it is considered that the harm identified is not outweighed by the benefits in this instance. The recommendation is therefore for refusal on the grounds of its adverse visual impact Whinmill Farm.

The additional outstanding matter of the noise will be clarified at the meeting

Recommendation: Refused

Conditions/ 1. The Local planning authority consider the proposal, by Reasons: virtue of its site, scale and seperation distance from Whinmill Farm would have a detrimental overwhelming and dominating impact on the visual amenity of its occupiers contary to Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure plan 2001-2016(saved)

Notes to Applicant:

Page 101 Page 102

Agenda Item 9

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0708

Reference No: 2/2012/0708 Received: 20 September 2012 Proposed Variation of condition 2 of planning approval 2/2011/0444 to Development: change turbine specification Location: Moor House Farm Winscales Workington Applicant: Mr Ken Wilson

Drawing Numbers: GHRE 100Kw scale drawing

Constraints: CZ1-CZ6 British Coal Area

Policies: National Planning Policy Framework

North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 Policy DP9 - Reduce emissions and adapt to climate change Policy EM17 - Renewable Energy

Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Saved) Policy E37 – Landscape Character Policy R44 - Renewable energy outside the Lake District National Park and AONBs

Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN6 – Location of potentially polluting development Policy EN10 – Restoration after uses cease Policy EN19 – Landscape protection Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside Policy EN32 – Protecting wildlife protected by law

Relevant Planning SCR/2011/0003 – Screening Opinion issued February 2011, EIA History: development.

SCO/2011/0001 – Scoping Opinion issued May 2011.

2/2011/0444 – Erection of a single 100Kw Wind Turbine, Moorhouse Farm, Winscales, Approved (at Development Panel).

Page 103

Representations: Winscales Parish Council – No objections.

Workington Town Council – No objections.

Civil Aviation Authority – standard response to most wind turbine applications, which is summarised as:

Consultations for wind energy related development is exceeding the resource available to respond within LPA timeframes. LPA’s should consult with NATS and the MoD and relevant aerodromes. The CAA has no responsibility for safeguarding sites other than within its own property.

United Utilities – No comments received relating to the changed turbine model.

NATS – No objections.

Ministry of Defence – No objections to changed turbine model.

Highways Agency – No objections to the changed turbine model.

County Highways – No objections.

County Archaeologist – No objections.

County Planning – Not considered to be a Category 1 application.

Fire Officer – No comments received relating to the changed turbine model.

Natural England – No objections.

RSPB – No comments received relating to the changed turbine model.

Environmental Health – Sufficient information has been received relating to the noise implications of the revised turbine model and therefore no objections subject to conditions relating to maximum noise levels and noise complaint procedures.

Cumbria Wildlife Trust – No comments received relating to the changed turbine model.

Electricity North West – No impact on ENW assets.

Coal Authority – No objections.

Page 104 Environment Agency – No objections.

Arqiva – No objection

The application has been advertised by site notice, press advert and neighbour letter.

Four letters of objection have been received to date, the points raised are summarised as follows: • Sound level surveys should be undertaken again because of the planned substitution of the turbine. • The trees between Moorhouse Farm and the adjacent housing estate are deciduous and the sound survey should be undertaken when the trees are not in leaf. • What will be the maintenance schedule for the turbine, bad maintenance will increase sound levels. • This area of Cumbria has a high concentration of turbines, no more of these waste of space machines should be considered. • Eyesore • Grossly inefficient • Landowners are only interested due to financial benefits. • Turbine is too close to residents and would cause health problems. If health issues arise, then the Council will be open to negligence claims. Submitted article by James Delingpole on sickness arising from living near to windfarms.

Report Proposal

The application seeks a variation of condition 2 of planning approval 2/2011/0444 to allow the substitution of turbine model NW100 to a GHREPower 100kw.

The proposal remains for a single turbine with three blades, at the previously approved location. The proposed turbine would have a hub height of 36.96m and a rotor diameter of 21.53m, with a maximum height of approximately 47.73m to tip.

The approved turbine had a hub height of 36.7m and a rotor diameter of 20.9m, giving a maximum height of approximately 47.2m.

As such, the proposed turbine would be approx.0.5 metres higher than the previously approved turbine.

Site

The application site relates to an agricultural field, part of an

Page 105 existing farmholding. The farm is positioned on the outskirts of Workington in open countryside, although High Harrington is positioned to the north-west and the extensive industrial area of Lillyhall is positioned to the east and south. The existing tall mast within the Hallwood Road Estate is located in close proximity to the south. Land levels gradually rise up from the coast and therefore the site is elevated in relation to the town, levels then plateau to a degree, before gently undulating towards the east towards Branthwaite.

The farmholding and field subject of the application is crossed by a line of pylons. Mature woodland areas form linear features to the majority of the field boundaries. The farm itself is in a mixed use, part agricultural - a free range poultry farm of 36ha, part commercial, with a number of agricultural sheds and some external storage of trailers, portacabins and portable toilets (Cumbria Loos).

Policy

Since the determination of the previous application for a wind turbine at this location, the National Planning Policy Framework has been published. This continues to support applications for renewable energy development, where the impacts are, or can be made acceptable. The publication of this document is not considered to require any material change in how this application as amended, is to be determined.

Assessment

The full report for the previously approved turbine is attached.

The change in height of the proposed turbine is considered to be marginal and would have an almost imperceptible impact in terms of landscape or visual impact, given the overall height of the structure. Neither is the change in height considered to make any material change in the consideration of the proposal in terms of the remaining range of issues considered within the original Officer’s report to Members, with the exception of noise.

As the proposal relates to a different model of turbine, it may also have a different noise output. As such, sufficient noise assessment has been sought by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer, in order to demonstrate that the amended turbine model would be able to meet the noise limits specified within the ETSU guidelines. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer is now satisfied with the level of information provided and has not raised any objection to the new turbine model subject to conditions which include the ETSU noise limits and the procedure should a complaint be received.

Page 106

Conclusion

It is considered that the only significant change arising from the revised turbine model relates to noise and given the advice of the Council’s Environmental Health Officer, this aspect of the proposal has been adequately addressed.

Recommendation: Approved

Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before Reasons: the 13 th September 2014. 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: ST1 - Site Location Plan approved under planning application 2/2011/0444 ST2 - Block Plan approved under planning application 2/2011/0444 GHRE 100Kw scale drawing Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

3. This permission shall remain valid for a period of 25 years from the date that electricity from the development is first produced. Within 6 months of the cessation of electricity generation at the site or the expiration of this permission, whichever is the sooner, all development shall be removed and the land restored to its former status as grassland. The date of the first production of electricity shall be notified in writing to the Local Planning Authority within 28 days of the event occurring. Reason: To ensure that this site within open countryside is restored to an appropriate standard, in accordance with Policies EN25 and EN10 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

4. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, if the turbine ceases to be operational for a continuous period of at least 6 months, it shall be removed and the land restored to its former status as grassland. Reason: To ensure that this site within open countryside is restored to an appropriate standard, in accordance with Policies EN25 and EN10 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted1999 (Saved).

Page 107 5. Within 6 mo nths of the completion of the construction works, any temporary working areas around the turbine shall be reinstated to its former status as grassland. Reason: To ensure that this site within open countryside is restored to an appropriate standard, in accordance with Policies EN25 and EN10 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

6. Prior to the erection of the turbine, details of the colour and finish shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

7. The following background noise levels shall not be exceeded when the wind farm is in operation: (a) Night-time noise limits (11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.): The LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise level shall not exceed 43dB(A) when assessed and measured 3.5m from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive use with no financial interest in the application, namely 22 Moore Way, High Harrington CA14 4NB (in existence at the date of this permission), or 5dB above the night-time LA90background noise level at wind speeds not exceeding 12m/s, whichever is the greater. (b) Day-time noise limits (7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.): The LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise level shall not exceed 40dB(A) when assessed and measured 3.5m from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive use (in existence at the date of this permission), or 5dB above the quiet day-time LA90 background noise level at wind speeds not exceeding 12m/s, whichever is the greater. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

Page 108 operate within the noise limits specified. The operator of the development shall be under no obligation to follow the procedure set out in this condition where the complaint relates to a residential property more than three kilometres from the wind turbine. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

9. No development shall take place until a written scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority setting out a protocol and methodology for dealing with the assessment of electromagnetic interference in the event of any complaint. The protocol and methodology shall include remedial measures to be taken to alleviate any identified occurrence of electro-magnetic interference. Operation of the turbines shall take place in accordance with the agreed protocol and methodology. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

10. Prior to the erection of the wind turbine, the developer shall provide written confirmation to the Local Planning Authority, NATS En-route plc, and the Ministry of Defence of the proposed date for commencement; the anticipated date of completion of construction, the height above ground level of the highest structure and the position of each turbine in latitude and longitude. Reason: In the interests of air safety.

Notes to The proposed development lies within a coal mining area which Applicant: may contain unrecorded mining related hazards. If any coal mining feature is encountered during development, this should be reported to The Coal Authority.

Any intrusive activities which disturb or enter any coal seams, coal mine workings or coal mine entries (shafts and adits) require the prior written permission of The Coal Authority.

Property specific summary information on coal mining can be obtained from The Coal Authority’s Property Search Service on 0845 762 6848 or at www.groundstability.com

Page 109 Allerdale Borough Council

2/2011/0444

Reference No: 2/2011/0444 Received: 6 June 2011 Proposed Erection of a single 100kW wind turbine Development: Location: Moor House Farm Winscales Workington Applicant: Mr Ken Wilson

Constraints: British Coal Area

Policies: National Planning Policy Planning Policy Statement 1 - Delivering sustainable development Planning Policy Statement 22 - Renewable energy Planning Policy Statement 7 - Sustainable development in rural areas Planning Policy Statement 9 – Biodiversity and geological conservation

North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 Policy DP9 - Reduce emissions and adapt to climate change Policy EM17 - Renewable Energy

Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Saved) Policy R44 - Renewable energy outside the Lake District National Park and AONBs

Relevant Planning SCR/2011/0003 – Screening Opinion issued February 2011, EIA History: development.

SCO/2011/0001 – Scoping Opinion issued May 2011.

Page 110

Representations: Parish Council – Winscales Parish Council has raised no objection to the proposal.

Civil Aviation Authority – No representations have been received to date (19 August 2011).

The CAA has recently started to send a standard response to most wind turbine applications, which is summarised as:

United Utilities – No objections.

NATS – No objections.

Ministry of Defense – No objections. Request confirmation when the structure is erected.

Highways Agency – No representations have been received to date (19 August 2011).

County Highways – No objections.

County Archaeologist – No representations have been received to date (19 August 2011).

County Planning – Not considered to be a Category 1 application, therefore will not be providing further comments.

Fire Officer – No objections.

Natural England – Has considered the Environmental Statement and has no particular concerns with the application. Concur with the comments of the RSPB in relation to Hen Harriers.

RSPB – No objections. The proposal is outside the Hen Harrier bird sensitivity area and the RSPB is satisfied that the developer has adequately assessed the potential impact on birds.

Environmental Health – No objections subject to conditions restricting noise levels and investigation of any noise related complaints.

Cumbria Wildlife Trust – No response received.

Page 111 Arqiva – No representations have been received to date (19 August 2011).

BBC – No consultation with the BBC is necessary, developers should utilise the BBC’s on-line toolkit.

Electricity North West – The proposal is shown to be adjacent to or affect Electricity North West operational land. If planning permission is granted, the applicant should verify such details by contacting Electricity North West.

Coal Authority – The application falls just outside the defined Coal Mining Development Referral Area and a Coal Mining Risk Assessment is not considered necessary and the Coal Authority do not object to the planning application. Request Informative relating to shallow mine workings.

Environment Agency – No objections.

The application has been advertised by press advert, site notice and neighbour letter.

Seven letters of objection have been received to the proposal:

• The turbine is too close to local housing, only 410m at its closest point. • The noise levels will break what are acceptable noise levels for householders, what about the long term effects, particularly on children. Noise implications for health in what is a rural location. • This will set a precedent for more turbines at the same location. • The level of existing turbines within Allerdale, how many more turbines will Councillors consider to be enough. Getting far more than fair share. • Efficiency is not as high as claimed. • Unsightly nature. • Department of Climate Change are keen to ensure consistency by LPA’s in relation to noise limits. • Impact on TV receptors, reception is already very poor. Request an independent study. • There are bats and red squirrels within the woodlands of this area. An independent study should be carried out before making a decision. • Photo’s submitted with the application do not consider the nearest properties. • The shelter belt of woodland (Bees Wood) will have no leaves from October through to April meaning that this wind turbine will have a detrimental effect on those living close by.

Page 112 • European law states a basic human right to continue to have a quality of life without fear of health being compromised. • Visual impact on a quiet residential area surrounded by woodland.

Report Proposal

The proposal is for a single, 100kw wind turbine, with three blades. The proposed turbine would have a hub height of 36.7m and a rotor diameter of 20.9m, giving a maximum height of approximately 47.2m. The turbine would be sited within a field, 170m to the south of the main farming buildings. A temporary access track will be necessary from the existing farm access and temporary crane pad. The proposed base of the turbine is 9m x 9m x 2m. It is predicted that the turbine will generate 301MWh of electricity per year, representing an annual carbon saving of 140 tonnes of carbon dioxide. The electricity generated would serve the farm and connect into the grid via underground cables.

The proposal was determined to be EIA development and the application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement.

Site

The application site relates to an agricultural field, part of an existing farmholding. The farm is positioned on the outskirts of Workington in open countryside, although High Harrington is positioned to the north-west and the extensive industrial area of Lillyhall is positioned to the east and south. The existing tall mast within the Hallwood Road Estate is located in close proximity to the south. Land levels gradually rise up from the coast and therefore the site is elevated in relation to the town, levels then plateau to a degree, before gently undulating towards the east towards Branthwaite.

Page 113 Assessment

Policy

National planning guidance is supportive of renewable energy production and regional targets are in place to encourage its development. PPS22 indicates that increased development of renewable energy sources is vital to facilitating the delivery of the Government’s commitments on climate change and renewable energy, which are now binding targets through the Climate Change Act 2008. National energy policy recognises that the UK has some of the richest renewable resources in Europe, particularly wind resources, which if captured can make a significant contribution to our long term energy goals on climate change and security of supply. In terms of the planning system, this factor is a material consideration that should be given significant weight when considering renewables proposals. The policies and priorities for action are reiterated in the Climate Change Supplement to PPS1 which refers to the urgent need for action on climate change.

Local plans and strategies are required to promote and encourage rather than restrict the use of renewable energy sources. PPS22 indicates that renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout England. Whilst wind turbines are likely to have the greatest visual and landscape effects, these may be temporary if planning conditions are imposed requiring decommissioning of turbines. Thus, where environmental and social impacts have been minimised through location, design and scale, the wider environmental and economic benefits of a project, whatever its scale, are material considerations to be given significant weight . Proposals should not be rejected because their level of output is small.

Planning Policy Statement (PPS7) also requires local planning authorities to (i) support development that deliver diverse and sustainable farming enterprises; and (iv) provide for the sensitive exploitation of renewable energy sources in accordance with the policies set out in PPS22.

PPS9 sets out the key principles relating to development and nature conservation. Planning decisions should aim to maintain, enhance, restore or add to biodiversity.

The recently published draft National Planning Policy Framework maintains this supportive approach to renewable energy development where the impacts are, or can be, made acceptable. Whilst this document remains in draft any weight attached to it is limited but it gives a steer as to the government’s future intentions.

Page 114 At the regional level, the North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (RSS) Policy DP9 supports the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and EM17 encourages the installation of renewable energy generation, where certain criteria are met. The RSS also contains regional targets for Cumbria, the target for 2010 in relation to wind development was missed by a significant margin (target 210MW, consented/ operational 143MW). Whilst the Localism Bill proposes the abolition of the RSS, a consideration that may be given some weight, the RSS remains part of the Development Plan for the present time. Further, the intention to abolish the RSS in this instance is considered to carry less weight because the underlying binding targets of the Climate Change Act will remain.

Saved Policy R44 of the Joint Structure Plan states that outside the Lake District and AONB proposals for renewable energy, including any ancillary infrastructure or buildings, will be favourably considered subject to a number of criteria relating to landscape character, biodiversity and natural and built heritage, local amenity, local economy, highways or telecommunications. Specifically for wind turbines, the policy indicates that measures should be included to secure satisfactory removal of structures/related infrastructure and remediation of land following cessation of operation of the installation. The County Council has also produced the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document.

Policy EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan restricts development within the open countryside to that which is ‘essential’ to meet a local need. No Allerdale Borough Council policies specifically relating to renewable energy have been ‘saved’. However, PPS22 does not place a specific restriction on schemes for renewable energy within the open countryside. It recognises that such schemes will often need to be located where there is the resource and where economically feasible.

Needs/Benefits

The needs and benefits of the proposal are important elements in the overall planning balance. PPS22 Key Principle 1(iv) indicates that the wider economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects, at whatever scale, are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be granted planning permission. This is also reflected in national energy policy, RSS Policy EM17 and Structure Plan Policy R44.

RSS county and regional targets for 2010 have been missed by a substantial margin and slow progress is being made towards meeting the 2020 targets.

Page 115

Whilst this scheme would make a small contribution towards regional and national targets for the production of energy from renewable sources, it remains valuable, thus contributing to meeting the targets of the Climate Change Act and National Energy Policy. Whilst the local economic benefits cannot be precisely quantified, there would be some in terms of construction and maintenance contracts and agricultural diversification. Achieving the binding national targets for the proportion of energy from renewable sources and the reductions sought in greenhouse gases can only be done by an accumulation of local projects of varying scale. Thus, based solely on national performance, a need for developments of this type exists. These are material considerations that weigh significantly in the planning balance.

Landscape and Visual Impact/Cumulative Impact/Residential Visual Impact

Submitted as part of the Environmental Statement is a landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA). Included with this are ZTV maps (zones of theoretical visibility) and 12 photomontages/ wireframes. The LVIA states: • Theoretical visibility (worst case scenario) of the turbine would be greatest within 2.5km, but at distances greater than this, many areas would not have visibility of the turbine. • Multiple wind turbines would theoretically be visible in addition to the proposed development within 1km. Given the size of this single turbine and proximity to a large industrial estate, the development would have very little impact upon the landscape and visual experience of people travelling through the area. • The addition of this turbine into the landscape would have minor cumulative impact and would not be significant. • The effects on landscape character from the selected viewpoints are stated as negligible or minor and therefore not significant. • The visual effects from the selected viewpoints are considered negligible/minor and moderate, and not significant. • The overall level of landscape effect would be ‘Minor’ and not significant. • For residents, those in closest proximity at High Harrington (0.4km) the overall magnitude of change is stated as slight, with a moderate level of effect and is not considered to be significant. • For isolated dwellings, moderate effects may arise in the private context, but the overall change in visual amenity would not be unacceptable given the separation and the restricted nature of views from many dwellings. • Motorists and other road users – minor effects and not significant.

Page 116 • Railway users and recreational receptors – negligible effects and not significant.

Landscape and Visual Impact - Within the Cumbria County Council landscape classification, the site lies sub-type 5a Ridge and Valley, no landscape designations apply. The site lies in a semi-rural location, given the proximity to the industrial estate of Lillyhall. The site is elevated in relation to the town of Workington to its west, as land levels rise from west to east. Wide ranging views can be obtained of the wider landscape. Within the vicinity of the site there are a number of man made structures, including a row of pylons crossing the site, and a medium scale communication mast to the south within the industrial estate. Public views of the proposed turbine would be possible from along the A595 trunk road, the A596 and the A597, although the turbine is set back from all these roads by a minimum of 250m. There are no Public Rights of Way within the immediate vicinity.

Clearly a structure of this size will have some impact on the landscape and will have some visual effects, particularly in the immediate locality. However, taking into consideration the LVIA put forward by the applicant, the characteristics of the development and the characteristics of the locality, the landscape and more general visual effects of the proposal itself are not considered sufficiently harmful to warrant refusal of the application.

Designations - The site is in excess of 9km of the Lake District National Park. The proposed turbine would be too far away, too small and too inconspicuous to result in any harm to the special qualities of the LDNP.

Cumulative Impact

Whilst a number of man-made structures are already located within the immediate vicinity of the site, it is not considered that the proposal would result in a level of landscape clutter sufficient to warrant refusal.

In relation to wind turbines only, there are an increasing number of turbine developments within and around the town of Workington. The ES identifies the Winscales, Pica and Lowca turbines to be within 5km of the proposal, totalling 30 turbines, with the Oldside, Siddick and Eastmans’s turbines between 5-7km away, adding a further 19 turbines.

However, this proposal is for a single turbine only and, within the wind turbine industry, it would be described as medium scale at 47m to tip, whilst the largest scale commercial turbines now exceed 100m. It is separated from the nearest turbine development at Winscales by approximately 2.5km. Whilst it is

Page 117 acknowledged that the number of turbines within the vicinity is increasing, officers do not dispute the findings of the LVIA that the cumulative impact of the development would not be significant. The cumulative impact of the proposal in conjunction with constructed or consented schemes therefore is not considered to be sufficient to warrant refusal of the proposal.

Residential Amenity - A residential visual survey of properties within 1km of the site has been submitted with the application.

An isolated property to the west – Whinmill Farm is sited approx. 510m from the proposed location of the turbine, at a lower ground level. Whinmill Farm is between 80-90m AOD and the application site is between 90-100m AOD. The rear elevation faces towards the proposed location of the turbine and the existing line of pylons crossing the site are visible from this property. Mature woodland forms a partial buffer, screening the existing pylons to a degree. The rear elevation contains a kitchen, dining room and bedroom windows, with a private garden area to the rear also. This property has a relatively open aspect to the north-east, north-west and south-west. Existing turbine development is visible at Lowca and Oldside/Siddick and Winscales, but these are all sited at a significant distance away. The proposed turbine would be visible from the rear of this property and to a greater degree than the existing pylons due to the additional height, although the woodland would provide a degree of buffer. Given the open aspect of this property to a number of elevations, combined with the turbine height and separation distance, the impact of the proposed turbine on the residential amenity of this property is not considered to be sufficient to warrant refusal of the proposal.

The proposal will be approx. 390m from the nearest properties within High Harrington. Whilst a number of these properties would be orientated towards the location of the proposed turbine, particularly along Moore Way, these properties have mature woodland hard up to the rear boundary of the property, limiting views of the proposal. Whilst some of this woodland may be deciduous, the density of the woodland trunks and branches would remain to a degree as a buffer in the winter months. Properties at the head of Seadown Drive (bungalows) approx. 450m from the proposed turbine, and Ruskin Close (bungalows), approx. 640m from the proposed turbine would experience views of the turbine, again buffered partially by woodland. The turbine would take up a proportion of the view from these properties. Given that this is a single turbine and, considering the height, the separation distance and the woodland buffer, the impact of the proposal on residential amenity is not considered to be sufficient to warrant refusal. The proposal, by virtue of its scale and location, is considered to be sufficiently separated from neighbouring residential properties to ensure that there would be no significant oppressive or over-

Page 118 dominating impact. Only a limited number of properties would have an uninterrupted view of the turbine and, even so, their outlook would not be dominated.

In relation to the industrial premises to the south, the field abuts a number of industrial sheds on the Lillyhall Industrial Estate. Within one of these industrial sheds facing towards the proposed turbine location, there are four windows serving an office area. These would have views of the turbine at a distance of approx. 290m, but with the mature woodland between the industrial site and the farmholding providing a degree of buffer. Any harm in this respect is not considered to be sufficient to warrant refusal. No other industrial premises would be significantly affected.

Biodiversity

The site does not fall within any designated sites. However, the site is within close proximity to the mapped bird sensitivity area of the hen harrier. The Hen Harrier is a qualifying species of a Special Protection Area (North Pennine Moors and Newcastleton SPA’s). These birds are also protected when they occur (i.e. feed, roost, fly through) in areas which are ‘functionally linked’ to an SPA. In many situations, a proposed development within a ‘bird sensitive area’ will need to be considered under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (the Habitats Regulations), now amended by the 2010 Regulations. If there is a likelihood of a significant effect on the SPA (within or outwith the designated area), an Appropriate Assessment will need to be undertaken if a proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on the site’s conservation objectives and integrity. The RSPB state that the Hen Harrier winters within a discrete area of West Cumbria at internationally important numbers.

The Environmental Statement provided with the application includes an ecology chapter, with detailed information relating to designated habitats and protected species, (Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey). This section of the ES specifies: • Semi-improved grassland of low ecological value • No direct evidence of protected species • Farm buildings have potential for bat roosts, but lack of connectivity to favourable bat habitat limits this potential. • Turbine positioned 50m from bat habitat features (woodland or hedgerows) in accordance with Natural England advice. Any impacts on bats are likely to be negligible. • The site could offer some roost site potential within the rush for Hen Harriers, however, as the patches of rush are of limited size, their potential to be used as a roost site is limited, particularly for communal roost sites. Therefore unlikely that Hen Harriers will roost within the site. • The site is a disturbed area (proximity to main roads, housing,

Page 119 industrial development) compared to the core areas of the Hen Harrier site (open tracts of farmland in more remote areas). • Anticipated that the site will not have any negative impact on the winter hen harrier population.

Both Natural England and the RSPB have indicated that the proposal provides sufficient information in respect to protected species and other birds, and neither consultee raises any objection to the proposal.

Noise

ETSU–R–97 – ‘The assessment and rating of noise from wind turbines’, is the standard guidance document relating to wind turbines. This indicates that noise from wind turbines should be limited to:

5dB(A) above background noise level for both day and night time. • In low noise environments, daytime noise levels should be limited to an absolute level within the range of 35-40dB (A). • The fixed limit for night-time is 43 dB (A). • Day and night-time levels of 45 dB (A) for any related property. • For single turbines or large separation distances, simplified limit of 35 dB (A) up to wind speeds of 10 m/s should not require background noise measurements.

The ES includes a noise chapter. Environmental Protection has confirmed no objections to the proposal. A condition is recommended that noise from the wind turbine be limited to reflect the ETSU standards, which the data provided indicates is achievable. A further condition is also recommended to resolve any complaints received in relation to the turbine. Based on this advice from Environmental Protection, the proposal is considered to be acceptable with regard to noise levels generated.

Shadow Flicker

Research suggests that shadow flicker effects have been proven to occur only within 10 rotor diameters of a turbine. With a rotor diameter of 21m, there is the potential for shadow flicker to occur within 210m of the proposed turbine. No residential dwellings or their associated curtilage areas (or the industrial units to the south) are within 210m of the turbine and therefore it is considered that there would be no significant impact on neighbouring residents by way of shadow flicker.

Page 120 Electromagnetic Interference (EMI), Aviation and RADAR

The CAA, NATS and the MoD have all been consulted on the proposal and both NATS and the MoD have raised no objections and no conditions have been requested with regard to the proposal. The standard response from the CAA on previous applications for turbines indicates that the CAA has no responsibility for safeguarding sites other than within its own property.

Based on the advice from NATS and the MoD, the scheme is considered acceptable in terms of aviation safety and radar.

These organisations have requested notification of approval of the scheme and erection of the structures. A condition can be attached to any permission in this respect.

The applicant has undertaken consultation with Ofcom, JRC, Cable and Wireless, and the BBC Online Toolkit. The ES concludes that the proposal will have no significant impacts on communication links and as the transmission area has switched to digital, there is no potential for electromagnetic interference. A condition is suggested requiring a methodology/procedure for dealing with any complaints made in respect of interference. Any reception difficulties raised by wind turbines would be the responsibility of the developer.

Highway/Traffic Impact

PPS22’s Companion Guide and the Highways Authority generally suggest a separation distance between turbines and roads or railways of the height of the turbine plus 10%, to reduce any risks from toppling or icing, (the instances of such occurrences are noted as rare). The separation distance proposed to the highway, including the trunk road, is well in excess of this. The proposal is in excess of 250m from the nearest road, as such, it is considered that the proposal would not adversely affect the highway in an unacceptable manner in terms of safety.

The County Council Highways Team has raised no objection to the proposal.

No response to the proposal has been received from the Highways Agency. As the proposal does not involve the creation of a new access off the trunk road, it does not involve a significant increase in traffic onto or off the trunk road and the proposed turbine would not be within topple distance of the trunk road, it is not considered necessary to pursue any comments.

Page 121 Public Rights of Way

There are no public rights of way within close proximity to the proposed turbine. As such, it is considered that the proposal would not adversely affect any public right of way in an unacceptable manner in terms of safety.

Hydrology, Hydrogeology, and Geology

The chapter within the ES relating to Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Geology concludes that the impact on the water environment is limited and will be addressed through the use of best practice during construction. Any increase in surface water run-off from the turbine base would be negligible. The loss of agricultural land (Grade 3/4 only), will be negligible also.

Grounds for Public Objection

It is considered that the majority of the grounds of objection have been addressed within the above consultation. With regards to the implications of the Human Rights Act, it is not considered that the granting of planning permission would infringe on these rights, particularly given that there is no evidence provided to demonstrate that wind turbines impact on human health and that Environmental Protection are satisfied that noise limits can be achieved.

Natural England and the RSPB consider that sufficient information has been provided with regards to protected species, in particular hen harriers and bats. With regard to red squirrels which are specifically mentioned by objectors, the turbine itself does not require the removal of any woodland and it is not envisaged that red squirrels could be impacted by the turbine in any other way.

Conclusion

In balancing the harmful effects of the proposal, which are in the main limited to the impact on the landscape, against the benefits arising from the promotion of renewable energy development, it is considered that the visual harm identified is outweighed by the benefits arising from the proposal. The recommendation therefore is for approval subject to conditions.

Recommendati on: 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.

Page 122

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: ST1 - Site Location Plan ST2 - Block Plan NW100 Turbine Scale Drawing Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

4. If the turbine ceases to be operational for a continuous period of at least 6 months, it shall be removed and the land restored to its former status as grassland. Reason: To ensure that this site within open countryside is restored to an appropriate standard, in accordance with Policies EN25 and EN10 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted1999 (Saved).

5. Within 6 months of the completion of the construction works, any temporary working areas around the turbine shall be reinstated to its former status as grassland. Reason: To ensure that this site within open countryside is restored to an appropriate standard, in accordance with Policies EN25 and EN10 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

Page 123

8. In the event of a complaint being received in writing by the Local Planning Authority alleging noise nuisance at a residential property or properties due to the wind turbine, the wind turbine operator shall, at its expense, employ an independent consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority to measure and assess the level of noise emissions from the wind turbine at the location of the complainant's property. The results of the independent consultant's assessment shall be provided in writing to the Local Planning Authority within two months of the date of notification of the complaint. If a breach of the noise limits specified in Condition 7 is confirmed in the assessment, the operation of the turbine will cease until the Local Planning Authority is satisfied the turbine can operate within the noise limits specified. The operator of the development shall be under no obligation to follow the procedure set out in this condition where the complaint relates to a residential property more than three kilometres from the wind turbine. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

Page 124

Any intrusive activities which disturb or enter any coal seams, coal mine workings or coal mine entries (shafts and adits) require the prior written permission of The Coal Authority.

Property specific summary information on coal mining can be obtained from The Coal Authority’s Property Search Service on 0845 762 6848 or at www.groundstability.com

Page 125 Page 126

Agenda Item 10

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0656

Reference No: 2/2012/0656 Received: 24 August 2012 Proposed Change of use to children’s soft play centre and ancillary cafe (D2) Development: Location: 6a & 6b Blackwood Road Lillyhall Industrial Estate Workington Applicant: Mrs Maria Baker

Drawing Numbers: MB/02 - Proposed Floor Plan MB/05 - Site Location Plan (amended plan received 25/9/2012)

Constraints: Employment Allocation Policy WKEM6 British Coal Area Adv Control Exclusion - Winscales

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EM13 - Employment land provision Policy L3 - New leisure/community facilities Policy RG7 - Non retail uses in town centres Policy RG8 - Cultural, leisure, entertainment in town centres Policy WKEM6 - Local Employment allocations Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 Adopted Plan April 2006 (Saved) Policy EM13 – Employment land provision Policy EM14 – Development of employment land for other purposes National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 Relevant Planning 2/2009/0868 History: 2/2010/0485 2/2011/0692 Representations: Parish Council – No objections Highway Authority – No objections Allerdale Environmental Health – No objections in principle Allerdale Access Officer – No objections regarding disabled access

The application has been advertised on site and adjoining landowners have been notified. Two letters of objection have been received and two letters of support.

Representation has been received from the management of an

Page 127 existing children’s play centre that is located within the town centre. The objection highlights that the proposal is contrary to policy guidelines as an out of town centre site. Reference is made to their own business and the investment and commitment they have made in supporting the regeneration of the town centre. They remark that the business will bring no economic benefits to Workington.

Representation from the adjacent business unit has raised concerns over parking provision and pedestrian safety. Two letters of support have been received endorsing the need for the centre and the child development facilities of the business.

Report Proposal

Application for the change of use of a vacant commercial building (B1/B2 land use class) to a children’s soft-play centre incorporating child development facilities and an ancillary café.

The applicant has a concept to create a children’s leisure centre incorporating an open space of varied and large/expansive soft- play equipment. The building is to be subdivided into separate areas providing ‘party rooms’ for hire along with specialist areas for child development activities such as sensory activities, baby massage and parent and toddler classes. An ancillary café and parents’ seating area completes the layout.

Application Site

The site comprises two units of a block of three single storey commercial buildings on Lillyhall Industrial Estate with associated parking to the front and rear. The units have been vacant for some years and are currently under internal refurbishment. Adjacent light industrial and storage and distribution businesses are noted near adjacent. Off road parking is provided as a forecourt shared informally between the three units.

Planning History

2/2009/0868 Full approval for change of use from retail (A1 land use) to three light industrial units (B1 land use) and associated external alterations.

2/2010/0485 Full approval to allow a wider use class of general industrial (B2 land use) and storage and distribution (B8 land use).

2/2011/0692 Full approval for change of use to fitness gym (D2 land use).

The approval by Development Panel of to allow a fitness gym

Page 128 (2/2011/0692) as an out of town leisure use in the same building is considered relevant to the consideration of this application.

It is brought to members’ attention that the approval for a fitness gym has been revoked with the signing of a Section 106 Agreement in order to secure the same gym facility by the same applicant at an alternative Lillyhall site recently approved by Development Panel on 16/10/2012 (2/2012/0614).

Policy Context

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The NPPF sets out the government’s national planning policy for economic development. The policy promotes the viability and vitality of town centres through the application of the sequential test for defined town centre uses, including leisure. Where applications are submitted for ‘town centre uses’ on out of town sites (such as leisure and other D2 uses), the applicant must demonstrate by means of a ‘sequential test’ that it could not be located within the town centre, or edge of centre locations. This should include a list of sites which have been assessed for their suitability, availability and viability.

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and is supportive of enterprise and the re-use of vacant buildings for positive economic use.

The newly published NPPF specifies that for the purposes of decision-taking, the policies in the Local Plan should not be considered out -of -date simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of this Framework. However, the policies contained in the NPPF are material considerations which local planning authorities should take into account.

For twelve months from the day of publication of the NPPF, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework.

In Allerdale, this gives full weight to policies contained within the Cumbria Joint Structure Plan. With regard to the Allerdale Local Plan, due weight should still be given to relevant policies according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.

Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Policy L3 of the Allerdale Local Plan considers the expansion or development of new leisure or community facilities are of benefit to the community and should be encouraged, providing such

Page 129 proposals accord with other policies in the Local Plan.

Policy RG8 of the Local Plan supports applications for cultural, leisure and entertainment facilities within the town centre, encouraging activities other than shopping, subject to criteria outlined in Policy RG7 which seeks to avoid ‘dead’ frontages in the primary shopping area.

Policy WKEM6 allocates land for local employment purposes including business, general industrial, and storage and distribution. The accompanying text outlines how the development of such employment sites for other purposes will be discouraged, to ensure that Lillyhall remains the prime area for employment development in Allerdale, but that each proposal will be treated on its merits.

It is considered that these Local Plan policies are largely consistent with the advice contained within the NPPF and can continue to carry some weight in the determination of applications.

Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 Adopted Plan April 2006 (Saved)

Policy EM13 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan sets out the need to ensure an adequate supply of land and premises for a variety of business uses in the most appropriate locations.

Policy EM14 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan states that the development of existing employment sites, premises and land allocations for non-employment uses will be considered where it can be demonstrated that the site or premises is likely to remain unsuitable for employment purposes, or the retention of the site is not needed to meet the requirements of Policy EM13.

Assessment

The proposal to locate the children’s soft-play centre on the Lillyhall estate raises two main issues.

Firstly, Lillyhall is considered the main large scale strategic employment site in Allerdale, with its location on the strategic highway network with good transport links. Such sites should be retained for employment and business uses in order to provide a range of opportunities for developers, and not normally used for other purposes.

Secondly, national planning guidance directs proposals for what are defined as ‘town centre uses’, which includes children’s play

Page 130 centres and other such leisure facilities, towards town centre locations where they contribute to the vitality and viability of the town. If no suitable site can be found within the town centre, edge of centre locations should be considered through a ‘sequential test’ assessing suitability, availability and viability. Lillyhall is an out of centre location, and should therefore be considered only after all town centre and edge of centre locations have been discounted.

In relation to the first point, the principle of locating a leisure use out of the town centre at the Lillyhall Industrial Estate will only be supported in exceptional circumstances whereby a sequential test has been demonstrated or a locational need is provided. (The locational need to serve its customer base was the grounds for approving the fitness gym (2/2011/0692 and 2/2012/0614). However officers sought to ensure that only one of these gym consents could be implemented to safeguard the objectives of the policy.

Each application and its respective landuse should be assessed on its individual planning merits.

Similar to the gym, the proposal will provide some employment. Furthermore, the existing premises have been vacant for more than two years, indicating a present lack of demand. Officer also highlight that there remains a range of other vacant employment buildings at Lillyhall.

With regards to the second point, evidence has been submitted regarding sequentially preferable sites. The applicant has provided a ‘sequential test’ of alternative buildings after consultation with the West Cumbria Development Agency. It is considered that, albeit the applicants proposed unit size is large (1000sqm ) the information provided is comprehensive and demonstrates that alternative sites have been considered but discounted because of the size and type of building. The assessment of this sequential test is as follows:

The sequential test submitted has not identified any town centre sites appropriate for the intended use and business model. Town centre buildings where available are clearly too small and/or inappropriate in terms of layout, ceiling heights and location within the prime retail frontages.

The applicant has provided details of a number of out of town centre sites at Derwent Howe and Clay Flatts. These buildings are generally purpose built for light industrial and office uses. The details of buildings currently available however are shown to be considerably too small with insufficient frontage parking. The concept and business model of the soft play centre and ancillary activities demands an appropriate optimum floor area (1000

Page 131 square metres) for the business to be viable and sustainable. Evidence of this can be referenced by the intention of an existing soft play centre on Clay Flatts to move from a small unit of 275 square metres to one of 750 square metres.

Although the soft-play centre will trigger significant traffic movements out of town, (unlike the gym with a ready working population at Lillyhall), the use with specialist child support facilities has a wider customer base with convenient access from the A595 and is on a local bus route.

With a locational need proven, due to the absence of more sustainable alternative sites under the sequential test, the principle of this out of town development appears acceptable.

In terms of parking, off road parking provision is available at the site to the front and rear. It is intended that parking to the rear will be reserved for staff and overspill parking only to ensure a safer route for pedestrians to the entrance. Consultation with the Highway Authority has raised no objection with the parking facilities consistent with their response for the fitness gym using (2/2011/0692). The Highway Authority has not commented upon the illustrative parking plan submitted, and the issue of pedestrian safety has been discussed with them but with no concerns raised. In that respect the parking provision as it stands is considered acceptable for the proposed use.

Recommendation

On balance the sequential test criteria required for the assessment of out of town leisure uses is considered to have been met and the proposed change of use is judged to be acceptable 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 that is supportive of enterprise and the re-use of vacant buildings for positive economic use.

This proposal does not have any significant local financial implications for the Council.

Recommendation: Approved

Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before

Page 132 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: MB/02 - Proposed Floor Plan MB/05 - Site Location Plan (amended plan received 25/9/2012) Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

3. The application site shall be used as a 'children's soft- play centre' only, and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class D2 of the Schedule to the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2005, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order). Reason: The Local Planning Authority wishes to re-assess any change of use and to maintain control over any future alternative land uses at this industrial estate's out of town location.

Page 133 Page 134

Agenda Item 11

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0668

Reference No: 2/2012/0668 Received: 22 August 2012 Proposed Construction of a 2.5m wide shared surfaced cycle track plus Development: verges, 5.9km in total length - Resubmission Location: Adjacent to the B5300 Road from Mayport Golf Club to Allonby Maryport Applicant: Mrs Yvonne Craig Cumbria County Council

Drawing Numbers: CS056264_DGA_001_REV1 - Location 'Red Line' Plan - 1 of 5 CS056264_DGA_002_REV1 - Location 'Red Line' Plan - 2 of 5 CS056264_DGA_003_REV1 - Location 'Red Line' Plan - 3 of 5 CS056264_DGA_004_REV1 - Location 'Red Line' Plan - 4 of 5 CS056264_DGA_005_REV1 - Location 'Red Line' Plan - 5 of 5 CS056264_DDE_001_REV1 - Detailed Route Alignment And Surfacing Plan 1 CS056264_DDE_002_REV1 - Detailed Route Alignment And Surfacing Plan 2 CS056264_DDE_003_REV1 - Detailed Route Alignment And Surfacing Plan 3 CS056264_DDE_004_REV1 - Detailed Route Alignment And Surfacing Plan 4 CS056264_DDE_005_REV1 - Detailed Route Alignment And Surfacing Plan 5 CS056264_DDE_006 - Junction 1 Maryport Golf Club Entrance CS_056264_DDE_007 - Junction 2 Crosscannonby Minor Road Crossing CS056264_DDE_008 - Junction 3 Blue Dial Farm CS_056264_DDE_009 - Junction 4 North Allonby CS/056264 - Route Surface - Macadam HC3502100/01/018/REV5 - Line Of Proposed Layout CS056264_AW_001_REV1_LANDOWNER1 - WALL - Landowner 1 - Wall Arrangement CS056264_AW_001_REV1_LANDOWNER2 - BANK - Landowner 2 - Earth Bank Arrangement CS056264_AW_001_REV1_LANDOWNER2 - WALL - Landowner 2 - Wall Rebuild CS056264_AW_001_REV1_LANDOWNER2 - FENCING - Landowner 2 - Fencing CS056264_DDE_013 - Wooden Fingerpost CS056264_DDE_014 - Wooden Kissing Gate

Page 135 CS056264_DDE_020_REV1 - Brunsow Beck CS056264_DDE_021_REV1 - Mealo House Bridge CS_056264_DDE_031 - Plan and Longsections (Sheet 1 of 7) CS_056264_DDE_032 - Plan and Longsections (Sheet 2 of 7) CS_056264_DDE_033 - Plan and Longsections (Sheet 3 of 7) CS_056264_DDE_034 - Plan and Longsections (Sheet 4 of 7) CS_056264_DDE_035 - Plan and Longsections (Sheet 5 of 7) CS_056264_DDE_036 - Plan and Longsections (Sheet 6 of 7) CS_056264_DDE_037 - Plan and Longsections (Sheet 7 of 7) CS056264_DGA_007_REV1_SIGNAGE PLAN_1 - Scheme Outline Signage Plan - 1 CS056264_DGA_008_REV1_SIGNAGE PLAN_2 - Scheme Outline Signage Plan - 2 CS056264_DGA_009_REV1_SIGNAGE PLAN_3 - Scheme Outline Signage Plan - 3 CS056264_DGA_010_REV1_SIGNAGE PLAN_4 - Scheme Outline Signage Plan - 4 CS056264_DGA_006_REV1_CYCLE ROUTE 1_50_000 OVERVIEW - Overview SD/12 Rev A - Concrete Farm Crossing SD/24 Rev B - Chicane SD/50 Rev B - Flush Kerb Detial SD/64 Rev B - Metal Sign Post

Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Drumlin Hadrians Wall Setting,CO24 Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 3 English Nature Conservation Area COUNTY_WSITE,MARYPORT TO ALLONBY COAST COUNTY_WSITE,ALLONBY Conservation Area:,ALLONBY ASCA Area

Policies: National Planning Policy Framework

Regional Spatial Strategy Policy CNL1 - Overall Spatial Policy for Cumbria Policy DP1 - Spatial principles Policy DP2 - Promote sustainable communities Policy DP7 - Promote environmental quality Policy EM1 - Integrated enhancement and protection of the region's environmental assets Policy RDF3 - The Coast Policy RT9 - Walking and cycling Policy W6 - Tourism and the visitor economy Policy W7 - Principles for tourism development

Page 136 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Policy E37 - Landscape character Policy E38 - Historic environment Policy EM16 – Tourism

Allerdale Local Plan Policy CO13 - The setting of a Conservation Area, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO19 - Protection of Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO2 - Design of alterations in Conservation Areas, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO20 - Surveys of Archaeological Sites, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO21 - Proposals affecting archaeological sites, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO22 - Protection of archaeological remains, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO23 - Archaeological sites within Hadrians Wall, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO24 - Protection of setting of Hadrians Wall, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CZ1 - Location of coastal development, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN19 - Landscape Protection, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN20 - Protection of AONB, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN21 - AONB Management, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN28 - Protection of County Wildlife Sites, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN31 - Safeguarding RIG's, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN33 - Safeguarding local nature sites, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN34 - Protecting significant wildlife habitats, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy L1 - Health, sport, recreation, cultural and education services provision Policy L3 - New leisure/community facilities, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy TR11 - Provision for cyclists, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy TR13 - Provision for pedestrians, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Page 137 Policy TR9 - Access for disabled people, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Relevant Planning A screening opinion has been issued by the Local Planning History: Authority following the submission of the planning application. This opinion stated that the proposal did not constitute EIA development.

There is a concurrent application to the Planning Inspectorate relating to works to common land, under the Commons Act 2006.

Representations: Oughterside and Allerby Parish Council - No objections.

Crosscannonby Parish Council – Object and feel a judicial review may be necessary. Access and egress points would require cyclists to cross the B5300 on particularly dangerous parts of the road where accidents frequently occur. The route on the plan is environmentally unfriendly in that it crosses a wildlife site for badgers, foxes and a variety of bird species. The proposal would provide access to the area for travellers and car burners. The route passes through impenetrable ground hiding an old tip and used for quarrying. Much of the route would be below the B5300, restricting views of the AONB. The intervening scrub would impair views out, making lone cyclists vulnerable. A better option would be to follow the line of the Allerdale Ramble, to the seaward side of the B5300, avoiding the need to cross the road and avoiding wildlife damage.

This Parish Council considers it inappropriate for the planning application to be determined before the planning inspectorate site visit of the 13 th November.

The Parish Council indicates that a judicial review may eventually be necessary.

Allonby Parish Council – support the cycle track.

Solway Coast AONB Officer – full support to the proposal.

Cumbria Rigs – no objection

Public Rights of Way Officer – No comments received.

Environment Agency – No objection. The route may require works within 8m of a main river which will require Flood Defence consent from the Environment Agency. We would recommend that the layout of the path and subsequent landscaping of excavated materials is carefully contoured to avoid altering natural overland surface water flow paths, which can increase flood risk locally.

Page 138

County Council Highways – Fully support, subject to conditions, in particular details of the crossing points of the B5300.

Natural England Landscape - This application falls within Solway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, we do not believe that this development will impact on the purposes of the AONB designation.

Coastal Access - We support the above proposal in helping to deliver the first stretch of coastal access in Cumbria (Allonby to Whitehaven), which will form part of the new National Trail around the whole of the coast of England. In addition the England Coastal Route (ECR) will also follow all or part of this proposed route. It will also help to create better, safer, more accessible and sustainable opportunities for cyclists and other users travelling between Maryport and Allonby. We have already been liaising with the project team at the County Council throughout the development of the project and the design of the cycleway itself; consequently we have no additional comments to make about the design elements of the track.

Ecology - We welcome the Ecological Implementation and Management Plan which outlines the measures which will be taken to minimise ecological impacts during the construction and future management of the proposed cycle path. Should planning permission be given, the proposal should be carried out in strict accordance with the details in this report and all other submitted documents.

Environmental Health - No comments received.

County Archaeologist – The proposed cycle track lies in an area of high archaeological sensitivity and potential. It runs in close proximity to several Roman sites that are legally protected as Scheduled Monuments and form part of the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site. The 17 th century saltpans, which are also protected as a Scheduled Monument, and numerous Roman and later archaeological remains that are not legally designated, lie adjacent to the cycleway.

The applicant has helpfully involved myself and English Heritage in pre-application consultations and has commissioned an archaeological desk-based assessment and two archaeological walkover surveys of the route. As a result of these discussions and archaeological work, the proposed route has been designed to avoid the majority of the known archaeological remains and minimise the below ground impact of the construction ground works. There remain three areas of particular known

Page 139 archaeological sensitivity along the proposed cycleway route. It will cross the line of a Roman road, pass very close to the possible site of a Roman signal tower, and pass through remains associated with the 17 th century saltpans. In terms of impact to the Roman road and 17 th century saltpans, information included in the application indicates that the below ground disturbance of the cycleway will be sufficiently limited to warrant mitigation through the implementation of an archaeological watching brief. Research has shown that the site of signal tower has been subject to considerable 20 th century quarrying and so again mitigation through an archaeological watching brief is considered appropriate.

The applicant has taken sufficient measures to avoid the heritage assets of highest archaeological sensitivity and, where possible impact on archaeological remains of lesser significance is unavoidable, the implementation of an archaeological watching brief is regarded an appropriate mitigation response. I recommend that the archaeological watching brief should be commissioned and undertaken at the expense of the developer and can be secured through the inclusion of a condition in any planning consent.

English Heritage – The applicant has avoided areas of highest sensitivity for archaeological interest, such that for those areas that will be affected, an archaeological watching brief is considered to be appropriate. As such, English heritage does not wish to object to the proposal. Detailed comments provided as to how the applicant has worked with the conservation bodies to address the concerns raised in relation to the earlier withdrawn application.

Access Officer – No objections.

Conservation Officer – No comments received.

Cumbria Wildlife Trust – No comments received.

Cumbria Constabulary - No comments received.

The application has been advertised by site notice, in the press, and by neighbour letter.

18 letters of representation have been received, including comments from Cumbria Tourism.

Cumbria Tourism strongly supports the proposal which will improve the quality of the visitor experience, improve the quality and safety of the cycle route along Hadrian’s Wall, and increase its use. This in turn will bring benefits to the area, in terms of increased visitor spending, sustaining jobs and health benefits to

Page 140 the local community.

12 letters of support: • Country lanes are a nightmare by bike • Essential to promote an area of historic interest. • Used by locals and tourists, helping the local economy and to fight obesity. • A great asset to the local community. • A safer route that will encourage more people to cycle. The main road is intimidating and a number of near misses have been witnessed. A safer route for children to cycle also. • Visitors have been deterred from cycling on the main road after one or two trips. • Significant boost to visitors to Maryport

1 letter of comment: • No objection providing the path is not used for racing or speed cycling, and that the route does not come within 10 yards of the beck at the Reading Rooms which would impact on privacy.

4 letters of objection: • Do not support the section through Allonby when the B5300 with its 30mph speed limit offers a perfectly good existing route. • The proposed route will result in conflict with others such as small children and dog walkers. All beach users would have to cross the new route, causing a hazard to the cyclists also. No designated priority. • The narrow footbridge at the northern edge of the village is not suitable for mixed traffic. • Not aware of any re-current problems between cyclists and other road users. Segregating the traffic flow may increase the speeds of both groups. • Would not increase numbers as already a well used route. • Would reduce opportunity sales for roadside shops. • Track building could disturb the marram grass that protects the green from erosion. • Detrimental to the value of property where the track is very close. • Little room for pedestrians to the front of Broadway • Sand and shingle may not be sufficient on which to form the cycle track. • There are rights of way across the green for cottagers and householders of Allonby. • Motorbikes and cars may try to use the track.

Page 141 Report Proposal

The proposal is for the construction of a 2.5m wide multi user path for pedestrians and cyclists. The proposed track is 5.9km in length, stretching from Maryport to Allonby and would form National Cycle Route 72 – Hadrian’s Cycleway. The general route would extend to either side of the B5300. From the junction of Maryport Golf Course to Blue Dial Farm, the track would be positioned to the eastern side of the B5300 (landward side), from Blue Dial Farm to Allonby, it would be positioned to the western side of the B5300 (seaward side). As such, the proposed track would require two crossing points over the B5300, as well as a crossing of the C2008, the road to Crosscannonby. Two small bridges would also be necessary for crossing watercourses.

1.7km of the track will be soil treated with a bound mixture and a bound crushed stone surface in a natural stone colour. The remaining 4.2km will be asphalt standard cycleway surface in accordance with the British Standard.

Safety measures are proposed in line with a road safety audit, including warning signs for motorists approaching the crossing points and steel cycle barriers that will slow cyclists on the approaches to the road crossing points.

Site

The site consists of a stretch of the coastline from Maryport northwards to Allonby. The site area generally consists of open access land, either side of the B5300, although the nature of this land varies, largely due to varying vegetation (dense gorse, marram grass to the dunes, open grassed areas etc).

Policy

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The National Planning Policy Framework includes a number of principles that are relevant to this proposal, including enhancing the rural economy, protecting the natural environment and conserving heritage assets. It also promotes sustainable transport and has a core planning principle the need to take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs.

Page 142 authorities should take into account.

For 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework, for Allerdale, this gives full weight to policies contained within the Joint Structure Plan. For Allerdale Local Plan policies, due weight should be given to relevant policies according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.

In this instance, the majority of relevant Local Plan policies are consistent with the guidance contained within the NPPF and can continue to carry some weight. Where necessary, this will be discussed in more detail in the assessment below.

Assessment

The main issues arising from this proposal are considered as follows:

Community and Tourist Recreational Benefits

A number of policies at the national, regional and local levels support development which will seek to improve or extend pedestrian and cycle provision for their health and recreational benefits, as well as for the potential tourist/visitor related benefits.

National Cycle Route 72 – Hadrian’s Cycleway stretches the length of Hadrian's Wall World Heritage Site in the North of England, from the Glannaventa Roman Bath House at Ravenglass to the Arbeia Roman Fort and Museum at South Shields. It has links to the Sea to Sea (C2C), Coast & Castles South, Pennine Cycleway (North Pennines) and the Three Rivers cycle routes.

The supporting information submitted with the application indicates that this multi-user path for pedestrians and cyclists will complete a missing link for this National Cycle Route for ‘off-road’ facilities, because at present the route directs users along the main Maryport to Allonby road (B5300). The need for the off- carriageway route was originally identified in a Review of the Cumbria Cycleway (Cumbria County Council 1998). This report referred to the safety implications of using the B5300 which has a narrow carriageway, with no footpaths, yet many vehicles travel at high speed (National Speed Limit applies, reducing to 30mph at Maryport/Allonby). Various other studies have noted the route as vital to the wider cycle network, both in terms of improved safety and bringing opportunities for tourism and economic growth.

The support of Cumbria Tourism is noted.

Page 143 Natural England has confirmed that in relation to coastal access, they support the proposal in helping to deliver the first stretch of coastal access in Cumbria (Allonby to Whitehaven), which will form part of the new National Trail around the whole of the coast of England. In addition the England Coastal Route (ECR) will also follow all or part of this proposed route. It will also help to create better, safer, more accessible and sustainable opportunities for cyclists and other users travelling between Maryport and Allonby.

Whilst the safety implications of the proposed track and crossings will be discussed in more detail below, it is considered that a designated off road route between Maryport and Allonby, removing cyclists from the B5300 would be a significant improvement in safety terms, which would be likely to result in more people using the multi-use track, particularly families with smaller children.

It is considered that the proposal will positively contribute and be in accordance with policy L1 of the RSS, which promotes health and recreational facilities, policies W6 and W7 which seek to promote the tourism and visitor economy. The proposal will accord with Local Plan policies TR11 and TR13 relating to improved pedestrian and cycle facilities, as well as policy L3, which is supportive of new leisure or community facilities.

Further, an improved pedestrian and cycle route will contribute to more sustainable transport, improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver community and cultural facilities and services, in accordance with the aims of the NPPF.

Conservation of Heritage Assets

The proposal extends through a highly sensitive area in terms of historical and archaeological interest. It is located within the immediate vicinity of a number of archaeological sites some of which are formal designations within the wider Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site and/or Scheduled Ancient Monuments, including; the Roman Cumberland coastal defensive system that was constructed at the time of Hadrian’s Wall, roman mile fortlets, towers and forts. A roman road is thought to run along the present course of the B5300, and the Post-medieval Crosscannonby Saltpans are positioned within this stretch of the coastline also.

The whole of the route falls within the buffer zone to the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site and part of the route falls within the Allonby Conservation Area.

Given the sensitivity of the proposal in this respect, extensive consultation has been undertaken with English Heritage and the County Archaeologist prior to the resubmission of this application.

Page 144 Submitted with the application is an archaeological survey, a desk based assessment and walkover survey, as well as detailed construction drawings for the track itself.

Archaeology:

Policies CO19 – CO22 of the Local Plan seek to protect archaeological remains in accordance with their significance, to ensure that sufficient information is submitted to allow development affecting sites of archaeological interest to be appropriately assessed, and to ensure appropriate mitigation measures, where development is to be supported. These policies, along with policy E38 of the Joint Structure Plan are considered to be generally in accordance with the principles of the NPPF and can continue to carry weight in the determination of applications.

In assessing the proposal against the above policies, the advice of the County Archaeologist and English Heritage are particularly pertinent.

English Heritage confirm that the impact on archaeological remains relating to the Roman occupation of this part of Cumbria, and on later salt working, will be within acceptable limits, subject to an archaeological watching brief as specified by the County Archaeologist.

The County Archaeologist is satisfied that the proposed route has been designed to avoid the majority of the known archaeological remains of high sensitivity and minimises the below ground impact of the construction ground works.

There remain three areas of particular known archaeological sensitivity along the proposed cycleway route as highlighted in the representations above. The County Archaeologist has advised that in terms of these three areas:

• Roman Road and 17 th century saltpans - information included in the application indicates that the below ground disturbance of the cycleway will be sufficiently limited to warrant mitigation through the implementation of an archaeological watching brief. • Research has shown that the site of signal tower has been subject to considerable 20 th century quarrying and so again mitigation through an archaeological watching brief is considered appropriate.

The County Archaeologist has indicated that the applicant has taken sufficient measures to avoid the heritage assets of highest archaeological sensitivity and, where possible impact on archaeological remains of lesser significance is unavoidable, the

Page 145 implementation of an archaeological watching brief is regarded an appropriate mitigation measure.

On the basis of this advice, the proposal is considered to comply with policies CO19 – CO22 of the Local Plan. The proposal will preserve nationally important archaeological value in accordance with policy CO19 and where there is the potential for archaeological interest of lesser significance to be affected, mitigation can be secured by condition requiring an archaeological watching brief in accordance with policy CO22.

Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site:

Policies CO23 and CO24 of the Local Plan seek to the physical preservation of archaeological sites which comprise the Hadrian’s Wall Military Zone WHS and its setting.

The majority of the archaeological interest discussed above, is inter-related with the international World Heritage Site designation. On the basis of the advice discussed above, particularly English Heritage who are the statutory consultee responsible for the WHS, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to policy CO23, given that English Heritage are satisfied with the level of protection and preservation afforded to the archaeological interest as a result of the scheme.

Given the nature of this proposal, a long, but relatively narrow multi-user path with limited physical impact above ground level, the proposal is not considered to adversely affect the setting of the World Heritage Site, in accordance with Policy CO24.

Conservation Area:

Again, given the nature of this proposal, a long, but relatively narrow multi-user path with limited physical impact above ground level, the proposal is considered to have limited impact on the Allonby Conservation Area, preserving the historic and architectural interest. As such, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to policies CO2 and CO13 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

Landscape Protection/AONB

The site falls within the Solway Coast AONB, which is a nationally important landscape designation. Policy EN20 of the Allerdale Local Plan seeks to protect the natural beauty, openness and wildness of this designation.

Given the nature of the proposal, it is considered that there will be limited physical impact above ground level, therefore retaining the

Page 146 natural beauty and open views within the AONB. Therefore the proposal is considered to largely preserve the distinctive landscape character of the AONB, in accordance with criterion (v) of Policy EN20. The tourism and recreational nature of the proposal is supported under criterion (iv) of Policy EN20 and the benefits of improving this national cycle route are supported by criterion (ii). The heritage implications of the proposal have been discussed above.

Natural England has confirmed that they do not consider the proposal to adversely impact on the Solway Coast AONB. Further, the Council’s AONB Manager has confirmed support for the proposal.

The proposal is considered acceptable in relation to the relevant criteria of policy EN20, with limited harm identified to the natural beauty of this designation.

Biodiversity

The site is not located within a SSSI, SAC SPA or RAMSAR site. Salta Moss SSSI is the nearest designation located 1.4km away. The site is within the Maryport to Allonby Coast Cumbria Wildlife Site, which is a non-statutory designation and a Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Site (RIGG).

The site falls within an area recorded for protected species (Natterjack Toads). The submitted ecological survey, notes the potential for this species, the common lizard and breeding birds to be affected by the proposal. Specifically for the Natterjack Toad, the submitted ecological survey indicates that Cumbria contains 50% of all known UK Natterjack Toad sites (3% of all known sites). As such Cumbria (specifically the Cumbrian coast) is a highly significant area for this species. More significant populations of the species are known to exist at Silloth. The submitted ecological survey notes the species has been re-introduced along this stretch of the coastline.

The application has been supported by a Phase 1 Habitat Survey, an Ecological Site Inspection, and an Ecological Implementation and Management Plan.

Policies EN28, EN31, EN32, EN33 and EN34 seek to protect a range of ecological interests/habitats (including County Wildlife Sites, Protected Species and RIGGS).

As noted above, the Cumbria RIGGS Group has raised no objection to the application in relation to this regional designation and on the basis of this advice, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to policy EN31.

Page 147

Natural England has raised no objection to the proposal in respect to the conservation of the natural environment. The Ecological Implementation and Management Plan which outlines the measures which will be taken to minimise ecological impacts during the construction and future management of the proposed cycle path is considered to be acceptable, subject to a condition requiring its implementation.

No comments have been received from the Cumbria Wildlife Trust.

Due to the location of the proposal, the development does have the potential to impact on species of national importance and habitats of local and regional importance. However, the advice received to date suggests that subject to appropriate mitigation and enhancement, then the impacts of the proposal on the natural environment will be sufficiently minimised. The necessary mitigation and enhancement measures can be secured by condition. This includes temporary amphibian fencing to be erected in the hibernation period of the Natterjack Toad to ensure that this species cannot enter working areas once the hibernation period comes to an end. Also proposed is the cutting back of vegetation along the entire route of the path outside of the bird breeding season and within the reptile hibernation season.

Based on the information available, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to policies EN28, EN31, EN32, EN33 and EN34. Whilst there will be some ecological impact arising from the proposal, it is considered that the mitigation measures proposed will ensure that this harm is kept to an acceptable level.

Highway/Traffic Impact

At the present time, cyclists travelling this National Cycle route share the B5300 with other motorists. Pedestrians have created various desire lines through this stretch of the coastline because much of the B5300 between Allonby and Maryport does not have footpaths. The road itself can feel relatively narrow, particularly where the banks either side are at a higher ground level, meaning there is very little verge for parts of the route.

The proposal being considered includes two crossing points for the B5300 and one for the Crosscannonby Road. This results from the proposed route being to the east of the B5300 from Maryport Golf Club up to Blue Dial Farm and then to the west of the B5300 from Blue Dial Farm to Allonby.

The application has been accompanied by a road safety audit. The supporting information states that the access will be suitable for walkers, cyclists, wheelchair users and pushchairs.

Page 148

A number of objections to the proposal, including that of Crosscannonby Parish Council, relate to the safety of the proposed crossing points on the route and the preference for a route to the seaward side of the B5300 only, following the route of the Allerdale Ramble.

The applicant has indicated that a seaward route only would not be the preferred option for a number of reasons, including: • impacts on heritage assets, • ecology interests, • costs associated with construction and ongoing maintenance through the sand dunes/ potential for coastal erosion • Surfaced cycleway on the landward side away from the sand dunes would have less impact on the AONB landscape designation.

It is for the Local Planning Authority to determine the application based on the route that has been applied for and this does include two crossings of the B5300 and one at the Crosscannonby junction. The applicant is of the view that the proposed route, whilst requiring these crossings, will still be much safer than the existing route along this highway.

The Highways Authority has raised no objections to the proposal subject to a number of conditions relating to design and construction of the track, the crossing points and details of parking for construction operations. Otherwise, the Highways Authority offers its support to the proposal.

Based on this advice from the Highways Authority, it is considered that the proposal will provide an acceptable route for future users, improving facilities along this route particularly for cyclists and access for the disabled, in accordance with policies TR9, TR11 and TR13.

Conclusion

Although a sensitive location, particularly in relation to heritage assets, ecological interests and highways safety, it is considered that these issues have been adequately addressed and that the proposal acceptable with regards to relevant policies at the national and local level.

Recommendation: Approved

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

Page 149 permiss ion. 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: CS056264_DGA_001_REV1 - Location 'Red Line' Plan - 1 of 5 CS056264_DGA_002_REV1 - Location 'Red Line' Plan - 2 of 5 CS056264_DGA_003_REV1 - Location 'Red Line' Plan - 3 of 5 CS056264_DGA_004_REV1 - Location 'Red Line' Plan - 4 of 5 CS056264_DGA_005_REV1 - Location 'Red Line' Plan - 5 of 5 CS056264_DDE_001_REV1 - Detailed Route Alignment And Surfacing Plan 1CS056264_DDE_002_REV1 - Detailed Route Alignment And Surfacing Plan 2 CS056264_DDE_003_REV1 - Detailed Route Alignment And Surfacing Plan 3 CS056264_DDE_004_REV1 - Detailed Route Alignment And Surfacing Plan 4 CS056264_DDE_005_REV1 - Detailed Route Alignment And Surfacing Plan 5 CS056264_DDE_006 - Junction 1 Maryport Golf Club Entrance CS_056264_DDE_007 - Junction 2 Crosscannonby Minor Road Crossing CS056264_DDE_008 - Junction 3 Blue Dial Farm CS_056264_DDE_009 - Junction 4 North Allonby CS/056264 - Route Surface - Macadam HC3502100/01/018/REV5 - Line Of Proposed Layout CS056264_AW_001_REV1_LANDOWNER1 - WALL - Landowner 1 - Wall Arrangement CS056264_AW_001_REV1_LANDOWNER2 - BANK - Landowner 2 - Earth Bank Arrangement CS056264_AW_001_REV1_LANDOWNER2 - WALL - Landowner 2 - Wall Rebuild CS056264_AW_001_REV1_LANDOWNER2 - FENCING - Landowner 2 - Fencing CS056264_DDE_013 - Wooden Fingerpost CS056264_DDE_014 - Wooden Kissing Gate CS056264_DDE_020_REV1 - Brunsow Beck CS056264_DDE_021_REV1 - Mealo House Bridge CS_056264_DDE_031 - Plan and Longsections (Sheet 1 of 7) CS_056264_DDE_032 - Plan and Longsections (Sheet 2 of 7) CS_056264_DDE_033 - Plan and Longsections (Sheet 3 of

Page 150 7) CS_056264_DDE_034 - Plan and Longsections (Sheet 4 of 7) CS_056264_DDE_035 - Plan and Longsections (Sheet 5 of 7) CS_056264_DDE_036 - Plan and Longsections (Sheet 6 of 7) CS_056264_DDE_037 - Plan and Longsections (Sheet 7 of 7) CS056264_DGA_007_REV1_SIGNAGE PLAN_1 - Scheme Outline Signage Plan - 1 CS056264_DGA_008_REV1_SIGNAGE PLAN_2 - Scheme Outline Signage Plan - 2 CS056264_DGA_009_REV1_SIGNAGE PLAN_3 - Scheme Outline Signage Plan - 3 CS056264_DGA_010_REV1_SIGNAGE PLAN_4 - Scheme Outline Signage Plan - 4 CS056264_DGA_006_REV1_CYCLE ROUTE 1_50_000 OVERVIEW - Overview SD/12 Rev A - Concrete Farm Crossing SD/24 Rev B - Chicane SD/50 Rev B - Flush Kerb Detial SD/64 Rev B - Metal Sign Post Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

3. An archaeological watching brief shall be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist during the course of the ground works of the development hereby permitted. The archaeological watching brief shall be in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in advance of the development commencing. Within two months of the completion of the development hereby approved, a report of the findings of the watching brief shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To afford reasonable opportunity for an examination to be made to determine the existence of any remains of archaeological interest within the site and for the investigation and recording of such remains.

4. No development shall commence until an ecological mitigation, enhancement and implementation plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which draws together the mitigation measures, recommendations, enhancement measures and protocols contained within the submitted documents Phase 1 Habitat Survey, dated August 2009, Ecological Implementation and Management Plan, dated August

Page 151 2012 and Ecological Site Inspection, dated 31st October 2011. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved plan. 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 the Natiional Planning Policy Framework.

5. Construction Management Plan: 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).

6. Notwithstanding the approved plans specified by condition no.2, no development shall commence until a detailed specification of the crossing point of the B5300 adjacent to Blue Dial Farm (Road crossing no.3 of drawing HC3502100/018/Rev5) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The approved works shall be completed before the access track is brought into use. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the

Page 152 interests of highway safety.

7. 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 hard and soft landscaping which shall include indications of all existing trees and shrubs on the site, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for the protection in the course of development. 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.

Notes to Informative – Environment Agency response to application Applicant: 2/2011/0747 – regarding requirement for Flood Defence Consent

Page 153

Page 154 Agenda Item 12

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0450

Reference No: 2/2012/0450 Received: 11 June 2012 Proposed Demolition of existing dwelling and rebuild new dwelling Development: Location: Harrison House Ireby Wigton Applicant: Mr J Mumberson

Drawing Numbers: JM/KT/12/01 - Location Plan, Block Plan and Proposed Elevations and Floor Plans JM-KT-12-05 - Works Method Statement JM/KT/12/06 - Side Elevation of garage JM-KT-12-07- Block Plan - Amended Plan received 26 July 2012

Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Radon Assessment Proposed Conservation Area EN22 ASCA Area

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law Policy HS5 - New housing in settlements Policy TR6 - Car parking guidlines

Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved)

Policy HS8 - Housing design Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing

National Planning Policy Framework

Relevant Planning No relevant site history History:

Representations: Parish Council – No objections/Approval subject to satisfactory access being provided onto the highway.

United Utilities – The site must be drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer. Surface

Page 155 water should discharge to the soakaway as stated on the application form. If surface water is allowed to discharge to the public surface water sewer the flow may require attenuation to be determined by United Utilities.

County Archaeologist – No objections subject to recording of building in accordance with English Heritage’s document Understanding Historic Buildings A Guide to Good Recording Practice, 2006

Highways – No objections in principle subject to the highway interest/apparatus sign on Torpenhow Lonning will remain unaffected by the proposed rebuild.

Natural England – Recommend that further survey effort is required in accordance with Bat Surveys – good practice guidelines. If the information is not provided the application should be refused.

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

One letter of support has been received to date (26/10/12).

One additional letter was received reporting the sighting of a bat at the property.

Report Introduction

The applicant seeks consent to demolish a large vacant detached house on the site and replace it with a new house of a similar size. The existing dwelling is located within the village of Ireby which is a small settlement of dwellings and farms.

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.

Financial Implications

Page 156 As an existing dwelling exists on the site there would be no financial implications associated with the development as a result of the new homes bonus.

The Proposal

The house is in a poor state of repair and not fit for purposes or modern day habitable standards.

A structural report has been submitted which indicates that there has been structural movement which would require significant structural alterations including demolition in parts in order for the building to be safe. In this instance the structural report concludes that the most cost effective solution would be to demolish and rebuild which could allow for repositioning of the dwelling in order to increase the width of the adjoining highway which is restricted in width.

The replacement dwellinghouse would be set back from the highway and would comprise a four bedroom dwelling house with the majority of the development being on the footprint of the existing dwelling. The replacement dwelling is of an acceptable size and is considered to be an acceptable replacement for the existing dwelling.

Principle

As the site is located within the settlement limits of Ireby the principle of a new dwellinghouse in this location is acceptable.

Officers are pleased that the applicant has set the proposed dwelling off the existing carriageway edge, thus, increasing the width of the narrow highway adjacent to gable and enhancing the safety of users of the highway.

Historic Context

The County Archaeologist has recommended that an archaeological building recording programme is undertaken to ensure that a record is secured of the existing structure prior to demolition works. Officers consider an appropriate condition would satisfy this requirement.

The dwelling is not considered to add significantly to the character of the area and given its current state of disrepair officers do not oppose the principle of the demolition of the existing dwelling. The village of Ireby has been visited previously by English Heritage to assess buildings to list and on both the occasions known to the council it was not considered to be worthy of listing.

Page 157 Parking and Turning

The site has adequate on site parking and turning facilities and the existing access would be utilised as part of the proposal. The proposal includes an attached garage to the rear of the property.

Design and Materials

The dwelling has been designed to represent other dwellings which can be found within the locality of the site and would sit acceptably within it surroundings.

The proposal would be constructed with white upvc windows and composite doors, rendered walls and would have a slate roof; it is considered that these materials would be acceptable as the property is not located within a visually sensitive area and would match materials within the locality of the site.

Sufficient amenity space is retained as part of the proposal.

The proposal would not overlook other properties any more significantly than the existing dwelling. The proposal would not reduce the residential amenities of nearby residential properties any more than the existing activities undertaken on site.

Drainage

The foul water would be drained to the mains sewer and a soakaway installed for the surface water as this remains unchanged from the existing circumstances this is considered to be acceptable. In terms of surface water this would be drained to a soakaway officers consider that a condition is required to ensure a satisfactory means of surface water is achieved and maintained.

Wildlife

Two bat surveys have been undertaken as part of the proposal the first survey did not identify any presence within the building however identified a need to undertake an emergence survey and an assessment for bat roosts.

A letter was however received reporting the emergence of a bat from the existing building.

A second report was commissioned and undertaken by a second independent company; this report did not identify the presence of bats roosting in the existing building but noted foraging activity to the rear of the property and at the street light to the front of the property.

Page 158

Natural England has been consulted on the additional survey information, subject to Natural England not raising any objections to the application the development is considered acceptable. Any further consultation response will be reported to members.

Officers consider that an appropriate condition can ensure that satisfactory mitigation is achieved at the site.

Officers are satisfied that no other protected species would be affected by the proposal.

Conclusion

Design and materials are considered to be satisfactory and there would be no significant harmful effect on the visual amenities of the immediate locality or amenities of surrounding residential properties and approval is recommended.

Recommendation: Approved

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

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out solely in accordance with the following plans: JM/KT/12/01 - Location Plan, Block Plan and Proposed Elevations and Floor Plans JM-KT-12-05 - Works Method Statement JM/KT/12/06 - Side Elevation of garage JM-KT-12-07- Block Plan - Amended Plan received 26 July 2012 Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 and Section 91 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

3. Prior to the commencement of works, details of the means of surface water drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of the dwellinghouse hereby approved. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of surface water drainage for the development in compliance with Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations, June 2006 (saved).

4. Prior to the carrying out of any construction works the

Page 159 existing building affected by the proposed development shall be recorded in accordance with a Level 3 survey as described by English Heritage's document Understanding Historic Buildings A Guide to Good Recording Practice, 2006. Within 2 months of the commencement of construction works 1 copy of the resultant level 3 survey report shall be furnished to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that a permanent record is made of the building of architectural and historic interest prior to its demolition as part of the proposed development.

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 and in the interest of highway safety.

6. The works shall be implemented solely in accordance with the mitigation outlined in Section E the Bat Report ref: - 101233. Reason: To safeguard the habitat of bats in compliance with Policy EN32 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

Notes to All bat roosts are protected by law, whether bats are present or Applicant: not. The destruction of a roost is an absolute offence. If the work is likely to result in the destruction of a roost then it may be necessary to obtain a European Protected Species licence in order to derogate from The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. If it can be demonstrated that the ecological functionality of the bats can be maintained, and that bats will not be injured or significantly disturbed by the work, then the requirement to do the work under licence is reduced.

The applicant should contact the highways authority to discuss the existing highways interest/apparatus on Torpenhow Lonning.

Page 160

Page 161

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 162 Agenda Item 13

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0706

Reference No: 2/2012/0706 Received: 31 August 2012 Proposed Installation of 1no wind turbine (30.5m to hub), access and Development: associated works Location: Land At Clea Mire Westward Wigton Applicant: Mr E. M Holliday c/o TGC Renewables Ltd

Drawing Numbers: SP01 - Site Location Plan GP01 - General Location Plan DR01 - Shadow Flicker DR02 - Noise DR03 - Zone of Theoretical visibility DR04 - Zone of Theoretical visibility NWA-30- Elevations TGC/WIND/001 - Turbine Control Kiosk

Constraints: Radon Assessment British Coal Area

Policies: National Planning Policy Framework

North West Regional spatial Strategy Policy DP7 - Promote environmental quality Policy EM17 - Renewable Energy

Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Policy E37 - Landscape character Policy E38 - Historic environment Policy R44 - Renewable energy outside the Lake District National Park and AONBs

Allerdale Local Plan Policy EN10 - Restoration, after uses cease, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN19 - Landscape Protection, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Page 163 Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved). Policy CO21

Representations: Westward Parish Council - Object with the backing of the local community.

Boltons Parish Council – No comments received.

Sebergham Parish Council – Object, will add to the cumulative impact of turbines in this part of North Allerdale, with an adverse impact on tourism. Visual and noise effects will be experienced by both local residents and visitors.

NATS - No objection.

MoD - No objection. If permission is granted, the MOD must be informed of the date construction commences, the maximum height and the latitude/longitude.

Environment Agency – No objections.

County Council Highways No objection subject to conditions requiring the road to be kept clear of mud during the construction phase, a Traffic Management Plan be submitted for approval, details for crossing the highway verge, and details of surface water drainage, parking, turning.

Natural England - No objections, refer to standing advice for protected species and to ensure that locally designated wildlife sites are considered.

Environmental Health - No objection, condition recommended limiting noise levels for the nearest noise sensitive property.

County Archaeologist – No objections.

Page 164 RSPB – No comments received.

Stobart Air on behalf of Carlisle Airport – No assessment provided or requested as to the applications likely impact on Carlisle Airport Safeguarding. Without this information, the airport reserves the right to object to the application.

Fire Officer – No comments received.

Cumbria Wildlife Trust – No comments received.

English Heritage – Do not wish to offer any comments.

Coal Authority – The proposal is not one that requires consultation with the Coal Authority – refer to Standing Advice.

Lake District National Park Authority – The landscape architect at the Lake District National Park Authority. Considers that the proposal would have insignificant adverse effects on the special qualities of the Lake District National Park.

Arqiva – no objection.

United Utilities – no objection.

A call in request has been received for the proposal.

The application has been advertised by site notice and neighbour letter.

14 letters of objection have been received for the application The points raised are summarised as follows: • Confusion between this proposal and a further proposal referred to as High Hall by the same applicant. The LPA has not required an EIA for this proposal but has required one for the High Hall proposal when they are for the same site. (Westnewton Action Group). • If the farmer is able to shell out 100,000 for the installed package, rather than renting the site to TGC, then comments relating to the viability of the business are irrelevant. • TGC information relating to the costs to the taxpayer are misleading. • Who after 25 years can give a guarantee of removal? • Cannot be termed a small turbine • Photomontages are too far away or have trees in the way, therefore misleading. • Visual irritation from moving blades • Harmful cumulative effects, Allerdale already has too many turbines cluttering the landscape. Harmful in static views

Page 165 and in sequence when travelling. • Cumulative Impact Assessment is a major oversight on the part of the developer. • If subsidies cease, so will the desire for these machines • Harmful to the Solway Plain and visitors to it. • Harm to the environment, no benefit to the community. • Only 400m from High Meadows, clearly visible from main windows. Can also see High Pow, Hellrigg, Great Orton and the off shore turbines. • Proximity of turbines has reduced value of house. • No objection if it were a domestic scale to power the farm, but it isn’t. Positioned a mile from the farm, so not visible from there. • Overwhelming impact on the landscape • Inefficient and always need back up. • Adjacent road is unsuitable due to blind summits, sharp bends and single width. • Damage to adjacent road. • Dominant from the north on rising land. • Construction requires more CO2 than they save. • Dominate nearest homes, devastating visual intrusion and financial impact. • Due to change in levels, the 29.1m diameter rotor would be in the direct line of sight at 550m, • Generic noise data is not sufficient. • Noise report should be rejected because it does not consider the change in ground levels. • Turbine is less than its height away from a public footpath. • Cumulative Assessment required with the proposed extension to High Pow and Little Waver Wind farm, Carwath, and a number of single turbines towards Rosley. • This will contribute to the ring of turbines surrounding the National Park. • In breach of policies E37 and R44 and EN19 and EN25. • Is this application valid? Discrepancy over location, should be within Bolton Parish. • Unacceptable impact on resident’s amenity and health • Cumulative impact with High Pow and other existing and proposed individual turbines in the area. • Widely visible, including from the National Park. • Adverse effect on tourism. • Turbine is on land at Thornthwaite not Clea Mire. • Potential for shadow flicker due to setting sun, the need for mitigation suggests a poorly sited turbine. • Noise from rotor tip air brakes can be alarming • Further inundation by turbines. • From Thornthwaite, 109 operational turbines are visible, with those under construction yet to add to this view.

Page 166 • West Cumbria is one of the most targeted areas in the UK.

One letter of support has been received on the basis that these turbines are seen as sculptures that are hypnotic and calming, as well as being another source of energy.

Report Proposal

The proposal is for a single turbine (225kW Norwin), approx. 30.5m to hub height and 45.07m to tip height with 3 blades. The turbine base would be approx. 11.0m², with an equipment cabin adjacent. A new access track is indicated at 4m in width and approx. 200m in length. A crane pad is also proposed at 15m².

The supporting information indicates that the turbine will be connected to the National Grid, providing an additional income stream to the farm.

Site

The plan provided indicates the turbine’s position within an agricultural field, within an isolated and elevated rural location, approx. 3.4km to the south east of the village of Bolton Low Houses. The immediate locality is farmland, with a typical field and hedge pattern, interspersed at times by pockets of woodland. There are no built structures within the immediate locality.

Levels in the locality of the turbine are approx. 190m AOD.

The site is positioned approx. 2.2km from the National Park boundary and 12km from the Solway Coast AONB.

During the site visit, the existing turbines at High Pow were clearly visible. Given the elevated location of the proposal, the windfarms at Great Orton and Hellrigg, Silloth, were also visible in the far distance.

Policy

National planning guidance is generally supportive of renewable energy production. Renewable energy targets are now binding through the Climate Change Act 2008.

The National Planning Policy Framework has as two of its core principles:

• To take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and

Page 167 supporting thriving rural communities within it; • Support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change, and encourage the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy);

When determining planning applications for renewable energy development, local planning authorities should:

Assessment

Needs/Benefits

Page 168

The needs and benefits of the proposal are important elements in the overall planning balance. The NPPF continues to give support to all forms of renewable energy development.

2010 – 237.3MW 2015 – 284.8MW 2020 – 292.4 MW

As such, the consented/installed capacity for power and heat from renewable energy development is considered to be substantial and to make a positive contribution to addressing climate change.

Page 169

Landscape and Visual Impact

At 45.07m to tip height, the proposed turbine will be the tallest structure in the immediate locality. There are a number of tall man made structures within the wider area. The three turbines at High Pow (3 x turbines, 95m to tip) are positioned approx. 1.7km to the west, at a lower ground level, between 125 and 155m AOD. Further, the Brocklebank and Sandale masts sit to the east and south of the site respectively. The Brocklebank mast is approx. 3.3km away, and the Sandale mast is approx. 2.6km away.

Some supporting information has been provided with the application, a landscape and visual assessment based on visual aids, including ZTV’s and photomontages. It is not stated whether the assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’, 2002 Landscape Institute or whether the photomontages have been prepared in accordance with the guidelines issued on this by the Landscape Institute (Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact assessment, Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11). In fact, reference is made to the SNH photomontage guidelines, but the 2011 Landscape Institute Guidelines are the most up to date. Nor is there confirmation provided as to whether this assessment has been undertaken by a qualified landscape architect. Also of concern is that the photomontages have been prepared in weather that appears to be overcast, which is not recommended because of the poor contrast with the turbines themselves. As such, there is some concern as to the reliability of this information as a visual aid in the assessment of the application.

Page 170 No national landscape designations apply, the LDNP boundary is approx. 2.2km to the south.

The site falls within Cumbria’s landscape classification 12b Rolling Fringe –, which is characterised by: • Large-scale undulating topography • Large fields of improved pasture • Stone walls mainly in the east, occasional hedges and fence boundaries • Very sparse tree cover • Some large scale conifer plantations • Small streams and rivers cut through the rolling topography

In this area, it forms the fringe of the northern Lake District fells. It mainly comprises large scale, rolling or undulating topography at altitudes of 150-300m AOD with some high points reaching around 380m AOD.

The Cumbria Landscape Character Assessment also states that: • These ‘transitional’ landscapes are traditionally fragile in nature and new development may further exaggerate this trend eroding distinctive characteristics. • The Government’s commitment to renewable energy could see an interest in large scale wind energy schemes in this open area which could change key open views and the feeling of wildness felt in parts of this area.

The Cumbria Wind Energy SPD indicates that landscape character area 12b has a low to moderate landscape capacity, exceptionally a larger group in blander parts. Substantial views of the northern fells can be obtained from the north across this rolling fringe and therefore this is not considered to be a ‘blander part’. Although the SPD advises that this landscape has a capacity to accommodate wind turbines (albeit a low to moderate one, suggested as about 3- 5 machines), that does not mean that such proposals would be acceptable anywhere within it.

The proposal would occupy a prominent and elevated location that rises up from the coastal plain to the north and continues to rise towards the northern fells of the Lake District National Park. Expansive views are available in all directions looking north, west and east. The land to the south continues to rise so, if the turbine were to be visible from this direction, its lower part would be likely to be beyond the horizon. As there are expansive views from the site, then the site would be also be visible from a wide area within which there is likely to be an extensive range of footpaths and other vantage points from where the turbine would be visible.

Public views of the proposed turbine would be possible from along parts of the surrounding highway network and the public right of

Page 171 way network, particularly from the north, given the elevated nature of the site. The nearest Public Right of Way is approximately 95m to the east (211003).

Whilst the High Pow windfarm is visible from the site, and these are a larger turbine than that proposed, that windfarm falls within a differing landscape character area (5 Lowland, sub-category 5a Ridge and Valley), with differing key characteristics and a higher identified capacity for turbine development (moderate capacity). Given the separation distance, the change in ground levels and the difference in size between the proposed turbine and the existing High Pow turbines, it is not considered that the proposal would be viewed as part of this turbine group.

Within the locality of the site and forming part of the ‘Rolling Fringe’, the Council has permitted only a limited number of turbines and at a smaller scale than the current proposal:

2008/0835 – single turbine 19.7m to tip 2009/0316 – single turbine 11.8m to tip 2010/0657 – single turbine 15.6m to tip 2011/0463 – single turbine 27.1m to tip

There are examples of larger turbines permitted within the Rolling Fringe, but these are further afield (generally to the west) where levels and the landscape differ.

This higher turbine could therefore be regarded as establishing a larger size of turbine than previously considered might be accommodated on sites in this locality, notwithstanding that each site would have to be considered on its own merits.

Although not the largest scale of onshore turbine, Officer’s are concerned that at 45m to tip, the proposed turbine would be an obvious large feature on an exposed hillside and would represent a departure from previous practice of only permitting smaller, and therefore less obtrusive, turbines in such exposed and elevated locations of the ‘Rolling Fringe’ landscape classification. If this turbine was to be permitted and similar schemes became difficult to resist as a result, there is a danger that these larger, isolated turbines would be dotted along this elevated ‘fringe’ landscape. This concern is not considered to be unfounded, given recent screening opinion requests.

As such, it is considered that the proposal would represent a harmful intrusion into the wider landscape, notwithstanding that the landscape type has been identified as one that has low to moderate landscape capacity.

Impact on National Landscape Designations

Page 172

The proposal is positioned 2.2km from the Lake District National Park boundary and is sited at 200m AOD. The proposed turbine is positioned on a north facing slope and land levels continue to rise to the south to over 300m AOD. Given the separation distance, the scale of the proposed turbine and the intervening levels, it is considered unlikely that there would be significant views of the turbine from within the National Park. As such, the proposal is not considered to result in any significant harm on this national designation. A consultation with the National Park Authority has also clarified that they do not consider the proposal likely to impact on the National Park designation.

The proposal is a sufficient distance from the Solway coast AONB not to result in any significant harm.

Cumulative Impact

There is no significant clutter of man-made structures within the immediate vicinity of the site, albeit as noted above, the proposed scheme could be viewed in a wide array of viewpoints along with the existing wind farm at High Pow which is approx. 1.7km west.

The existing masts at Sandale and Brocklebank have been highlighted above as man made structures within the locality.

There are no pylons within the vicinity of the site.

Also highlighted above is the fact that the wide ranging views available from this elevated site on a clear day, allow visibility of existing windfarms at Great Orton (11.7km north east), and Hellrigg, Silloth (15km to the north west), albeit, given the smaller scale of this proposal, it does not automatically follow that this turbine would be visible to the same extent from such distances.

Existing/approved wind turbine development within a 5km radius of the site includes:

2/2007/0327 – single turbine at Park Crest, Westward, 12.5m to tip 2/2008/0835 – single turbine at Wallace Lane Farm, Brocklebank, 19.7m to tip 2/2010/0657 – single turbine at Sandale Transmitting Station, 15.6m to tip 2/2011/0463 – single turbine at Townhead Farm, Brocklebank, 27.1m to tip 2/2004/0944 – 3 x turbines at High Pow, Bolton Low Houses, 95m to tip. 2/2010/0817 – single turbine at Red Hall, Wigton, 24.8m to tip.

One application within a 5 km radius is currently under

Page 173 consideration:

2/2012/0598 – single turbine at Lane Head Farm, Boltongate, 61m to blade tip.

There will be some cumulative impact in combination with existing and approved turbine development. In relation to the existing turbines at High Pow (95m to tip), the proposed turbine would be at a higher ground level, but at a smaller scale. This variation in scale and elevation, could be problematic in creating visual confusion in reading scale in the landscape, with the added contribution of differing rotation rates of the blades. Whilst this could potentially add to the landscape and visual harm of the proposal as highlighted above, it is considered unlikely that the addition of this single turbine at this location would tip any balance that would result in this area becoming a windfarm landscape, particularly because with the exception of High Pow, those other turbines noted above are much smaller and as a result, their visibility would be limited in extent, reduced further by intervening topography, woodland etc.

The cumulative landscape and visual impact of the proposal is not considered to be sufficiently harmful to warrant grounds for refusal, albeit the landscape and visual harm of the proposal may be aggravated by the visual contrast with the existing wind farm at High Pow.

Electromagnetic Interference (EMI), Aviation and RADAR

NATS and the MoD have raised no objections to the proposal. As such, the scheme is considered acceptable in terms of aviation safety and radar insofar as these agencies interests are concerned. These organisations have requested notification of approval of the scheme and erection of the structures. This can be a condition of the permission.

Arqiva (representing the BBC, ITV and Re-Broadcast Links) has raised no objection to the proposal.

However, Stobart Air on behalf of Carlisle Airport has sought additional assessment of the proposal as to the potential for adverse impacts on Carlisle Airport Safeguarding. Without this information, the airport reserves the right to object to the application.

No aviation assessment has been provided with the application as submitted. Given the concerns raised above relating to landscape harm, Officer’s have not sought additional information in this respect as it is considered to be inappropriate to require additional expenditure by the applicant, where an application is likely to be

Page 174 recommended for refusal.

However, the response from Stobbart Air seeking additional information has been available to the applicant via the Council’s website.

Based on the consultation response from Stobbart Air, it is considered that insufficient information has been provided with the application to determine the impacts of the proposal of the safeguarding requirements of Carlisle Airport.

Residential Amenity (including noise and shadow flicker)

The nearest residential properties to the proposal are isolated properties to the north and south.

High Meadows Farm – 430m south with a side elevation facing towards the proposed turbine.

Matala – 570m south – with a main rear elevation facing north/north west. This property has a number of substantial trees to the rear.

The Old Barn – 570m to the south east, with a main rear elevation facing towards the turbine location.

Bog Hall – 690m to the north, with a side elevation facing towards the proposed turbine.

Clea Green – approx. 780m, with a main elevation facing towards the proposed turbine (intervening farm buildings).

Views of the turbine from these properties may be possible, but given the separation distances, the scale of the turbine, and the proportion of the field of view that the single turbine would take up, it is not considered that this proposed turbine would appear visually dominant to residents of these properties. Wind turbines cannot be refused on visual impact grounds simply because they can be seen, the scale and proximity must be such that the proposal would be overly dominant to the point that residential amenity is so adversely affected that the property becomes an unpleasant place to live. This is not considered to be the case in this instance.

Noise - ETSU – R – 97 The assessment and rating of noise from wind turbines, is the standard guidance document relating to wind turbines. This indicates that noise from wind turbines should be limited to: • 5dB(A) above background noise level for both day and night time

Page 175 • In low noise environments, daytime noise level should be limited to an absolute level within the range of 35-40dB (A) • The fixed limit for night-time is 43 dB (A) • Day and night time levels of 45 dB (A) for any related property • For single turbines or large separation distances, simplified limit of 35dB (A) up to wind speeds of 10m/s should not require background noise measurements.

The application includes some acoustic information. Environmental Health has confirmed no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. A condition is recommended that noise from the wind turbine be limited to the ETSU guidelines for the nearest noise sensitive property along with a procedure for dealing with noise complaints.

Shadow Flicker - There are no related or unrelated residential properties within 10 rotor diameters of the turbine [290m]. The applicant has provided modelling data which indicates no significant level of shadow flicker being experienced by neighbouring properties. Shadow flicker is not anticipated to be significant and would not justify grounds for refusal.

As such, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of residential visual impact, potential noise and shadow flicker.

Biodiversity

The proposed turbine has been sited approx. 50m from field hedges in accordance with Natural England advice on bats.

No additional information has come to light during the processing of the application which raises the ecological sensitivity of the site.

The proposal falls outside the bird sensitivity area for pink footed geese and whooper swans, species that are linked to the Solway Marshes, SPA and SAC.

No designated ecological sites fall within 2km of the proposal.

Based on the above, it is considered unlikely that the proposal will have any significant impact on wildlife species or protected habitats.

Built Heritage

There are three Grade II listed buildings approx. 0.98 to 1.25km from the proposed turbine. The proposal will have no direct impact on these designations, but it will have the potential to impact on their setting. No detailed information has been provided with the

Page 176 application to assess these heritage assets, in particular, the importance of their setting and their sensitivity to change. Albeit the documents suggests that these designations have been taken into account in the identification of Key Visual Receptors, but this is not clear and the heritage assets and the potential impact of the proposal on them is not discussed in any detail.

The heritage assets are considered as follows:

Thackthwaite Hall (1km north) Grade II listed building – This building is surrounded by a range of farm buildings of differing ages, which impact on its setting. Taking this into consideration and the separation distance to the proposed turbine, the proposal is considered unlikely to cause material harm to this designated asset.

Bolton Park (0.98km south west) Grade II listed building - This building is surrounded by a range of farm buildings and there are areas of woodland between this asset and the proposed turbine. Taking this into consideration and the separation distance to the proposed turbine, the proposal is considered unlikely to cause material harm to this designated asset.

Clea Hall, barns and byres (1.25km east) Grade II listed building - This building is surrounded by a range of farm buildings and there are areas of woodland between this asset and the proposed turbine. Taking this into consideration and the separation distance to the proposed turbine, the proposal is considered unlikely to cause material harm to this designated asset.

Based on the above, it is considered unlikely that the proposal would significantly affect the setting of these listed buildings.

The County Archaeologist has raised no concerns in relation to archaeological interest.

Highway/Traffic Impact

The Companion Guide to the now withdrawn PPS22 Renewable Energy suggests a separation distance between turbines and roads or railways of the height of the turbine plus 10%, to reduce any risks from toppling or icing, (the instances of such occurrences are noted as being rare). The separation distance proposed is in excess of this. As such, it is considered that the proposal would not adversely affect the highway in an unacceptable manner in terms of safety.

The Highways Authority has raised no objection subject to conditions highlighted above. On the advice of the Highways Authority, the highway implications of the proposal are considered

Page 177 to be acceptable.

Public Rights of Way

The nearest Public Right of Way is approximately 95m to the east (211003). This is further than the topple distance of the turbine plus an additional 10%. As such, it is considered that the proposal would not adversely affect this route in an unacceptable manner in terms of safety.

Letters of representation:

It is considered that the majority of representations have been addressed as part of the above assessment. The remaining issues are considered here: • This proposal at Clea Mire is a different proposal to that at High Hall, which is positioned further to the south east. Therefore it is appropriate for the LPA to issue separate screening opinions – the proposed turbines are not at the same site. Further, the LPA is entitled to come to a different conclusion on both proposals in terms of whether they constitute EIA development. The High Hall proposal was closer to, and was considered to have the potential for, a greater visual impact on the LDNP (a national landscape designation and therefore of high sensitivity). For this reason, the High Hall proposal was determined to be EIA development. • Allerdale has approved more wind turbine development than any other part of Cumbria, but this is not in itself justifiable grounds to refuse further development as indicated by the two most recent turbine appeals that have been allowed (Wytheghyll Syke, Siddick and Harrington Park Farm). There must be material planning grounds for refusal that outweigh the national benefits. • No evidence has been put forward relating to claims that the proposal would adversely impact on tourism. • Comments relating to the efficiency of turbines and the required public subsidies etc are matters for national policy decision-makers. The NPPF specifies that applicants for energy development to not have to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy. • Conditions are generally proposed to secure the removal of any turbine at the end of its life. The landowner of the land on which the turbine is positioned would ultimately be responsible for this. • The impact of development on property values is not a material planning consideration.

Conclusion

Page 178 In considering turbine applications, it is necessary to balance the harmful effects of the proposal, against the wider benefits arising from the promotion of renewable energy development.

In this instance, Officer’s are concerned that at 45m to tip, the proposed turbine would be an obvious feature on an exposed hillside representing a harmful intrusion into the wider landscape. This harm is not considered to be outweighed by the small contribution that this single turbine would make to developing the supply of renewable energy.

Concerns also arise from the lack of assessment relating to air safeguarding for Carlisle Airport.

The recommendation is therefore for refusal.

Recommendation: Refused

Conditions/ 1. The proposed turbine, by reason of its scale and Reasons: elevated location on an exposed hillside, is considered to represent a harmful intrusion into the wider landscape, contrary to saved policies EN19 and EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan, policies E37 and R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan, Policy EM17 of the North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021, and advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to allow proper consideration of the likely impacts of the proposal on air safeguarding requirements for Carlisle Airport. Without confirmation that the proposal will have a safe and satisfactory relationship with this existing avaiation operation, the proposal cannot be supported.

Notes to Applicant:

Page 179 Page 180

Agenda Item 14

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0699

Reference No: 2/2012/0699 Received: 17 September 2012 Proposed Proposed rear and gable extensions to existing dwelling - Development: Resubmission to 2/2012/0514 Location: 6 Moorfields Broughton Moor Maryport Applicant: Mr Mike Hully

Drawing Numbers: 0002 01a - Existing Plans 0002 02 - Existing Elevations 0002 03b - Proposed Plans 0002 04a - Proposed Elevations 0002 05 - Site Location Plan

Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Radon Assessment British Coal Area

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

Relevant Planning PPA/2012/0160- Proposal may be to overbearing on neighbouring History: properties.

2/2012/0514 - Proposed rear and gable extensions to existing dwelling – Refused.

Reasons for refusal stated below:

‘The proposal, by reason of its scale and proximity in relation to the neighbouring property, 7 Moorfield's would significantly detract from the residential amenity of the neighbouring occupants by way of over dominance and un- neighbourly impact, contrary to Saved Policy Policy HS12(iii) of the Allerdale Local Plan and advice contained within the NPPF.’

‘The proposed extension, by reason of its scale, projection

Page 181 and positioning, would form a none subservient and cramped form of development, harmful to the visual amenities of the host dwelling itself and the visual amenities of the locality, contrary to Saved Policy HS12 (i) of the Allerdale Local Plan 1999 and advice contained within the NPPF.’

Representations: Cumbria Highway – Concerns with lack of off street parking.

Parish Council – No Objections.

Environmental Health - No Objections, subject to Mining advisory and infill land advisory notice.

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

Two letters have been received stating no objections to the proposal. Report Site

The host dwelling forms part of a residential housing estate within the settlement of Broughton Moor.

The host dwelling is a semi-detached, two storey house with a small decking and garden area to the rear. There is a garage attached to the property on the southern elevation.

The host dwelling is a corner property with the southern neighbour (No7) being at a 90 degree angle to the host dwelling. The neighbouring properties to the south are raised in comparison to the host dwelling, however this is not to a significant degree. The surrounding properties are all of similar design with 17 Moorlands (ref 2/2004/1527) having implemented a two storey side extension.

Proposal

The proposal is a resubmission of a 2/2012/0524. The application seeks approval for a two storey extension to the southern side of the property and a single storey extension to the rear. The materials proposed are render, tiles and PVC windows to match existing.

Policy

Policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan (1999) is considered to conform generally to the National Planning Policy Framework and can continue to carry weight in the determination of applications.

The NPPF paragraph 56 states that good design is a key aspect of

Page 182 sustainable development and states that is it indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

Assessment

The proposed extensions are large in scale compared to the existing host dwelling. It is Officer opinion that the proposed two storey extension, due to its projection forward of the host dwelling by 2.75m, would not achieve a design that would be subordinate or appropriately in keeping with the host dwelling, causing visual harm to the property itself and the street scene.

Further, because of the relationship of the host dwelling and no. 7 Moorfields at a right angle to each other, Officer’s also have concerns that he proposed side extension would enclose much of the visual separation between these two properties when viewed from the road, resulting in a cramped form of development out of character with the existing layout and design of the estate.

As such, the proposal is considered to be unacceptable in design/visual amenity terms, contrary to Saved Policy HS12 (i) of the Allerdale Local Plan 1999 and advice contained with the NPPF.

Officers have noted the extension constructed at No.17 Moorfields ref (2/2004/1527). Nevertheless, 17 Moorfields has a different position in the street scene, in that it does not hold the same corner plot position as no.6. Nor does this extension project to the same degree, the gable extension being only 1.0m in projection rather than 2.75m. Therefore this extension does not appear cramped or visually harmful, with more space to the side elevation to sufficiently accommodate the mass of the extension.

In terms of the impact on adjoining properties, concerns relate to the impact on no. 7 Moorfield’s, given the relationship of the properties arising from the corner positioning. The rear amenity space of no. 7 is shallow and relatively small. When using this outdoor area and when entering and leaving this neighbouring property from the rear, it is considered that the proposal would be an un-neighbourly and oppressive form of development, experienced to some degree from rear view windows also.

As such, the proposal is considered to be unacceptable in terms of the impact on neighbouring properties, contrary to saved Policy HS12 (iii) of the Allerdale Local Plan 1999 and advice contained with the NPPF.

With regards to the other criteria of policy HS12, the proposal will not have any significant adverse effect on daylight to, or the

Page 183 amenity space of, the proposal dwelling (50% or more of the curtilage will remain undeveloped). The host dwelling is not Listed nor is it within a Conservation Area. However, for the reasons outlined above, the proposal is not considered to be acceptable in terms of visual or residential amenity.

The highway’s officer’s comments have been taken into account regarding the need to show 3 off street parking places. Given that the proposal increases the number of bedrooms from 3 to 4; it is officer’s opinion that the proposal would not result in a level of additional on street parking that would be detrimental to the free and safe flow of traffic.

There are no local financial implications associated with this proposal.

The application is recommended for refusal under Policy HS12 and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Recommendation: Refused

Conditions/ 1. The proposal, by reason of its scale and proximity in Reasons: relation to the neighbouring property, 7 Moorfield's would significantly detract from the residential amenity of the neighbouring occupants by way of over dominance and un-neighbourly impact, contrary to Saved Policy Policy HS12(iii) of the Allerdale Local Plan and advice contained within the NPPF.

2. The proposed extension, by reason of its scale, projection and positioning, would form a none subservient and cramped form of development, harmful to the visual amenities of the host dwelling itself and the visual amenities of the locality, contrary to Saved Policy HS12 (i) of the Allerdale Local Plan 1999 and advice contained within the NPPF.

Notes to Applicant:

Page 184 Page 185

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 186 Agenda Item 15

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0596

Reference No: 2/2012/0596 Received: 06 August 2012 Proposed Extension to provide disabled persons accommodation - Development: Resubmission Location: 11 Thirlmere Avenue Workington Applicant: Mr John Furness

Drawing Numbers: W0-12-05-12 - Rev B Proposed Plans

Constraints: CZ1-CZ6 British Coal Area Adv Control Exclusion - Workington Settlement Limit HS5

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy HS12 - Extensions to dwellings National Planning Policy Framework 2012 Achieving sustainable development

Relevant Planning 2/2012/0449 Refused History:

Representations: Town Council – No objection Highway Authority – No objection Environmental Protection – No objection subject to note to applicant regarding nearby mine workings

The application has been advertised on site and adjoining landowners have been notified. No representations have been received to date. (26/10/2012) Report Introduction

This application is before Members as a Site Visit as agreed at the Development Panel on 16/10/2012. Since that meeting no additional information has been put forward and the Officer’s report and recommendation remains the same.

Policy

Page 187

The relevant policies of the Allerdale Local Plan (HS12) are considered to be in general conformity with the National Planning Policy Framework and can continue to carry weight in the determination of applications.

Site History

The application is a resubmission to that refused (2/2012/0449) under delegated powers for the following reason.

The proposed development, by reason of its scale, rearward projection and proximity to the shared boundary with the adjoining residential property, is considered to have an adverse impact upon the residential and visual amenities of occupiers of this adjoining property, contrary to Policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved) and advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

In view of that decision the applicant has resubmitted the same scheme with a ‘call in’ for the attention of members.

Assessment

The proposals are identical to those recently refused and therefore the assessment and recommendation is as the previous application (2/2012/0449). The applicant has provided some additional detail illustrating the existing boundary fence at the site and its relationship with the projection and height of the proposed extension.

This is a householder application for a single storey rear extension to provide additional accommodation for a disabled person (bedroom and shower room).

The proposal relates to a two storey semi detached dwelling on a residential estate with similar dwellings opposite and adjacent. The property has an attached garage to the side, which is physically attached to the detached neighbour.

In view of that decision the applicant has resubmitted the same scheme with a ‘call in’ for the attention of members.

An existing lean-to single storey extension is noted on the rear of the dwelling. The proposals will extend the property yet further to the rear along the boundary of the adjacent dwelling resulting in a rear projection of the existing and proposed extensions totalling approx. 8 metres. A pitched roof of approx. 4.2 metres high is proposed, approx. 2.9m to eaves.

Page 188 Near to this shared boundary, the neighbouring property has a ground floor habitable room window. The outlook from this window would be significantly harmed by the addition of a further rear extension at no. 11, resulting in an obtrusive 8m long blank wall and pitched roofing such close proximity and varying in height up to 4.2m. In this respect the extension will create a continuous structure forming an unreasonable sense of enclosure to the adjacent semi-detached property.

As a footnote it is reported that informal consultation with the applicant’s Occupational Therapist from Cumbria County Council has established that the conversion of the existing garage at the property as an alternative could provide the required level of disabled accommodation. This however is not a material planning consideration regarding this application for the extension.

Recommendation

Although there is some sympathy regarding the need to create the required accommodation for the applicant, consideration of residential and visual amenity remains a material planning consideration. Similar single storey rear extensions with excessive rear projections have been refused by the Local Planning Authority on such grounds and dismissed at appeal (APP/G0908/D/11/2150823 and APP/G0908/D/102130146).

On balance therefore it is judged that the proposed extension is contrary to Policy HS12 having an unreasonable impact upon adjacent residential and visual amenity. As such, the proposals cannot be supported and are not in accordance with current Local Plan policies screened alongside the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

There are no financial implications to the Council regarding this recommendation.

Recommendation: Refused

Conditions/ The proposed development, by reason of its scale, rearward Reasons: projection and proximity to the shared boundary with the adjoining residential property, is considered to have an adverse impact upon the residential and visual amenities of occupiers of this adjoining property, contrary to Policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved) and advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Notes to Applicant:

Page 189 Page 190

Agenda Item 16

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0717

Reference No: 2/2012/0717 Received: 24 September 2012 Proposed Temporary siting of a 50m meteorological mast Development: Location: Brackenridge Woodside Farm Broughton Moor Maryport Applicant: Empirica Investments Limited

Drawing Numbers: RDROL Revision 2 - Mast Details RW/vs/146AY - Site Location Plan

Constraints: CZ1-CZ6 British Coal Area

Policies: North West Regional Spatial Strategy Policy DP7 - Promote environmental quality Policy EM17 - Renewable Energy

Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside

Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Policy R44 - Renewable energy outside the Lake District National Park and AONBs

National Planning Policy Framework

Relevant Planning SCR/2012/0058 – Screening opinion for single wind turbine – Not History: EIA development

Representations: Maryport Parish Council – No objections, subject to it not being a permanent site.

Broughton Moor Parish Council – Refuse. The parish council will oppose any subsequent application for wind turbines on this site as they consider the area to have reached saturation point for turbines in the area.

Page 191

Highways Authority – No objections subject to a condition attached.

RSPB – No objections to the construction of the mast subject to guy wires been erected which will make the steel structures visible to bird species.

Ministry of Defence – No safeguarding objections, indicate that in the interests of air safety the apparatus should be fitted with safety lighting if approval is recommended

NATS – No safeguarding objections

Carlisle Airport – No reply to date

Environmental Health – No objections

County Archaeologist – No objections

Natural England – The application is in close proximity to Maryport Harbour Site Of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). However, given the nature and scale of the proposal, Natural England are satisfied that there is not likely to be an adverse effect on this site and therefore does not represent a constraint in determining this application.

Civil Aviation Authority – A 50m high mast would not technically constitute an aviation en-route obstruction.

Fire Officer – No reply to date

Cumbria Wildlife Trust – No reply to date

Arquiva – No objections

Air Ambulance – No reply to date

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

There has been one letter of objection. They comment that we all know anemometer masts lead to wind turbines.

Two letters of objection have been received, from which one of these is FORCE. They consider the proposal to be unnecessary and non essential development in the open countryside. The site is close to an existing anemometer mast at Ewanrigg Hall and they feel this should be used to draw the required information for this site.

Page 192

1 letter has been received that raises no objections to the mast.

Report Introduction

The applicant seeks consent for the installation of a temporary 50m anemometer mast within an agricultural field; the site located near Brackenridge, Woodside Farm, Broughton Moor, Maryport.

Policy

As core principles, the National Planning Policy Framework includes the requirement to take account of the different roles and character of different areas, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and encourage the use of renewable resources.

This positive approach to renewables is underpinned by the Climate Change Act and binding legal targets to reduce carbon emissions.

At the regional level, RSS Policy DP9 supports the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and EM17 encourages the installation of renewable energy generation, where certain criteria are met. However, with regards to these policies, it is noted that recent government correspondence refers to the intention to abolish RSS and that this should be a material consideration in the determining of planning applications.

Policy R44 of the Joint Structure Plan remains saved within the RSS and is dated after 2004. This states that outside the Lake District and AONB, proposals for renewable energy, including any ancillary infrastructure or buildings, will be favourably considered subject to a number of criteria relating to landscape character, biodiversity and natural and built heritage, local amenity, local economy, highways or telecommunications. Specifically for wind

Page 193 energy developments and associated infrastructure, the policy states measures should be in place for satisfactory removal.

Policy EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan restricts development within the open countryside to that which is ‘essential’ to meet a local need. However, the weight to be given to this policy now depends on compatibility with the NPPF which specifies approval of such applications if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable .

The site and surroundings

The site is on an elevated position with the level ground been 80AOD; and will be in a slightly elevated position from the classified road.

The site is in agricultural use, and would be accessed via an existing field gate from the public highway by land within control of the applicant. The site is approximately 180m from the nearest highway.

The surrounding area is rural in nature; the open countryside is interspersed with a number of single dwellings or farms and small clusters of dwellings; the town of Maryport is 0.62 km to the north, Dearham is 1.34km to the east, Broughton Moor is 1.34km to the south, Seaton is 4.13km to the southwest and Flimby is 1.7km to the west.

The mast is required to gather wind speed data at the proposed site to assess the suitability of the site for future renewable energy development and is not an application for the development of wind turbines. The mast itself would be constructed of galvanised steel and would be supported by 6 steel guy wires at a radius of 30 metres from base of the mast which are connected to ground anchors.

The site and its surroundings are agricultural in nature with small clusters of housing and, sporadic residential development and farms surrounding the site.

There are a number of screening opinions for wind turbines and approved monitoring masts approved within the locality.

Assessment

No screening opinion is required under the Environmental Impact Regulations for anemometer masts. Other masts have been approved within Allerdale and officers consider the initial appeal decision at Bothel acted as a ‘test case’ for both the principle and environmental impact of the anemometer mast. Given the allowed appeal decision, officers have not opposed the principle of single

Page 194 anemometer masts elsewhere in the Borough but, in response to the Tallentire appeal decision, have restricted the timescale of their temporary consent.

Members may recollect that an appeal for costs was awarded for an anemometer mast at Reathwaite farm. The Inspector in that case accepted that planning authorities are not bound by the professional advice of their officers, but will have to show that they had reasonable grounds for taking a contrary decision.

The Inspector for the mast at Reathwaite farm outlined that the scheme is for an anemometer mast only, and not turbine development and any opposition should be founded on valid planning grounds.

The application seeks a temporary monitoring timescale of 12 months which is considered acceptable.

The application site is accessed off the public highway, with access into the site itself by way of the existing field access; no new access or access track would be constructed as part of this proposal.

Due to the limited groundworks associated with the development the proposal is not considered to have any unacceptable affects on flora and fauna.

Officers in evaluating the merits of the mast consider the proposal constitutes a slimline structure which, despite its open and elevated location, would have no significant landscape impact on the visual amenity of its sensitive location within the open countryside. The lightweight, narrow visual form of such masts has been a consideration in other appeals.

The fact that this permission is for a temporary structure any impacts on the landscape would not be permanent and a condition would require its removal after a twelve month period.

There is no requirement to demonstrate a need for the proposal at this location, wind can only be farmed where it is found and the purpose of this instrument is to determine the extent of the wind resource. Whilst the mast will be visible within this open countryside location and will be within approximately 370m of the nearest non-related residential property, any affects in relation to landscape, visual and residential amenity or any other environmental considerations are not considered to be of a significant degree sufficient to warrant refusal. Further, any effects would be reversible, subsequent to the time period expiry.

Page 195 Conclusion

Therefore, overall, on the basis of the details and merits of the proposal are considered appropriate and approval is recommended.

Recommendation: Approved

Conditions/ 1. Th e 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 solely in accordance with the following plans: DROL Revision 2 - Mast Details RW/vs/146AY - Site Location Plan Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 and Section 91 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

3. The developer shall notify the Planning Authority when the development commences. The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued on or before the expiration of 12 months from the date of commencement. Reason: The Council wish to re-evaluate a need for the development after this timescale due to its location in the open countryside, in compliance with Policy EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

4. Within three months of the use being discontinued, the land shall be restored to its condition at the time of this permission, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the site is restored to a satisfactory standard given its location within the open countryside.

5. Prior to the commencement of works details of air safety lighting details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be fully implemented upon the erection of the mast hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of air safety.

6. During the construction phase no vehicle shall leave the site in a condition that would give rise to the deposit of mud, dust or other debris on the public highway. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

Page 196

Notes to Applicant:

Page 197 Page 198

Agenda Item 17

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0670

Reference No: 2/2012/0670 Received: 31 August 2012 Proposed Erection of double garage Development: Location: 18 Braeside Seaton Workington Applicant: Mr Trevor Hayton

Drawing Numbers: DRG 001AH – Elevations DRG 002AH - Block Plan DRG 003AH - Foundation details DRG 004AH - Site Location Plan

Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 CZ1-CZ6 British Coal Area Adv Control Exclusion - Workington

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

National Planning Policy Framework

Local Financial None Implications:

Relevant Planning None History:

Representations: Parish Council - Due to concerns expressed by local residents, request Allerdale as planning authority arrange a site visit.

Highways - Comment that the plans show an on site driveway less than 5m in length which would result in vehicles overhanging the highway. Request that an amended plan be submitted showing a driveway of at least 5m or the application be refused.

Environmental Health – No objections

Page 199 The application has been advertised on site and neighbouring properties have been notified.

One letter of objection has been received from a neighbouring property on the grounds that: • The garage would be too close to the garden wall. • The owners’ hobby has resulted in numerous scrap vehicles being parked on the development land resulting in mess and noise. • As the proposal is in a cul-de-sac, if approved they have concerns that there would be scrap and cars parked anywhere on road and pavement.

Report Policy

The proposal would be used for domestic purposes and therefore would be subject to 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 add comfort and value to the home whilst preserving residential amenity) is not contrary to guidance within the NPPF.

Assessment

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a double garage at 18 Braeside, Seaton, Workington.

Background

The development site comprises a semi detached single storey dwelling house situated upon an established residential estate within Seaton settlement. The property sits in a small cul-de-sac comprising two semi detached dwellings to the south and a detached dwelling to the north. The development property currently has a raised hard standing area to the front, accessed via the highway. The dwelling sits lower than the highway and hard standing area.

The property to the north, 20 Braeside, sits slightly elevated to the highway and shares a boundary with the development site to the front. A low wall is positioned along this boundary.

Proposal

The proposal involves the erection of a detached double garage to be positioned on the hard standing area to the front of the

Page 200 dwelling. The applicant proposes to construct a sectional garage finished with fibre cement roof sheets, multi coloured Derbyshire spar aggregate finish, galvanised steel up and over doors and timber fascias and barge boards. The garage would be 6m wide, 5m deep, have a height to eaves of 1.981m and an overall height of 2.667m.

Design

A sectional fabricated garage is already in place at the adjoining property, 16 Braeside. This structure is a single garage with similar finishes to those proposed in the current application. The garage is positioned in the rear garden of the dwelling, behind a wall with timber fence over resulting in the bulk of the structure being largely obscured from public view.

The garage proposed in the current application would be positioned in a principal position within the site. It would be on a raised hard standing area in front of the main house lending the garage to be of greater visual prominence than the main house itself. As the proposal is for a double garage it has significant width which further adds to the bulk and visual prominence of the structure.

Due to the proposals position and potential to affect the visual amenity of the area, the applicant was asked to amend the proposal finishes to better reflect those of the surrounding properties. The applicant has subsequently amended the proposal to incorporate a white spar finish to the external walls and brown tiled effect roof. These finishes are considered an improvement which better match those of the surrounding properties.

Overall the scale and design of the garage are now considered appropriate for the site. The proposal leaves adequate garden area remaining and uses an existing access.

Highways

The Highways Department have commented that the plans originally submitted indicated that the proposal would not leave the required 5m needed for a driveway without vehicles overhanging the highway. They further suggest that the applicant submits an amended plan to show a driveway of at least 5m or the application be refused.

The applicant has verbally indicated that the plan was drawn in error and has submitted a plan which shows the driveway of 5m is achievable. In any case, the proposal would result in two parking spaces for the dwelling which is an acceptable parking standard for the property.

Page 201

Comments

Objections have been made to the proposal from the neighbouring property at 20 Braeside. The first objection relates to the proximity of the proposal to the wall along the shared boundary and the neighbouring property which has been deemed by the neighbour to be too near. The building is considered to be of a modest height which will sit at a lower land level than 20 Braeside and their driveway. The minimal height of the proposal against the boundary and separation distance of over 10m between the garage and neighbouring property are considered to be an acceptable form of development which would not significantly adversely affect the residential amenity of the area and adjacent properties.

The objectors also comment upon the mess and noise brought about the applicants hobby which has resulted in numerous scrap vehicles being parked upon the development site. They consider that there would be scrap everywhere and cars parked anywhere on the road and pavement if the proposal is approved. Whilst this is an issue of concern for the neighbours, it is not an issue for consideration under the current application as it would be dealt with, if appropriate, under separate untidy site controls.

Use of garage

A request has been made that the application be referred to the planning committee as the Parish Council have concerns that the property could be used as a business and the potential environmental implications of such a use.

It is noted that the application has been submitted as a householder application for works or extension to a dwelling and has been processed as such. If the proposal were to be approved and was not used for the specified domestic use only, this could be pursued as a breach of planning control.

Conclusion

Taking all of the above into account it is considered that the proposal does not result in a detrimental effect on the property itself or the residential amenity of the area as a whole. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable and complies with Policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

Recommendati on: Approved

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

Page 202 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.

Notes to Mining advisory see EH response dated 17 th September 2012 Applicant:

Page 203 Page 204

Agenda Item 18

Allerdale Borough Council Planning Department

Appeal Decisions

Appeal Reference: APP/G0908/D/12/2181561

Planning Reference: 2/2012/0412

Proposed Development: Proposed two storey side extension with rear conservatory plus single storey extension to front comprising garage, store and study. Appeal Site: Midcroft Dean Applicant: Leece Type of Appeal: Written representations

Date of Committee: 13 th November 2012

Officers’ Recommend refusal Recommendation: Development Panel Delegated Decision:

Inspector’s Decision: Appeal dismissed

Appeal decision details The application related to a two storey extension to the side of the property with a small conservatory to the rear and a single storey extension to the front. It is this element to the front, projecting 14 metres on the boundary with the neighbouring dwelling that warranted refusal of the application. The Planning Inspector dismissed the appeal and upheld the Council’s assessment and reason for refusal. The extension was judged to result in an overbearing and un- neighbourly sense of enclosure with an adverse impact on residential amenity. Additionally the extension was thought to be inappropriate in scale and design having a harmful effect on the appearance of the host property and the setting of the rural street- scene.

Conclusion It can be concluded that extensions of excessive size and/or height on the boundary with adjacent properties can be resisted on residential amenity grounds. Additionally extensions to the front of dwellings should be carefully considered in terms of visual impact upon the setting of the locality and the dwelling itself with regard to Policy HS12 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

Page 205 .

Officer comments on the appeal decision.

Page 206 Agenda Item 19

Allerdale Borough Council Planning Department

Appeal Decisions

Appeal Reference: APP/G0908/D/12/2183434

Planning Reference: 2/2012/0459

Proposed Development: The development proposed is the replacement of an existing timber door with a new timber look composite door. (Retrospective)

Appeal Site: 4 South Street, Cockermouth, Cumbria, CA13 9QZ

Applicant: Mrs Gladys Porthouse

Type of Appeal: Householder Appal

Date of Committee: 13 th November 2012

Officers’ Recommend Refusal Recommendation: Development Panel Refused Decision:

Inspector’s Decision: Appeal Allowed

Appeal decision details

The main issue is whether the development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Cockermouth Conservation Area.

The inspector found the door would that the ‘fake’ timber grain finish of the composite door, the design of the glazed panel and the door furniture, are inappropriate within the Conservation Area. However, planning permission has previously been granted for the replacement of timber sliding sash windows at the property with ‘timber look’ UPVC windows.

The inspector found that the front door to the property is more deeply recessed than the windows and is less prominent than the windows in most views along this narrow street. The Council argue that the previous, largely glazed door was also not appropriate to the building, but consider that it was less damaging to the Conservation Area than the replacement door. Nevertheless, the front door has a similar wood effect finish and colour to the windows and gives a consistent appearance to the facade compared to a

Page 207 mix of timber and UPVC finishes. Given the context of the authorised UPVC windows, this uniformity preserves the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The objectives of Policies CO2 and CO13 of the Allerdale Local Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework are satisfied.

Conclusion Given the context of the authorised UPVC windows, this uniformity preserves the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The objectives of Policies CO2 and CO13 of the Allerdale Local Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework are satisfied.

Officer comments on the appeal decision.

The main weight of the Inspectors decision has been based on the Inspectors assertion that the property had previously been granted planning permission for ‘timber look’ UPVC windows. Officers and Councillors should note that doors within Article 4 properties must be assessed with regard to the property as a whole and not solely on the individually planning merits of the door. The inspector states that given the context of the authorised UPVC windows, this uniformity of uPVC door and window preserves the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Officers and Councillors should note the extra weight the Inspector gave to the fact the door was deeply recessed than the windows and is less prominent than the windows in most views along this narrow street.

Page 208 Agenda Item 20

Allerdale Borough Council Planning Department

Appeal Decisions

Appeal Reference: APP/G0908/E/12/2177710

Planning Reference: 2/2011/0800

Proposed Development: Listed building consent for photovoltaic modules on farmhouse Appeal Site: Stoneraise Farm, Wigton Applicant: Mr & Mrs CAA Miles Type of Appeal: Written representations

Date of Committee: N/A

Officers’ Recommend refusal Recommendation: Development Panel Delegated Decision:

Inspector’s Decision: Appeal dismissed

Appeal decision details

The application related to the installation of 12 x 255w modules extending over approx. 6m to the south facing roof slope of a Grade II farmhouse. The south facing roof slope lies to the front of the property, angled from the main highway.

The application was refused as the modern materials of the panels proposed were out of character with the original building and roof. The applicant also failed to demonstrate that other less intrusive locations on the site had been identified and examined as options which could preserve the character and setting of the building.

The main issue was therefore the effect of the works on the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building.

The Planning Inspector dismissed the appeal. The proposal was judged to detract from the appearance of the listed building, regardless of whether of not they would be seen from public viewpoints. The modern materials proposed were considered to be at odds with the slate roof and the strong architectural integrity of the building as a whole. Despite the fact that the panels could be removed, the inspector determined that they would be visually jarring during the time that they were in-situ.

Page 209 The applicants desire to reduce fuel costs and create a source of income were considered to be positive benefits which would not outweigh the adverse effects on the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building. Likewise, whilst the proposal would contribute to mitigating the effects of climate change in line with national policy, the public benefits would not outweigh the substantial harm caused to the designated asset.

Conclusion

Despite all considerations relating to mitigating climate change, reducing fuel costs, creating a source of income, other renewable energies throughout the local area and the consideration of suitable alternative locations, the Inspector could not allow a proposal that would cause substantial harm to a designated asset.

Officer comments on the appeal decision

It is noted that the Inspector gave great weight to the harm which would be caused to the listed building. The potential harmful effect outweighed any positive benefits which could be achieved through the proposal, regardless of whether the panels would be viewable from public areas or not.

It is also observed that the Inspector dismissed the reversible nature of the proposal due to the visual effects while in-situ.

Page 210 Agenda Item 21

Allerdale Borough Council Planning Department

Appeal Decisions

Appeal Reference: APP/G0908/C/12/2176563

Enforcement Reference: ENF/2012/0003

Unauthorised Unauthorised installation of windows on the first and second Development: floor of the front elevation

Appeal Site: 39 Washington Street, Workington

Appellant: Denis Lynch

Type of Appeal: Written representations.

Date of Committee: 13 November 2012

Officers recommendation Pursue Enforcement Action

Development Panel N/A Decision Inspector’s Decision: Enforcement Notice upheld.

Appeal decision details

Reasons: An enforcement notice was served for the following reasons:

1. It appears to the Council that the above breach of planning control has occurred within the last four years. 2. The unauthorised windows by virtue of their non-traditional design, fail to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area. The windows are therefore contrary to Policies CO2 and CO13 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Policy E38 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework

The notice was considered by the Planning Inspector on one ground;

• ground A that planning permission should be granted for what is alleged in the notice

Page 211 The appellant stated that the windows did not fail to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area and that there were other examples of non-traditional windows within the Conservation Area.

Inspector’s Decision: The enforcement appeal was dismissed and the enforcement notice upheld

The Inspector’s main findings are summarised as follows:

• The Inspector acknowledged that the majority of properties on Washington Street retain windows of traditional timber sash design at upper levels including two properties to either side of the appeal property, and that the appeal property windows due to the thickness of the frames, erodes the special qualities of the Conservation area, contrary to relevant development plan policies.

• The Inspector referred to other examples of non-traditional windows with the Workington Conservation Area but was not persuaded by these examples that the development does not have a harmful impact. The inspector also stated that the presence of other non traditional windows did not justify the retention of the unauthorised development and was an argument that could be repeated often.

Conclusion

It was concluded that the development fails to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Page 212 Agenda Item 22

Allerdale Borough Council Planning Department

Appeal Decisions

Appeal Reference: APP/G0908/C/12/2169390

Enforcement Reference: ENF/2011/0011

Unauthorised Change of use of a building to an independent residential Development: dwelling

Appeal Site: The land at rear of the Old School House, Flimby Brow, Flimby, Maryport, Cumbria

Appellant: DGN Properties

Type of Appeal: Written representations.

Date of Committee: 13 November 2012

Officers recommendation Pursue Enforcement Action

Development Panel N/A Decision Inspector’s Decision: Enforcement Notice upheld.

Appeal decision details

Reasons: An enforcement notice was served for the following reasons:

1. The Local Planning Authority consider that the unauthorised change of use of the building to an independent residential unit constitutes over development of the site to the detriment of the occupiers of the site and the neighbouring property contrary to Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations, June 2006 (Saved) 2. The unauthorised use of the site has the potential to generate additional on street parking in the locality of the site to the detriment of highway safety 3. It appears to the Council that the above breach of planning control has occurred in the last 4 years

The notice was considered by the Planning Inspector on one ground;

Page 213 • ground d: that at the time the enforcement notice was issued, it was too late to take enforcement action.

The appellant stated that they believe the building had been used as an independent residential dwelling for the past 70 years.

Inspector’s Decision: The enforcement appeal was dismissed and the enforcement notice upheld

The Inspector’s main findings are summarised as follows:

• The Inspector confirmed that the onus is upon the appellant to demonstrate that the building has been occupied as a separate dwelling for a continuous period of 4 years or more prior to the enforcement notice being issued.

• The Inspector acknowledged that no additional evidence had been provided such as letters or affidavits from previous occupiers to substantiate the appellants statement of the building being used as an independent dwelling for the past 70 years whereas the Council provided Council Tax records indicating that the flat was not rated as separate dwelling until 15 January 2010.

Conclusion

It was concluded that on the balance of probability, that the building had not been used as an independent dwelling for a continuous period of 4 years or more.

Page 214