Public Document Pack

SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL South Lakeland House Kendal, Cumbria LA9 4UQ www.southlakeland.gov.uk

You are requested to attend a meeting of the Planning Committee on Thursday, 20 December 2012, at 10.00 am in the District Council Chamber, South Lakeland House, Kendal

Committee Membership

Councillors

Brian Cooper Joss Curwen Philip Dixon Sheila Eccles (Vice-Chairman) Sylvia Emmott David Fletcher Clive Graham Brenda Gray John Holmes Janette Jenkinson Sonia Lawson Ian McPherson (Chairman) Mary Orr Bharath Rajan David Ryder Sue Sanderson David Williams Mary Wilson

Tuesday, 11 December 2012

Debbie Storr, Director of Policy and Resources (Monitoring Officer)

For all enquiries, please contact:- Committee Administrator: Janine Jenkinson Telephone: 01539 717493 e-mail: [email protected] AGENDA

Page Nos. PART I

1 APOLOGIES To receive apologies for absence, if any. 2 MINUTES 1 - 8 To authorise the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 29 November 2012 (copy attached). 3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive declarations by Members and/or co-optees of interests in respect of items on this Agenda.

Members are reminded that, in accordance with the revised Code of Conduct, they are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or other registrable interests which have not already been declared in the Council’s Register of Interests. (It is a criminal offence not to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest either in the Register or at the meeting.)

Members may, however, also decide, in the interests of clarity and transparency, to declare at this point in the meeting, any such disclosable pecuniary interests which they have already declared in the Register, as well as any other registrable or other interests.

If a Member requires advice on any item involving a possible declaration of interest which could affect his/her ability to speak and/or vote, he/she is advised to contact the Monitoring Officer at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. 4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - EXCLUDED ITEMS To consider whether the items, if any, in Part II of the Agenda should be considered in the presence of the press and public. 5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Any member of the public who wishes to ask a question, make representations or present a deputation or petition at this meeting should apply to do so before the commencement of the meeting. Information on how to make the application can be obtained by viewing the Council’s Website www.southlakeland.gov.uk or by contacting the Democratic and Electoral Services Manager on 01539 717440.

(1) Planning Applications

Planning applications for which requests to speak have been made.

(2) Deputations and Petitions

Agenda items for which requests to speak have been made. 6 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR PEOPLE AND PLACES 9 - 64 To determine planning applications received. 7 A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 1 - 31 October 2012 65 - 78 To inform Members about enforcement activity. 8 APPEALS UPDATE 79 - 88 To provide Members with information about the receipt and determination of planning appeals. 9 RECENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL 89 - 166 GOVERNMENT CONSULTATIONS AFFECTING PLANNING To bring to Members’ attention consultations affecting Planning. PART II

Private Section (exempt reasons under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, specified by way of paragraph number) There are no items in this part of the Agenda. This page is intentionally left blank Item No.2 59 29.11.2012 Planning Committee

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the proceedings at a meeting of the Planning Committee held in the District Council Chamber, South Lakeland House, Kendal, on Thursday, 29 November 2012, at 10.00 am.

Present

Councillors

Ian McPherson (Chairman) Sheila Eccles (Vice-Chairman)

Brian Cooper Brenda Gray Bharath Rajan Joss Curwen John Holmes David Ryder Sylvia Emmott Janette Jenkinson Sue Sanderson David Fletcher Mary Orr Mary Wilson

An apology for absence was received from Councillor David Williams.

Officers

Lilian Hopkins Planning Officer (part) Barry Jackson Development Management Team Leader Kate Lawson Planning Officer Mark Shipman Development Management Group Manager (part) Fiona Clark Planning Officer (part) Janine Jenkinson Assistant Democratic Services Officer Eleanor Huddleston Planning Officer (part)

P/68 MINUTES

RESOLVED - That the Chairman be authorised to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the Committee meeting held on 25 October 2012.

P/69 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

RESOLVED – That it be noted that the following declarations of interest were made:-

(1) Councillor Brenda Gray - Minute P/73 (Planning Application No.SL/2012/0816); and

(2) Development Management Group Manager – Minute P/72 (Planning Application No.SL/2012/0606).

P/70 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - EXCLUDED ITEMS

RESOLVED – That it be noted that there were no items in Part ll of the Agenda.

Page 1 60 29.11.2012 Planning Committee

P/71 PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The Development Management Group Manager submitted a Schedule of Planning Applications and his recommendations thereon.

RESOLVED – That

(1) the applications be determined as indicated below (the numbers denote the Schedule numbers of the application);

(2) except where stated below, the applications be subject to the relevant conditions and advice notes, as outlined in the Schedule; and

(3) except where stated below, the reasons for refusal be those as outlined in the Schedule.

P/72 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

RESOLVED – That the following applications, for which representations have been received from members of the public, in accordance with Minute 1810 (1996/97), be determined in the following manner:-

5.SL/2012/0776 LUPTON: Beckside Barn, Lupton, Kirkby Lonsdale, LA6 2QA. Alterations and conversion from workshop to live/work unit. (Mr Andrew Kay)

The Committee felt that it would be beneficial to undertake a site visit in order to view and assess the character of the rural area and landscape.

Members of the public that had registered to speak on the application chose to defer making their representations.

DEFER – to allow a site visit

9.SL/2012/0876 SKELSMERGH: High Thorn Farm, Selside, Kendal, LA8 9JX. Conversion of redundant agricultural store to two fishing lodges. (Ms K Lohr – Crawford)

Jamie Thornborrow spoke in support of the application. He stated that had worked on the farm for two years learning the farm trade and had developing the fishing project. He stressed that if planning permission was granted there would be a permanent job and this was important to him, so that he could support his family.

Tom Cory, the agent spoke on behalf of the applicant. He asserted that the application would support the diversification of the farm, have a minimal impact on the visual amenity of the landscape and would secure the employment of two full

Page 2 61 29.11.2012 Planning Committee

time jobs. He stated that the building was of traditional style and was in-line with policy.

A letter of support from a nearby neighbour had been received. The neighbour had advised that the distance from the proposal to their property was more than sufficient and they wished to support the rural business venture.

The Planning Officer reported that the applicant had confirmed that she would be willing sign a site management agreement that could be conditioned on any approval granted.

Members were advised that the key issue for consideration related to policy. While the building was of traditional style with a slate roof and some stone-facing to its block work walls, it was not actually a traditional building. It was a modern construction and approximately ten years old and therefore not in accordance with the requirements and criteria of saved Policies T4 and H12 of South Lakeland Local Plan.

Due to the desirability of farm diversification and the opportunity to improve the character of the site by removing other obsolete farm buildings, the application was considered acceptable.

GRANT – subject to suitable conditions.

Note – The Development Management Group Manager declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item of business, by virtue of being related to a share holder and ex – director of the company. He left the Council Chamber during the discussion and voting thereon.

3.SL/2012/0606 URSWICK : Land adjacent to Colony Candles Factory, Lindal Business Park, Lindal in Furness, Ulverston LA12 OLD. Single wind turbine (61 metres to blade tip), external transformer kiosk and associated access track. (Mr Chris Rawlinson)

The Committee requested that a site visit be undertaken in order to view the character and appearance of the landscape.

Members of the public registered to speak on the application chose to defer making their representations.

DEFER – to allow a site visit.

P/73 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR PEOPLE AND PLACES

1.SL/2012/0395 LOWER HOLKER: Barns at Low Bank Side Farm, Cartmel Grange over Sands LA11 7NR. Change of use of redundant agricultural buildings to storage (Class B8) and light industrial (Class B1). (Holker Estates Co Ltd)

Page 3 62 29.11.2012 Planning Committee

A Committee site visit had been undertaken and Members had had the opportunity to view the farm unit within the open countryside.

No comments had been received from Lower Holker Parish Council. Lower Allithwaite Parish Council opposed the application on the grounds that the proposal would be intrusive in the landscape and set a precedent for further inappropriate industrial development. It was stated that the building could be used as a self contained working farm, particularly for a young farmer starting out in farming, and that it was important to retain such smaller units in a rural setting for the future survival of farming.

Cumbria Highways had recommended that visibility splays be attached as a condition to any permission granted.

A discussion took place. Some concerns were raised in relation to the urbanisation of the open countryside and the lack of evidence that the farm business was unviable to sufficiently justify the permanent loss of farm buildings.

Some Members felt that application was acceptable in this location and that the diversification of the farm enterprise and creation of employment in the local area should be supported.

REFUSE – on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the farm business is unviable and the buildings redundant.

7.SL/2012/0827 EGTON WITH NEWLAND: Former Methodist Chapel, Silver Lane Spark Bridge LA12 7SY. Removal of Conditions 7, 8 and 9 (REF: Holiday Letting) attached to Planning Permission SL/2009/0870. (Lyminster Construction Ltd).

It was felt the proposal would ensure the enhancement of an important redundant building and would not result in any significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the area or residential properties within the locality.

During the discussion concern was raised regarding the general lack of consultee responses from Cumbria County Council Highways. Officers were asked to followed this up.

GRANT – subject to the conditions detailed in the Schedule and an additional condition to remove Permitted Development Rights.

10.SL/2012/0882 MILNTHORPE: Houghtons Parkhouse Coachworks, Grisleymires Lane, Milnthorpe LA7 7RF. Discharge of Condition No. 12 (car parking management scheme) attached to Planning Permission SL/2011/0180. (Mr M Houghton)

GRANT – approval of the car parking management scheme as submitted to the Local Planning Authority on 12 October 2012.

Page 4 63 29.11.2012 Planning Committee

2.SL/2012/0505 ALDINGHAM: Land adjacent to Beech Mount, Goadsbarrow, Ulverston LA12 ORE. Two dwellings. (Mrs Clare Worrall)

A Committee site visit had been undertaken.

The principle of residential development in the form of two dwellings on this site had been established and outline consent had been granted in April 2012.

The main issues to be considered in this case related to the impact of the development, in terms of scale, form and layout upon the character and appearance of the local area and the impact on the privacy and amenity of the adjacent residential property.

GRANT – Reserved Matters subject to the conditions detailed in the Schedule.

4.SL/2012/0766 LOWER ALLITHWAITE: Blenket Wood Lodge Park, Jack Hill, Allithwaite, Grange over Sands LA11 7RL. Stationing of six holiday lodges on hardstanding with access drive and car parking. (David and Helen Khan)

The Highways Authority had confirmed that they had no objection to the application.

The extension to the caravan site would be located in an appropriate location and subject to the completion of additional planting and ecology measures proposed the application would enhance ecology in the immediate vicinity.

GRANT – subject to the conditions detailed in the Schedule.

Note – Although not a disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interest, Councillor Brenda Gray wished for it to be recorded that she had been in conversation with the applicant. She left the Council Chamber during the discussion and voting thereon.

6.SL/2012/0816 KENDAL: Field to rear of Hill Place, Oxenholme, Kendal, LA9 7HB. Retention of existing track and erection of building for storage of fodder/machinery and stabling of horses. (Mrs J Bagguley)

Members had undertaken a site visit and had now had the opportunity to view and assess the proposal in relation to the character of the landscape.

The Committee was updated on revisions that had been made to the application. The building for storage of fodder/machinery had been removed from the Scheme and the orientation of the plan was incorrect.

An amended plan reflecting the amendments required, including details of the seeded track, plough grips and the drainage soakaway system was required.

Page 5 64 29.11.2012 Planning Committee

The Director of People and Places be authorised to GRANT subject to the receipt of an amended plan and conditions in relation to grass-seeding of the track and the installation of a drainage system in the field behind Hill Place.

8.SL/2012/0829 KIRKBY IRELETH: Land to North of Birk Knotts, Grizebeck, Kirkby in Furness LA17 7XN. Temporary siting of a 50 metre high meteorological mast. (Empirica Investments Limited)

The Ministry of Defence had requested that an aviation warning light be attached to the top of the structure.

The Chairman highlighted that should Members approve the application they would not be expressing any view as to the suitability or otherwise of the locality to accommodate any future wind turbines.

Installation of the anemometer mast for a 12 month period would not adversely affect Kirkby Moor Site of Special Science Interest or cause undue harm to the surrounding landscape.

GRANT – subject to the conditions detailed in the Schedule and an additional condition requiring a aviation warning light be attached to the top of the structure.

P/74 RECENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION AFFECTING PLANNING

Consideration was given to the Department of Communities and Local Government consultation – Technical Review of planning appeal procedures.

On 6 September 2012 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had announced a series of measures around planning decisions and appeals and major infrastructure.

The Growth and Infrastructure Bill would take forward measures to speed up the planning process for large scale and business developments and ensure that the information requirements of local planning authorities were proportionate.

The objective of the Review was to make the appeals process faster and more transparent, improve consistency and increase certainty of decision timescales, reducing wasted time and expense for all parties and lead to quicker development where the appeal was upheld.

Members requested that the consultation response to Q4 be particularly emphasised.

RESOLVED – That the proposed response to the consultation be supported with a revision to Q4 as detailed above.

Page 6 65 29.11.2012 Planning Committee

P/75 MONTHLY ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FOR SEPTEMBER

Members were presented with a report on enforcement activity between 1 and 30 September 2012 relating to all cases. Nine outstanding cases from the caseload had been resolved. Eighteen new complaints had been recorded and were presently being investigated.

12.207 Land rear of 19 Hill Place, Oxenholme

Further to the approval of Planning Application SL/2012/0816 earlier on the agenda, enforcement action was no longer required.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

P/76 APPEALS UPDATE

Members were presented with information about the receipt and determination of planning appeals from the start of the financial year in April 2012.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

The meeting ended at 12.55 pm

Page 7 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 8 Item No.6

SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

From: Director (People and Places) To: Planning Committee – 20 December 2012

REPORT OF DIRECTOR (PEOPLE and PLACES)

PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION Page No

Index

Schedule A - Complex planning applications 13 - 64

Schedule B - Planning applications where the Director (People and None Places) is seeking authority to determine

Schedule C - Applications relating to Listed Buildings None

Schedule D - Advertisements None

Schedule E - Development by South Lakeland District Council and None Cumbria County Council

Schedule F - Straightforward planning applications None

Schedule G - All other submissions None

Background papers relating to the subject matter of the report For all items the background papers are contained in the files listed in the second column of the schedule index.

Note: The background papers may be inspected at the offices of the Director (People and Places), Lowther Street, Kendal, Cumbria

Page 9 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 10 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE – 20 December 2012

SCHEDULE REFERENCE SECTION SITE ADDRESS NUMBER NUMBER

EGTON WITH NEWLAND, MANSRIGGS AND OSMOTHERLEY 5 SL/2012/0837 A (49-54) land to west of Arrad Foot

KENDAL 4 SL/2012/0821 A (45-48) 59 Captain French (FPA) and SL/2012/0822 (CAC) 6 SL/2012/0870 A (55-58) 30 Oak Tree Road

LOWER ALLITHWAITE 7 SL/2012/0920 A (59-64) Wells House Farm, Ford Road, Cartmel

LUPTON 3 SL/2012/0776 A (35-44) Beckside Barn

STRICKLAND KETEL 1 SL/2012/0605 A (13-16) land at Jacob Cottage

URSWICK 2 SL/2012/0606 A (17-34) land adjacent to Colony Candles, Lindal Business Park, Lindal in Furness

1 Page 11 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 12 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 1 SL/2012/0605

STRICKLAND KETEL: LAND AT JACOB COTTAGE, PLANTATION BRIDGE, KENDAL LA8 9JA

PROPOSAL: DWELLING WITH GARAGE

MR JOHN Website Link: ELLERAY http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/fastweb/detail.asp?AltRef=SL/2012/ 0605

E348391 N496893 20/12/2012

SUMMARY: The development is contrary to policy not being infilling or rounding off of a smaller village or hamlet in accordance with Policy CS1.2 of the Core Strategy.

STRICKLAND KETEL PARISH COUNCIL: Recommend that permission be granted.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: Strongly opposed to the plans as submitted as the applicant does not appear to control sufficient land to suitably improve the access. The lack of adequate visibility would lead to danger to road users.

SLDC LEGAL SECTION: Confirm that, in view of the statements with regard to the applicant’s ownership, the application can be determined and any question as to site ownership should be a private matter.

UNITED UTILITIES: No objection.

Page 13 OTHER: Two letters have been received. One neighbour expresses interest in the outcome as they would be keen to submit a similar application. They would also like it to be ensured that there was no detrimental impact on the local beck. An objection has been submitted on behalf of the owners of the dwelling to the east. They consider that as the application site is higher its development could lead to overlooking. They fear access improvements could result in the loss of roadside trees and local character. It is pointed out that the garage shop stocks groceries for passing vehicle trade rather than local residents and that the garage is separated by the railway line from most of the properties. They contradict the agent and suggest there are significant open areas between the existing buildings and granting permission could encourage proposals for further residential development. Their solicitors also query the ownership of the site as the Land Registry includes it within the boundaries of a farm holding.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: At Plantation Bridge there is a road junction on the A591 to Windermere with a minor road serving Cowen Head, Bowston and Burneside. Fronting onto the main road is a filling station incorporating a shop area which includes a small range of household items, an outdoor clothing shop and 7 dwellings. On the minor road are two loose ribbons of development comprising a further 8 dwellings. One field to the east of the easternmost of these dwellings is a separate group of five dwellings. The majority of the buildings are twentieth century. The Windermere to Oxenholme Railway line passes between the dwellings fronting the A591 and those fronting the minor road. The quality of the countryside is high and the boundary of the Lake District National Park passes between the buildings. The application site comprises the southernmost, lowest corner of a field on the northern side of the minor road. On its south-eastern boundary is the easternmost dwelling of the group on that side of the road. On the opposite side of the road are bungalows and to the west the site is separated by a small woodland from the applicant’s own cottage and another dwelling. The application proposes a two storey dwelling and detached garage for the applicant’s daughter and her partner who work locally but are unable to afford to buy a house at open market prices. The agent sees the proposal as being an appropriate form of infilling / rounding-off in a smaller village or hamlet and thus in line with Policy CS1.2 of the adopted Core Strategy. He points out that the site is convenient not only to the road system but also cycleway, bus route and footpaths. The agent has confirmed that the application site was acquired in 1948 by his father from the adjoining farm owners.

POLICY ISSUES: The Core Principles of the National Planning Policy Framework include recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it and achieving sustainable development. In relation to housing there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Page 14 Policy CS1.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy defines the Development Strategy for the district. It establishes a settlement hierarchy with 55% of new development directed to the principal service centres of Kendal and Ulverston, 13% to Key Service Centres being the district’s three other towns, 21% to named larger villages / Local Service Centres and 11% to smaller villages and hamlets and the open countryside. The Policy does not list by name these smaller villages and hamlets nor give definitions of the terms. No development boundaries are defined for such settlements but it is stated that such development outside Service Centres will be permitted to satisfy local need in the form of small-scale infilling or rounding- off. The Core Strategy defines “infilling” as “building taking place on a vacant plot in an otherwise built-up street frontage”. “Rounding-off” is defined as “the completion of an incomplete group of buildings on land which is already partially developed, in such a way that will either complete the local road pattern or finally define and complete the boundaries of the group. Such rounding-off should not: Z change or distort the character or tradition of the group or settlement in an undesirable way; Z extend the grouping in such a manner that, when the development has taken place, undeveloped areas remain or further land is opened up where pressure for development is likely to occur; Z cause undesirable backland development unrelated to a proper street layout; and Z cause development which pre-empts the provision of public services or gives rise to demands for improvements or extension to services which may not be proposed at the time.” Policy CS6.3 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy requires on schemes of three or more dwellings outside principal / key service centres 35% to be affordable. Policy CS6.4 of the Core Strategy states that housing development outside service centres and not constituting infilling or rounding-off in smaller villages or hamlets will only be considered where 100% is affordable housing provided in accordance with detailed criteria. Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy requires that the location, scale, design and materials of development conserve the distinctive settlement character. Highway safety can be a material planning consideration.

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

ASSESSMENT: The two key assessments in relation to this application are whether the buildings at Plantation Bridge can be regarded as one of the smaller villages or hamlets referred to in Policy CS1.2 of the Core Strategy and if so whether the development itself

Page 15 would meet the definitions of infilling or rounding-off for development in such settlements. Plantation Bridge is not listed in the Core Strategy as an example of such a smaller village or hamlet. The settlements that are listed or given as examples such as Grayrigg, Barbon, Beetham, Hutton Roof and Leece share these common features; • 10-20 dwellings or more in contiguous grouping and without significant open areas between these dwellings; • a community facility such as a church, hall, school, shop, pub or village green; and • locally perceived as a settlement with its own name, independent names of individual houses or topographic features and acting as the focus of a parish / rural area. The dwellings at Plantation Bridge do not correspond to these characteristics. There is a lack of a facility serving local residents in the group and it does not serve as a focus of the local rural area which looks to Burneside, Staveley or Kendal. While there are 15 dwellings in the vicinity they do not form a building group arranged around a focus of a village green or communal building but are arranged as loose ribbons of sporadic development some separated from the others by the A591 and the route of the railway between the buildings. Because of the loose nature of the development there are significant gaps between the dwellings. In this context the proposed development does not fit within the definitions of an infill plot or rounding- off. To grant permission could encourage further developments on open land in the vicinity with an increasing cumulative detriment to the high quality of the distinctive landscape.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below - The development would not be in accordance with Policy CS1.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy not being infilling or rounding-off within a smaller village or settlement but rather a consolidation of a sporadic and loose ribbon of development in the open countryside which would be detrimental to the distinctive and fine landscape character which Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy seeks to protect and enhance. Because of the sporadic nature of development in the vicinity the development, if permitted, could encourage the submission of proposals for the development of other neighbouring, open sites which would be made, by that permission, more difficult to resist with consequent greater detriment to the character of the landscape. In these respects the development would also be contrary to the advice of the National Planning Policy Framework, that the countryside be preserved for its intrinsic character and beauty.

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and pro-actively in determining this application by clearly identifying in pre-application discussions the policy issues. However, the policy principles are so fundamental in relation to the proposal that it is not possible to negotiate a way forward to overcome the clearly expressed reason of refusal.

Page 16 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 2 SL/2012/0606

URSWICK: LAND ADJACENT TO COLONY CANDLES FACTORY LINDAL BUSINESS PARK, LINDAL IN FURNESS, ULVERSTON LA12 0LD

PROPOSAL: SINGLE WIND TURBINE (61 METRES TO BLADE TIP), EXTERNAL TRANSFORMER KIOSK AND ASSOCIATED Website Link: ACCESS TRACK http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/fastweb/detail.asp?Alt Ref=SL/2012/0606 MR CHRIS RAWLINSON E325686 N475331 20/12/2012

SUMMARY: The proposal relates to the siting of a 61 metre high wind turbine on agricultural land to provide electricity to a candle manufacturing plant at Lindal-in-Furness. As a result of its size and siting it would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding landscape which outweighs any environmental, economic and energy benefits that the proposal would have.

URSWICK PARISH COUNCIL: Urswick Parish Council has considered this application carefully. While councillors understand the need to develop alternative energy sources, a number of objections have been raised. The visual impact of a large, isolated structure in a rural landscape, and proximity to a public footpath, would be detrimental. Furthermore, there is no decommissioning process in place for the proposed turbine. Councillors also expressed reservations about the cumulative effect of such turbines, should this application, as seems likely, be followed by a number of similar proposals. Urswick Parish Council wishes, therefore, to bring these matters to the attention of the Planning Committee, and requests that the application be refused.

PENNINGTON PARISH COUNCIL: Pennington Parish Council would like to object to the application. Whilst the reason for the turbine is commendable, this is a huge beast and will have a considerable impact on the locality. It is not suitable for a village and its community.

Page 17 LINDAL AND MARTON PARISH COUNCIL: During discussions involving the floor, references were made to concerns such as noise pollution and traffic movements during construction but the greatest emphasis was placed upon the visual impact which the turbine would have in this area of open countryside. However, it was also pointed out that wind turbines were being heavily promoted by the Government as one of the most practical ways of generating “clean” electricity, with the positive attributes outweighing the negative aspects. It was proposed and seconded that the Parish Council decline to support the application because it would be unacceptably obtrusive because of its size in this area of open countryside. There were three votes in favour with one against and the proposal was carried.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: No comments received.

HIGHWAYS AGENCY: Following further information with regard to the swept path and turbine access movements, the Highways Agency is now content with the proposals being put forward within this application and therefore has no objection.

NETWORK RAIL: Once the applicant has a definite plan of what access route the turbines, blades and vehicles will be travelling along, the route must be submitted to the Network Rail Abnormal Loads team for review and approval. The applicant will be liable for all costs incurred by Network Rail in facilitating the turbine, blades and vehicles to site. This may include any asset protection supervision, any safety supervision or any works deemed necessary to protect Network Rail infrastructure. Network Rail reserves the right to refuse any access to its bridges should the access route to site impact upon Network Rail’s infrastructure. The route taken by the wind turbines etc may include Network Rail bridges which have a limited load capacity which may be exceeded by the turbine, blades and vehicles and this could result in damage to the railway infrastructure. Although the wind turbine is situated approximately 480m plus away from the operational railway boundary, Network Rail would ask if the potential for shadow flicker from the wind turbine affecting train drivers ability to view signals on the railway has been taken into consideration. Shadows lengthen throughout the day and the area where the shadows fall may include the operational railway. The applicant should therefore determine what the longest likely length of the shadows from the wind turbine blades over the course of a year is. This will show if the shadows fall across the railway and impact upon a train driver’s vision. Should shadow flicker be determined as a affecting the operational railway then the applicant is requested to contact the Network Rail Asset Protection Team to discuss shadow flicker mitigation measures.

Page 18 COUNTRYSIDE ACCESS OFFICER: No objection to the proposed development so long as it would not affect the use and enjoyment of the closest public right of way, footpath No.580035. It has not been possible to determine the precise siting of the proposed turbine from the plans available but it does appear that the public footpath will be within the fall zone. A re- siting of the turbine would be desirable to eliminate the possibility of the turbine affecting the footpath in the event of it falling.

CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER: No objections and do not wish to make any recommendations or comments.

ENGLISH HERITAGE Do not wish to offer any comments on this occasion. The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: Recommends that conditions be added to any planning consent to ensure that noise emissions do not exceed 35dB(A) L35dB L A90 10 min at the nearest residential properties up to 10m/s at 10 m height and require the wind turbine operator to investigate any noise complaints.

NATURAL ENGLAND: From the information provided with this application, it does not appear to fall within the scope of the consultations that Natural England would routinely comment on. The lack of specific comment from Natural England should not be interpreted as a statement that there are no impacts on the natural environment, but only that the application is not likely to result in significant impacts on statutory designated sites, landscapes or species. It is for the local authority to determine whether or not this application is consistent with national or local policies on biodiversity and landscape and other bodies and individuals may be able to help the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to fully take account of the environmental value of this site in the decision making process, LPAs should seek the views of their own ecologists when determining the environmental impacts of this development. Expect the LPA to assess and consider the impacts on protected species, Local Wildlife sites, biodiversity enhancements and local landscape.

RSPB: The RSPB support a broad mix of renewable energy schemes, where developments will not significantly impact birds or the habitats on which they depend. The development site is located in close proximity to both the Morecambe Bay SPA and the Duddon Estuary SPA, and it is known that there is an interchange of bird between the two areas through Ulverston. Species such as curlew and oystercatcher

Page 19 use the intertidal area around Ulverston (e.g. Ulverston Sands and Rosebeck Sands) as roosting sites in very high numbers. Pink footed geese and whooper swans will also fly south along the coastline of Cumbria and Lancashire on their way to overwintering sites such as the Fylde coastline - records of occurrence have been recorded flying close to the development site. The RSPB are satisfied that the supplementary information provided is sufficient, to enable us to determine that the risk posed by the development to bird species sensitive to wind farm developments is likely to be low. Based on the evidence provided, analysis and conclusions drawn, it is not considered that site based vantage point surveys are required in this case.

FRIENDS OF THE LAKE DISTRICT (CPRE): No comments received.

NATIONAL TRUST: Do not fundamentally disagree with the information set out in the application documents regarding the impacts upon Dalton Castle and Sandscale Haws. Whilst it is anticipated that there will be some adverse visual impacts in terms of the views from Dalton Castle, and therefore upon its setting, having regard to the benefits of the renewable energy to be generated it is not considered that, on their own, these impacts are such that permission should be refused in this instance.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: No objection.

NATS: No objection.

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY: There is currently a high demand for CAA comment on wind turbine applications which exceeds the capacity of the available resource to respond to requests within the timescales required by Local Planning Authorities. The CAA has no responsibilities for safeguarding sites other than its own property, and a consultation by a Council is taken as a request for clarification of procedural matters. Councils are reminded of their obligations to consult in accordance with ODPM/DfT Circular 1/2003 or Scottish Government Circular 2/2003, and in particular to consult with NATS and the Ministry of Defence as well as any aerodromes listed in Annex 3 of the above documents, taking note of appropriate guidance and policy documentation.

WALNEY AERODROME: No objection.

Page 20 CABLE & WIRELESS No objection.

JOINT RADIO COMPANY LTD (JRC): No comments received.

ARQIVA (TELEVISION TRANSMISSION): No objection.

MLL TELECOM: There are no existing links within a 2.5km radius of the proposed wind turbine, as such have no objection.

TELENT ON BEHALF OF VODAFONE: The nearest Vodafone link is approx 1.4km from the proposed turbine which does not pose a threat to the VF ATP microwave network. Vodafone specify a 100 m minimum separation from turbine to link.

FURNESS ENTERPRISE: Fully supports the proposal for a new ‘green source’ of power generation for one of the Furness area’s leading companies, Wax Lyrical where 161 people are currently employed, making it one of the largest employers in the peninsula. The development is designed to make the company more competitive , by substantially reducing its energy costs, promoting itself as a green manufacturer and securing its sustainability for the long term. In particular the investment will enable the firm to compete with its main competitor which already has green energy generation in place. It will also mirror, on a smaller scale, the green manufacturing aspirations that GSK have for their Ulverston site. Installation of the 61m high turbine will deliver a dedicated power source for the company’s 24/7 manufacturing operations at Lindal, enabling the business to: • Reduce its energy costs by over 25-30% per year, which represents a six figure sum; • Create a stable energy price on which to plan future investment and growth without inflating pressure; • Remain competitive against competition from China, the Far East; • Match its Belgian based key competitor which already has a turbine driving its energy provision; • Promote its global ‘green’ image; • Secure the long term future of employment at the Lindal site; • Create a more sustainable manufacturing facility.

Page 21

The National Planning Policy Framework indicates there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development; supplying a strong rural economy and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and identifying opportunities where the development can draw its energy supply from decentralised renewable or low carbon energy supply systems. The Framework goes on to cite the fact that even small scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting green house gas emissions, and local authorities should approve the application if its impacts are or can be made acceptable. The site is in an area of ‘drumlins’ shown on the Map 8 of Cumbria’s Landscape Assessment in its Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document as a location where single turbines or a small group could be allowed. The District Council has a commitment to supporting economic growth, high value jobs, manufacturing and export capacity of companies in its area and the generation of high wage jobs for its residents. The business of Wax Lyrical, although just in Barrow Borough, depends on a workforce drawn from the District Council area. Ask that before the Council considers this proposal it takes the opportunity to visit the Wax Lyrical factory and the development site to meet with Wax Lyrical, understand both the economic challenges the company faces and the opportunity this project provides for economic growth. No justification has been provided for the assertion that harmful visual impact outweighs the benefits, particularly as in landscape views there is already a number of dominant structures; Hoad monument, turbines atop Kirby Moor, above the skyline at Ireleth visible from Birkrigg and large telecom masts. These other large structures differ markedly from the current proposal in that they do not deliver local jobs. If the proposal is refused, the recipient company would be faced with resorting to other ways to make savings .

OTHER: 18 letters of objection have been received which raise the following concerns: • Visual impact - the turbine would completely dominate the beautiful surrounding countryside between Lindal and Urswick and result in intrusive industrialisation of the countryside. The valley between Birkrigg Common and the higher Furness hills has the appearance of a rural environment with a low population density and the development would be highly detrimental to this. The turbine would be visible from all directions having a negative effect on the appearance of the locality from many vantage points, towering high above the trees in the area, and dominating the sensitive landscape. Large scale wind energy in this area would degrade the rural character of the area as set out in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. The adjacent land is low lying farmland which is unsuited to a large and high structure. The area is fortunate that there are no high structures in the landscape with a few pylons in the distance. The nearest wind turbine in operation (Lindal Cote Farm) is only 19.25 metres high and existing power lines are around 10 metres high. Removal of hedges will make more of the tower visible and may reveal the transformer kiosk at many viewpoints.

Page 22 • Residential amenity - the turbine is far too close to residential properties. Will impact on views from nearby residential properties, some of which face towards the site, including those at Mascalles. • Shadow Flicker - impact on nearby residential properties as a result of a strobe light / flicker effect caused by the turning blades. • Noise - the turbine is anticipated to cause a near constant noise of between 30-35 decibels at nearby residential properties. This will be significant in a rural location. It would spoil an otherwise quiet rural site. Concerns that the Council will not have the power to shut down the turbine if it exceeds the levels that the theoretical studies suggest. The additional noise measurements were not taken at Mascalles in relation to the bungalows on Hooks Lane, they were taken at Dalegarth which is located in a hollow, and noise is likely to pass above this building. • Impact on people who use the area for walking, cycling and horse riding on a daily basis. • Public rights of way - concern over the impact that the turbine will have on the nearby footpath. • Precedence - concern over the precedence that approval of the application could have in this location given the amount of infrastructure required for this proposal. Could act as a precedent for other local landowners. • Ecology - the site is close to a local wetland which is used by an extensive population of wild fowl. Wild fowl moving between Morecambe Bay and the Duddon Estuary would be at risk. • Highway safety - concern over the successful access to the site for the delivery of the turbine components, particularly from the A590 and over the railway bridge near the entrance to the site. • Evidence of mineshafts in the area is acknowledged but concerned that one trial hole is sufficient to ensure safe foundations. The possible effect of the vibrations generated by the turbine appears to have been discounted. • Choice of renewable energy - other methods of generating green energy would be viable for the business with much shorter return periods and a lower impact on the site. For example increasing the insulation of the buildings, reducing energy consumption of the businesses processes, installation of photovoltaic cells, or ground source heat pumps. • Impact on property values. 1 letter of comment raised the following: The cable route from the turbine to the factory appears to twice cross the line of a public footpath. As this is a popular route, any consent should include a requirement that the right of way is maintained at all times. 14 letters of support have been received which raise the following points: • The turbine is quiet and any noise will be difficult to pick out against the rustle of trees. • The visual impact will be minimal.

Page 23 • The proposal will help a local business secure a source of green energy for the future. It will help reduce costs, fix energy prices and secure jobs. It will help maintain a much visited tourist attraction. • It will help the environment and new forms of energy production, such as wind turbines, are needed.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Consideration of this application was deferred at last month’s meeting in order to allow Members the opportunity to visit the site.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is within an agricultural field located approximately 350 metres to the south east of the candle manufacturing plant at Lindal-in-Furness, known locally as Colony candles with the trade name “Wax Lyrical”. The centre of the village of Lindal-in- Furness is located approx 775 metres to the north west and the village of Great Urswick is approx 1.2 kilometres to the south east. Morecambe Bay is approx. 4.4 kilometres from the site and is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar site. The site is also approx 4.8 kilometres from the Dudden Estuary which is a SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site. The site is surrounded by fields which are bounded mainly by hedgerows and some trees. There is a public footpath which runs along one of the boundaries of an adjacent field to the west and across the field to the south. The land rises slightly to the east of the candle factory with the network of local narrow roads following the lower level of land. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a 500 kW turbine. It would be a three bladed structure with a maximum height of 35 metres to the hub and 61 metres to the tip of the blades and would be finished in an off-white / light grey colour with a matt / semi-matt finish. No final choice of turbine is specified at this stage. The turbine would be sited 380 metres to the south east of the factory with the nearest roads being London Road, 600 metres to the west, and Middle Barrow Lane, 470 metres to the south. It would be approx 51 metres from the nearest public footpath. The nearest residential properties are approx 550 metres to the south east and the north east. To the south east is an individual property, Dalegarth, 100 metres beyond which is a row of bungalows which face towards to the site. To the north east is a cluster of properties on Railways Terrace and East View. There is also a row of dwellings on London Road to the east, aprrox. 600 metres from the site and on Green Lane to the north east, the closest of which is 710 metres from the site. The site access would be via the current entrance associated with the candle factory. A track would be constructed from the edge of the car park to the turbine location to provide access for construction. The track would be approximately 530 metres long and have a surface width of 5 metres. A geotextile membrane would be laid with a surface of crushed stone. The track would cut through some existing woodland and some hedgerow removal is also required. To mitigate for this loss, new woodland and hedgerows are proposed.

Page 24 The turbine would be operational for 25 years and it is envisaged that it would be decommissioned at the end of this period unless operation beyond this date was economic. Decommissioning would involve the complete removal of the turbine and associated equipment, the removal of the concrete foundation to a depth of one metre below ground level and the restoration of the land to a useable state for agriculture. The proposal has been driven by the high energy demand of the candle manufacturing plant for which the turbine would supply electrical power. It would provide power directly to the factory with a grid connection for occasions when the output exceeds the demand for electricity, such as times between larger orders when production may be down. The anticipated annual output of a turbine of this size and wind resource is a very close match to the annual average electricity power use of the factory. The business would benefit from an immediate reduction in its energy costs and the turbine would provide relief from future increases in energy prices enabling the factory to remain competitive. It will also allow the business to market its products as being produced in a sustainable manner. The submission states that, as the company is a major local employer, it is vital to the local economy that it remains viable. The proposed turbine and some of the access route is within South Lakeland District however part of the access is within Barrow Borough. As such, applications have been submitted to both Authorities.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Section 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change , states that planning plays a key role in supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. When determining applications, LPAs should approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. It should also be recognised that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Section 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment , states that the planning system should seek to protect and enhance valued landscapes and to minimise impacts upon biodiversity.

Regional Policy Policy DP7 promotes the protection and enhancement of environmental quality, including green infrastructure, but at the same time respecting the character and distinctiveness of landscapes and the maintenance and enhancement of the tranquillity of the open countryside. Policy EMI(A) states that priority should be given to conserving and enhancing areas, sites, features and species of international, national, regional and local landscape, natural environment and historic environment importance. Policy EM17 specifically promotes renewable energy sources and states that significant weight should be given to the wider environmental, community and economic benefits of renewable energy schemes. It lists wide-ranging criteria which

Page 25 should be taken into account when assessing renewable energy proposals, including the effects on local amenity, visual impact and nature conservation. The visual impact of such schemes is a matter to be taken into account but should not be used to rule out or place constraints on the development of all, or specific types of, renewable energy technologies.

Structure Plan Policy Saved Structure Plan Policy R44 states that outside the Lake District National Park and the AONB proposals for renewable energy will be favourably considered if: (1) there is no significant adverse effect on the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage of the area either individually or cumulatively through their relationship with other utility infrastructure; (2) there is no significant adverse effect on local amenity, the local economy, highways or telecommunications; and (3) the proposal takes all practicable measures to reduce any adverse impact on the landscape, environment, nature conservation, historical and local community interests. In considering applications for planning permission in relation to the above criteria, and other policies in the Structure Plan, the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight. Saved Structure Plan Policy E37 requires development to be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types Policy E37 requires proposals to be assessed in relation to: (1) locally distinctive natural or built features; (2) visual intrusion or impact; (3) scale in relation to the landscape features; (4) the character of the built environment; (5) public access and community value of the landscape; (6) historic patterns and attributes; (7) biodiversity features, ecological networks and semi-natural habitats; and (8) openness, remoteness and tranquillity.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS7.7 supports in principle appropriately located renewable energy schemes. It is acknowledged that there are some energy sources which need to be remote from residential areas and other sensitive land uses, and projects should avoid any harmful impact upon the historic environment. Policy CS8.2 states that development proposals should be informed by and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscapes identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect and conserve the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area.

Page 26 Policy CS8.4 relates to biodiversity and geodiversity and states that all development proposals should protect, enhance and restore the biodiversity and geodiversity value of land and buildings. It also states that development proposals that would have a direct or indirect adverse effect on nationally, sub-regional, regional and local designated sites will not be permitted unless they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm; the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of the site and the wider network of rural habitats; and prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are provided.

Local Plan Policy Saved Policy C26 of the Local Plan covers wind energy proposals and states that their acceptability will be judged according to whether a number of defined criteria can be satisfied. One of the criteria is that the proposal’s energy contribution and other benefits outweigh any significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape, the amenity of residential properties, nature conservation, archaeological or geographical interests. Saved Policy L10 states that existing rights of way will be maintained and protected from any development that would adversely affect their character. Development which results in the loss of or disruption to existing rights of way will only be permitted where a satisfactory diversion can be provided.

OTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document This was adopted in 2007 and provides guidance for the consideration of wind energy developments. Part 2 of the guidelines provides specific guidance on landscape and visual issues and identifies the potential capacity of various landscape types throughout the county to accommodate different scales of wind farms. The areas designated as drumlins are considered to have low / moderate capacity to accommodate single turbines or small cluster sized developments. This reflects a moderate / high sensitivity overall, rarity and moderately strong historical and geomorphological interests and cultural associations. It states that turbine development is likely to intimidate the small scale nature of the component hills and ridges and that the restricted views created by this relief are vulnerable to visual dominance, an issue likely to be of heightened significance in South Lakeland which has a heavy pattern of small dispersed settlements.

Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit This document was prepared by Cumbria County Council in conjunction with the district authorities in March 2011. The site is in an area identified as drumlin field. The key characteristics of this landscape are tracts of high drumlins; rounded tops with steep sides; distinct landform grain; hedges and stone walls from strong boundaries; streams and wet hollows are found in the valleys and dips between the drumlins; farms and development often nestle in intersecting valleys; narrow lanes with tall hedges and steep banks criss-cross through the drumlins. With regards to development, the guidance states that infrastructure developments such as large scale wind energy and pylons could cut across the grain of the landscape and introduce structures that dominate the drumlin characteristics. It

Page 27 advises that the siting of large scale wind energy should be avoided in open and prominent areas where they could degrade the rural character of the area. Companion Guide to PPS22: Planning for Renewable Energy The NPPF replaced all the previous PPG and PPS documents. However, the Companion Guide to PPS22: Planning for Renewable Energy is not contained within the list of replaced documents and therefore still a material planning consideration. It states that there is no statutory separation between a wind turbine and a public right of way, however fall over distance is often considered an acceptable separation, and the minimum distance is often taken to be that the turbine blades should not be permitted to oversail a public right of way. Fall over distance is the height of the turbine to the blade tip and 10% is often added to this as a safe separation distance from occupied buildings. In relation to shadow flicker, the guide makes the following statements: • shadow flicker only occurs inside buildings where the flicker appears through a narrow window opening; • only properties within 130 degrees either side of north of the turbines can be affected at UK latitudes; • shadow flicker has been proven to occur only within ten rotor diameters of a turbine position; • less than 5% of photo-sensitive epileptics are sensitive to the lowest frequencies of 2.5-3 Hz; the remainder being sensitive to higher frequencies; and • a fast-moving three-bladed wind turbine will give rise to the highest levels of flicker frequency of well below 2 Hz. The new generation of wind turbines is known to operate at levels below 1 Hz.

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

THE APPLICANT’S PLANNING CONSULTANT’S CRITIQUE OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT Introduction

These comments are provided following receipt and review of the report which was included in the pack sent to members of the planning committee for their meeting on 29 th November 2012.

The committee report provides a single suggested reason for refusal that is ‘ its harmful effect on the character and appearance of the landscape’ . There is general agreement between the authority and applicant that there are no other topics which

Page 28 are at issue. Consequently, the purpose and scope of these comments is to examine the rationale behind the proposed reason for refusal.

Decisions on planning applications are a matter of balancing the benefits and the impacts of proposal. That balancing exercise is guided by policies within the statutory development plan and consideration of other material considerations. It is the applicant’s belief that the committee report’s author has incorrectly carried out the balancing exercise by attaching too much weight to the landscape impacts of the proposal and insufficient weigh to its benefits.

Landscape Impacts

The applicants provided a detailed landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) using accepted methodology. There is no evidence to suggest that the Council has carried out any competing landscape appraisal no has had professional assistance in reviewing the findings of the LVIA. In the absence of any alternative assessment it is difficult to see how the LPA can do anything but agree with the findings of the applicants LVIA.

One of the tenets of the proposed reason for refusal is that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character of the landscape and so be in conflict with the aims of the policies referred to in the proposed reason for refusal. Figure 6.5 of the LVIA identifies the sites position and landscape character types (LCT). The site falls within the northern extremity of an area designated as LCT 7(b) Drumlin Field. The committee report includes a summary of the relevant passage from Cumbria Wind Energy SPD - Capacity Statement for Drumlins. It reiterates the text which refers to the drumlins having a low/moderate capacity to accommodate single turbines or cluster sized developments. What it omits is the following sentence which indicates that ‘ with current heights of around 100m likely to appear out of scale.’ Similarly the assessment under the section dealing with visual impact refers to the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance there is reference to large scale wind energy developments having ‘t he potential to cut across the grain of the landscape and introduce structure that dominate the drumlin characteristics. ’ However, the report also then goes on to recognise that ‘ this is not a large scale project’.

Table 1.1 of the SPD provides a summary of the Cumbria landscape capacity findings. For Drumlins the landscape is assessed as having capacity for single turbines or a small group (3-5 turbines). At paragraph 1.12 of the SPD it is also indicated that turbine heights of 95-120 to blade tip have been assumed.

The proposal is for a single turbine of just 61 metres in height adjacent to a candle manufacturing factory. It is of a scale which is deemed appropriate for the landscape character type within which it is located by the planning document specific to the consideration of the landscape impact of wind energy proposals. The applicants LVIA concluded that the proposal would not lead to significant effects on the landscape character type as a whole. For these reasons it is considered that the LPA has incorrectly applied relevant guidance which assists the interpretation of the relevant landscape policies in respect of landscape character and so has misapplied those polices. In doing so it has afforded far too much weigh to potential impacts on landscape character in the planning balancing exercise.

Page 29 Benefits

Although the committee report provides a brief summary of regional policies, it provides no information on the renewable energy targets contained within the regional spatial strategy (RSS). Nor does it provide any comment on progress towards the achievement of those targets. The RSS provides targets for each county for achievement by 2010, 2015 and 2020. Within the RSS each county has its own targets. The targets reflect the urgency attached to the deployment of renewable energy schemes and provide a benchmark against which the deployment of renewable energy schemes can be measured. The targets are a minimum to be achieved.

The position is set out in the Environmental Report which accompanied the planning application - the target generating capacity for Cumbria from onshore wind is 256 MW by 2015 with only 245 MW in place - there is a clear shortfall. This proposal would contribute an additional 0.5 MW to the achievement of this target.

The contribution of renewable energy proposals towards the achievement of targets is a material policy consideration which must be afforded considerable weight. This issue and the weight to be afforded the benefits of this proposal in making such a contribution have been ignored in the committee report. Indeed there is absolutely no reference at all to the environmental advantages of the scheme in the assessment section of the committee report.

Conclusion

The balancing exercise through which the author of this report has been through is distorted. The consideration of landscape impact has been coloured through the misapplication of guidance and policy and environmental benefits ignored. The consideration of the application in balancing advantages and disadvantages is clearly inadequate and the report and the recommendation contained therein are fatally flawed.

It is urged that members make their decision on the basis that:

• the correct weighting is applied to the landscape impact of the proposal; • consideration is taken of, and weight attached to, the environmental benefits of the proposals including contribution to the achievement of RSS targets; and • the LPA recognises ‘t he responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable and low carbon sources ’ (NPPF paragraph 97)

Finally, on a point of accuracy within the report there is reference to the public footpath close to the site which it is stated is 51 metres away and so within topple distance. This is incorrect, the distance between the proposed turbine base and the footpath has been measured on the site and just exceeds 61 metres and so it is not within the topple distance as stated.

Page 30 ASSESSMENT: There have been no concerns raised from the various consultees in relation to aviation or telecommunications, therefore the main issues in this case are considered to be: • the visual impact of the proposed turbine on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural landscape; • the impact on the amenity of the nearest residential properties; • the potential impact of the structure on protected species of bats and birds; • highway impact; • impact on public footpaths; • the impact on heritage assets; • the economic benefits of the scheme.

Visual Impact The landscape in this area is characterised by gently rolling hills, open fields generally separated by hedgerows and individual or small groups of trees. There are some small scale pylons, approx 10 metres in height which cross an adjacent field. The guidance contained within the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance states that large scale wind energy developments could cut across the grain of the landscape and introduce structures that dominate the drumlin characteristics. It advises that this development should be avoided in open and prominent areas where they could degrade the rural character of the area. Although this is not a large scale project, the turbine would have an overall height of 61 metres which will be significant in the context of the surrounding landscape and nearby development. The only vertical structures close to the site are local electricity pylons and are approx. 10 metres high. There are some larger pylons to the north west but these are not in the immediate vicinity. The turbine will be particularly prominent from a group of houses approx. 540 metres to the south which face in the direction of the site. It is likely that the mast will be highly visible from elevated viewpoints and will appear as an alien structure in a mostly unspoilt landscape. A landscape and visual assessment of the turbine has been submitted with the application. It concludes that the turbine would become a determining feature in the character of the site and the immediate surroundings and result in a significant change in the character of the landscape in the immediate vicinity of the site. To a distance of 2 kilometres the turbine would have significant effects on localised areas. However it states that this would not lead to any significant effects on any landscape types or areas as a whole. The visual impact assessment concludes that significant effects are assessed as being localised as a result of the turbines modest size. The report argues that significant effects are substantially reversible as the operational life of the turbine is 25 years after which the turbine would be removed from the site. As there are very few other vertical structures close to the site, and given the relatively low lying and gently undulating nature of the landscape, a turbine of this scale would appear overly prominent and would therefore have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the landscape.

Page 31 Members resolved to refuse planning permission at the Committee in June 2012 for the siting of a 34.2 metre high turbine at Bolton Manor Farm near Little Urswick, which is approx. 2.3 kilometres to the south of the site at Colony Candles. An appeal was submitted and, in a recent decision, the Inspector concluded that the turbine would have an adverse impact on the sensitive small scale landscape and, together with the risk of harm to wildlife, was not considered to be outweighed by the environmental and economic benefits. In the appeal decision, considerable weight was afforded to the SPD and the Landscape Character Guidance, and the scale of turbine was not considered to be sympathetic to the landscape character type of Open Farmland and Pavements. The site under consideration in relation to the candle factory is located approximately 400 metres from this landscape character designation. As such, the appeal decision should be taken into consideration when determining this application.

Residential Impact The nearest residential property, outside the ownership of the applicant, is approximately 550 metres from the site. From the additional information that has been submitted, environmental health are satisfied that there will not be a detrimental impact on residential properties as a result of noise produced by the turbine provided that appropriate conditions are attached to any consent. Shadow flicker has been proven to occur only within ten rotor diameters of a turbine position. The turbine would have a maximum rotor diameter of 52 metres and as the nearest properties are approximately 550 metres from the turbine there should not be an adverse impact as a result of flicker. As it is quite close, this could be monitored by way of a condition. In the conclusion of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment submitted, it states that significant visual effects are predicted in respect of the visual amenity experienced by the closest dwellings within a 1km radius. However, given the distance from the turbine it is unlikely that it will overly dominate these properties to the extent that living conditions are significantly adversely affected.

Ecological Impact The site is approx 4.4 kilometres from Morecambe Bay which is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar site. It is approx 4.8 kilometres from the Duddon Estuary which is a SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site. The interchange of birds between the two SPAs is known to occur. As such, the impact on birds via disturbance, displacement and collision needs to be thoroughly considered. The RSPB is satisfied that the risk posed by the development to bird species sensitive to wind farm developments is likely to be low. An extended phase 1 Habitat Survey has been submitted with the application. Over 250 metres to the north of the site is an area of mature mixed broadleaved woodland bordering a railway line. To the west are two areas of plantation woodland and to the east is a small area of hawthorn dominated woodland located on a former spoil heap from past mining operations. The area surrounding the site comprises mainly improved grassland where grazing has taken place over a number of years, they are species poor and considered to be of limited ecological significance. The survey states that the field boundaries within the site, which consist primarily of semi-mature to mature hedgerows, have the potential to provide flight lines for foraging

Page 32 bat species which may be utilising the area around the site. There is limited roosting potential close to the site, however the mature woodland bordering the railway line may provide more suitable roosting opportunities. Bat activity surveys were carried out on the site and they found that the site and immediate surroundings are utilised by a small number of Pipistrelle bats during the evening and morning. As the hawthorns adjacent to the site of the turbine provide limited roosting opportunities for bats, it is suggested that they are removed to help reduce the risk of collision. However this should take place only at certain times of the year to avoid disturbing nesting birds. It is intended that new hedgerows are planted to continue connectivity between all important parts of the site in terms of bat foraging and flight lines. The survey recommends that if work does not commence within 12 months of the date of the survey, an additional survey is carried out to ensure that there are no significant changes to local bat populations.

Highway impacts A report relating to the access route for the turbine component has been submitted with the application. Although no response has been received from Cumbria Highways, the existing access from the highway is approx 310 metres south of the A590 Trunk Road. The Highways Agency has no objection to the application.

Public rights of way There is a public footpath located approx 51 metres from the site of the turbine and as such is within the fall over distance.

Heritage Assets Neither the County Council’s Historic Environment Officer or English Heritage have objected to the proposal. The National Trust considers that there will be some adverse visual impacts in terms of the views from Dalton Castle, and therefore upon its setting, but that these impacts on their own are not sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the renewable energy.

Economic Benefits The proposal has been driven by the high energy demand of the candle manufacturing plant, one of the reasons being that the wax has to be kept warm to be poured. The anticipated annual output of a turbine of this size and wind resource is a very close match to the annual average electricity power use of the factory. The option of providing the same power generation using a greater number of turbines was dismissed by the applicant because of the greater landscape impact that would result. The business would benefit from an immediate reduction in its energy costs and the turbine would provide relief from future increases in energy prices enabling the factory to remain competitive. A letter from the Managing Director states that the turbine would provide savings of around 25-30% per annum. It will also allow the business to market its products as being produced in a sustainable manner. The submission states that as the company is a major local employer, it is vital to the local economy that it remains viable.

Page 33 Conclusion Although it is recognised that the wind turbine will have wider environmental, economic and energy benefits, it is considered that in this case the harmful visual impact of the proposed turbine outweighs the potential benefits, and the application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below: - The proposed turbine would appear as an isolated and prominent vertical structure which would appear incongruous in its surroundings. As a consequence, the turbine will have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the landscape and would therefore be in conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policies R44 and E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and saved Policy C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the applicant’s agent prior to the submission of the application. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and, due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

Page 34 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 3 SL/2012/0776

LUPTON: BECKSIDE BARN, LUPTON, KIRKBY LONSDALE LA6 2QA

PROPOSAL: ALTERATIONS AND CONVERSION FROM WORKSHOP TO LIVE / WORK UNIT

Website Link: MR ANDREW KAY http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/fastweb/detail.asp?AltRef=SL/2012/ 0776

E357840 N483324 20/12/2012

SUMMARY: The conversion of an industrial workshop into a live / work unit must be carefully considered against planning policies designed to resist the creation of isolated new dwellings in the countryside unless special circumstances justify otherwise. Although there are benefits accruing from the proposals which are supported by the Parish Council, the scheme is not consistent with Policy CS7.4 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy nor with the objectives of saved Policy H12 of the Local Plan.

LUPTON PARISH COUNCIL: Unanimous agreement to approve the application, which the Parish Council states will bring employment, allow a rural business to grow and provide a tourist attraction to the Parish. Feel that the description of the building as an isolated field barn is inaccurate; there is a farmshop / tearoom, wood yard, equestrian centre, holiday complex, fishing reservoirs and three working farms within half a mile of the workshop. The workshop is in a hollow and borders a lane; it cannot be seen from any other road and only for 200 metres on the lane. Councillors are aware of the problems of theft and vandalism at the building which contains valuable machinery and equipment. Considers that the proposal would enhance the buildings, allow a rural business to grow, provide an area to display work, and make the premises more secure.

OTHER: 18 letters of support have been received, including one from the District / County Councillor for the area, making the following comments;

Page 35 • In more remote rural areas it is extremely useful to have someone living near the workshop where valuable equipment is stored and is at risk of theft. • The applicant is an internationally respected metal sculptor and craftsman. The community and the region would benefit from allowing this modest secluded non-intrusive development which would allow a maker with traditional skills to live and work in his community. • The applicant has developed from a craftsman into a creative artist selling internationally. He needs to be with his work to develop his ideas so that he can continue to further this inventive and commercially viable work. • It would be a tragic loss if this respected craftsperson would be forced to consider relocating from the region due to inability to provide sustainable home / workshop. Policies should support local crafts persons. • For 20 years Mr Kay has been part of the local rural economy, developing his enterprise into a well-managed, highly regarded and award winning business. He is a local man and lived in the area for many years. The barn is no longer suitable for agriculture, and is ideal for conversion to a workshop / dwelling. • The plan is sympathetic to the building; adding living accommodation would consolidate the business. The proposals would give security and guarantee the preservation of this noteworthy building and enrich the viability of the locality. • As a highly regarded member of the community, it is sensible for the applicant to live on site. His development of a disused barn is a good example of a sustainable approach to rural business. He is an admired local employer. Living on site will mean that he reduces his carbon footprint. • To integrate a sympathetic accommodation scheme within the existing historical building would enhance and preserve a unique enterprise within the locality. • An ideal project that could possibly generate local employment and promote a sustainable rural business for years to come. • Directly and indirectly his business brings much needed income into the locality, through his company his is a local employer and supports training in metalwork by taking apprentices. By his involvement in public facing activities he brings visitors and tourists to the Lune Valley. His business and workshop represents a model of a good sustainable and low impact business. It will secure a historic building that may otherwise fall into disuse and disrepair. • The proposals comply with all relevant criteria outlined in Policy CS7.4 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy, which supports and encourages this type of rural enterprise. • The barn is not particularly isolated; there are many businesses and dwellings around even on the same lane. It seems that previous reasons to refuse permission for conversion of the barn into a live / work unit hinge on the interpretation of what is an “isolated barn” and what is a “very isolated barn”. • It is unfair that if there is a dwelling with outbuildings, planning permission for change of use is more easily granted than for one which is being worked in. The applicant contributes in many ways to the rural local community.

Page 36 • The proposals would not change the “look” of the countryside, the barn would look hardly any different and the countryside around unaltered. • This is a manufacturing based business which brings a welcome diversity of activity and employment that strengthens the local community beyond the more common “knowledge-based”, businesses. The promotion of rural enterprise is to be encouraged as it is a major source of income in rural areas • Living on site the owner will contribute socially to the community. The building will be better cared for, and allowing the owner to live on site will “free up” his own dwelling. • There will be no significant increase in travel. • Practical requirements for the barn include the need for office space to meet clients and develop new designs and ideas, and the need to improve facilities. • Refusal would be inconsistent with the stated objectives of the Economic development team which promotes enterprise and employment / training opportunities to help create a vibrant economy in South Lakeland. • What better way to utilise an otherwise redundant barn with local accommodation for a local employer running a local business. • Beckside Barn is hidden from view, and any alterations would not harm the landscape. • As the work involves noisy equipment, the barn is more suitable for his work than if it was closer to a village, as no one would be disturbed. Three of the letters are from residents in Lupton Parish.

CCC HIGHWAYS: To be reported (no objections to previous scheme).

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: An application to convert the building into a dwelling and associated B1 use (business and light industrial) was dismissed on appeal in 1999, the scheme being contrary to policies designed to protect the character and appearance of the landscape. A key factor was the isolated position of the building in a landscape devoid of other built development. In 2004, planning permission was granted for the use of the building as a workshop by the current applicant. Conditions were attached to the permission to restrict permitted changes of use to classes B1 or B8 without the consent of the Local Planning Authority, and in order to control external alterations to the building and hardstandings within the curtilage. Although the building has been used since then, it remains largely unaltered, and the foul drainage system approved has not been installed. A separate garage building granted planning permission in 2006 has not been constructed. A further application submitted in 2008 to change the building into a live / work unit was refused for the following reasons:

Page 37 • The building is isolated in the open countryside and is not part of a group containing a dwellinghouse. As a consequence, the proposed conversion is not compatible with the aims and objectives of Policy H12 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. • The residential conversion of this building would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside. Consideration of this current application was deferred at last month’s meeting to enable Members to visit the site.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The application relates to a former field barn now used as a workshop located at the northwestern end of Beck Lane, a minor lane running southwest from the B6254 north of Kirkby Lonsdale. The site consists of a traditional stone-built barn with a mainly slated roof and includes a small parcel of land surrounding the building enclosed by a stone wall and intermittent hedging. Barkin Beck runs along the western boundary of the site. The site occupies a position isolated from other buildings in a wholly rural locality. It is surrounded by an extensive area of open hilly grazing land containing only a scattering of trees; there are no other buildings in the vicinity. The applicant specialises in contemporary abstract and figurative sculpture, and the workshop has an industrial use. The foul drainage system approved as part of the conversion into a workshop has not been installed, and there are some elements of re-building work to be undertaken as outlined in the structural survey submitted with that application. The proposed development will comprise a workshop and office together with a three bedroomed dwelling. Physical alterations to the building include the alteration of existing external openings to accommodate timber window frames and doors, and an external stone staircase to access the first floor studio / office mezzanine created in the main barn. The applicant’s agent suggests that the workshop and associated office could revert to B1 use only should the applicant vacate either the residential accommodation or the workshop. Given the nature of the works necessary to bring the building up to a habitable standard, a bat survey has been undertaken.

POLICY ISSUES:

National Planning Policy Framework Part 3 Supporting a prosperous rural economy supports the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through the conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings. Part 6 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes states that local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as: • the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or

Page 38 • where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or • where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or • the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 The Development Strategy for the District outside the National Parks states that new residential development will only be permitted in the open countryside where it has an essential requirement for a rural location, is needed to sustain existing businesses or provides for exceptional needs for affordable housing. Policy CS6.4 Rural Exception Policy states that proposals for housing development which are located outside the settlement boundaries in the Service Centres, or where they do not constitute infilling or rounding off in the smaller villages and hamlets, will only be considered where they provide 100% affordable housing. Policy CS7.4 Rural Economy encourages the diversification of the rural economy. Planning permission for the conversion of rural buildings to employment generating uses with ancillary living accommodation will be granted provided the proposal accords with the following criteria: • is well related to the existing road network with direct access off a public road, and the proposals will not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety; • not be situated in very isolated positions, relative to local services such as shops, schools etc; • ideally be situated close to public transport routes; • is of a scale and type appropriate to the locality and would not adversely alter the appearance or character of the surrounding area; • is of a good standard of design and satisfactorily blends into the locality in terms of design, landscaping and materials; • concerns a building which is of some architectural merit in its own right, is important to the character of the locality, and is structurally sound and capable of the proposed re-use without major re-building; • shows a domestic curtilage which is minimal, unobtrusive and capable of being screened; • relates to an employment use which is designed so that it can be used independently of the dwelling space (so that employment potential is not restricted only to occupants of the dwelling space); and • demonstrates that the building is of sufficient size to accommodate a genuine business use and that any residential accommodation will be ancillary to that use. Proposals for substantial residential accommodation with a token area given over to business use will be considered to be residential development and will therefore fall outside the scope of this policy.

Page 39 Policy CS8.2 Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character seeks to protect, conserve and enhance South Lakeland’s highly valued landscape character. Policy CS8.10 Design requires that the siting, design, scale and materials of all development proposals should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape. Policy CS10.2 Traffic Impact of new development outlines the criteria against which development proposals will be assessed in terms of highway safety, the need to travel and to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport appropriate to its particular location.

South Lakeland Local Plan Saved Policy H12 Conversion of buildings outside development boundaries permits the conversion of buildings to residential use subject to a number of criteria including design, services, being part of a building group, the building is not in demand for rural employment, and the building not being isolated.

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

NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT ORDER: A Neighbourhood Development Order (NDO) has been submitted by the applicant’s planning consultant for the conversion of Beckside Barn into a live / work unit; ie, the same development as that proposed by the planning application. Communities can use neighbourhood planning, introduced by the Localism Act, to permit the development they want to see, without the need for planning applications. These are known as Neighbourhood Development Orders and the process can be viewed as an alternative consenting regime to that of planning applications. NDOs do not take effect unless there is a majority of support in a referendum of the neighbourhood. NDOs also have to meet a number of conditions before they can be put to a community referendum and legally come into force. These conditions are to ensure plans are legally compliant and take account of wider policy considerations. The conditions are: • that the Order must have regard to national planning policy; • that the Order must be in general conformity with strategic policies in the development plan for the local area (ie, such as the Core Strategy); and • that the Order must be compatible with EU obligations and human rights requirements. An independent qualified person checks that an NDO appropriately meets the conditions before it can be voted on in a local referendum. This is to make sure that

Page 40 referendums only take place when proposals are workable and meet the conditions before it can be voted on. Proposed Orders need to gain the approval of a majority of voters in the neighbourhood to come into force. If proposals pass the referendum, the local planning authority is under a legal duty to bring them into force. The applicant’s consultant wishes to draw the Committee’s attention to the NDO submission in respect of Beckside Barn and has pointed out that it is a material consideration in the determination of the planning application. It is, of course, for Members to decide what weight they choose to give this matter.

ASSESSMENT: The main issue to consider is whether the proposals are compatible with Policy CS7.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy, Rural Economy , and the criteria which relate to the isolated nature of the building, and the ancillary nature of the accommodation. If the scheme fails to accord with this policy, then the proposals would need to be considered against other policies concerning residential development in the open countryside. Such policies seek to focus rural housing development in villages and hamlets rather than isolated locations in the open countryside. The proposals are not however for dwelling as such, but to convert the existing workshop building into a work unit with residential accommodation. There are benefits to the scheme. The proposals would enable the applicant to utilise the site to better effect, with the enhanced security that the residential accommodation would offer, enabling sculptures and equipment to be stored outside at times. This arrangement would also be more convenient for the applicant, reducing the number of vehicle movements to the site; the applicant currently moves between the site and his home near Kirkby Lonsdale where he undertakes design work. It is argued by supporters of the scheme and the Parish Council that approval of the proposals would enable the business to expand, and represents a model of sustainable rural development. The scheme would also secure the long term future of this attractive rural building. The contribution that the applicant makes to the local community is outlined in the letters of support, and the Parish Council also states that it does not consider the building to be “isolated” as such, listing a number of businesses nearby. Concerns have also been raised that a failure to approve the application may result in the use of the building being abandoned. Nevertheless, as the Parish Council acknowledges and as several commentators have pointed out, the barn “ cannot be seen from any other road and only for 200 metres on the lane ”. There are no other buildings in the locality, and it is one of the few places in this part of the district where you can see no other buildings from the site. In this regard, the scheme fails to accord with Policy CS7.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy. Beckside Barn stands alone in a location remote from any other built development. In addition, it would not comply with the requirement of saved Local Plan Policy H12 that the building should be part of a group containing a dwelling. The policy also makes reference to the closeness of local services such as schools and shops, but as the applicant’s agent points out, Kitridding Farm shop is within walking distance of the site. Furthermore, the applicant’s agent queries why, if the site is so isolated, was it considered suitable for use as a workshop.

Page 41 The noisy nature of the work undertaken at the premises has meant that the business is more well-suited to this isolated position, although this has also made it vulnerable to burglary, an issue common to many rural businesses. Justification on security grounds alone would be insufficient reason to grant planning permission for residential accommodation which does not accord with the adopted policy. The scheme also conflicts with Policy CS7.4 in terms of the extent of the residential accommodation proposed. The policy states that any residential accommodation will be ancillary to the business use, yet the proposals indicate that the residential / business split is more equally divided. Although the floorspace for business use is not a token area, the three bedroomed accommodation proposed is significant. Furthermore the creation of the office mezzanine in the main barn area reduces the full height barn area available for the workshop use. The current B2 use would naturally preclude the occupation of the residential accommodation by anyone other than the applicant, although the policy suggests that the employment use should be designed so that the dwelling space / business space could be used independently. Nevertheless, this scheme relates to an existing B2 use within the building, and it is considered that this is not a barrier to redevelopment of the site subject to appropriate conditions. Although the proposed conversion works have been designed to keep external changes to the building to a minimum, when considered in combination with the paraphernalia associated with full time residential occupancy, the visual appearance of the site would become very much more domestic, to the detriment of the character of this rural area and the surrounding high quality landscape. The building stands in a very isolated position and the landscape here is totally unspoilt in the sense that it contains nothing to detract from its natural qualities. In this context, the building is entirely appropriate and has become assimilated into the landscape. In contrast, the application proposal would result in a building of a domestic appearance which would be incongruous in this setting. The converted building and its garden would be set apart from the undeveloped surroundings. There are some arguments in favour of the proposal but, in this instance, they do not outweigh policy considerations to justify the granting of planning permission. The remote location within a landscape which is otherwise devoid of built development mitigates strongly against the proposed development. Were planning permission to be granted, it would make it progressively more difficult for the Committee to resist similar schemes for the residential conversion of isolated rural buildings, adding cumulatively to the harm thus caused to the District’s landscape.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the following reasons -

Page 42 (1) The building occupies a remote and isolated position in the open countryside. The conversion of a significant element of the building into residential accommodation in this remote locality is not compatible with the aims and objectives of Policy CS7.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy H12 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

(2) The conversion and residential occupation of the building would alter the character and appearance of the site, to the detriment of the visual appearance of the surrounding high quality rural landscape.

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and pro-actively in determining this application by clearly identifying in pre-application discussions the policy issues. However, the policy principles are so fundamental in relation to the proposal that it is not possible to negotiate a way forward to overcome the clearly expressed reason of refusal.

Page 43 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 44 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 4 SL/2012/0821 (FPA) and SL/2012/0822 (CAC) KENDAL: 59 CAPTAIN FRENCH LANE, KENDAL LA9 4HP

PROPOSAL: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND ERECTION OF THREE REPLACEMENT DWELLINGS Website Link: MRS C WOODWARD http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/fastweb/detail.asp?AltRef=SL/2012 /0821

E351300 N492298 20/12/2012

SUMMARY: A Planning Committee site visit will have assisted assessment of whether previous concerns over the height and bulk of the proposed re-development have been overcome.

KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL: Refuse: over-intensive development on modest site.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: None received.

OTHER: Seven objections have been received. All refer to potential problems with the increase in traffic and parking. All also refer to the reduction in light and privacy or reduction in the open character of the area. Four consider the development out of character with the conservation area. Three objectors mention that they consider this scheme little different from the previous scheme that was refused permission.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: After a Planning Committee site visit planning permission was refused at the March 2012 Meeting for a terrace of three dwellings on this site. This was because it was considered that the proposed height and bulk would be over-powering both in the

Page 45 impact on the amenity of adjoining dwellings and on the special character of the Conservation Area.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is within the Kendal Conservation Area bordering an historic narrow lane. On the southern side of the lane long terraces of stone dwellings remain. On the northern side such properties exist to the east of the site. Old maps show that there used to be terraced properties on the application site but it is now occupied by a 1960’s style of bungalow with an under-storey garage. To the north, on the higher land to the rear, is a cul de sac of houses of a similar era and further such houses front the Lane to the west of the site. It is proposed to replace the bungalow with three, two-bedroomed houses on the same general footprint. On the elevation to the Lane an under-storey garage would be retained at the western, lower end of the site with two floors of accommodation above this. The upper floor on the elevation to Captain French Lane would be within the roof space with each dwelling having one small, pitched-roofed dormer window. The rear elevation would be two storey. The proposed floor- to-ridge height has been reduced compared to the earlier scheme. This application, as originally submitted, proposed a ridge line 1.6 metres higher than the ridge of the existing bungalow. A further amendment has reduced this by 300 mm to 1.3 metres. The agent has been asked for levels in comparison with adjoining developments. A slate roof is proposed. The front elevation to Captain French Lane would be stone- faced with render on the remaining walls. In addition to the under-garage and the parking space in front of it two parking spaces are shown accessed off the rear cul de sac.

POLICY ISSUES: There is a statutory duty to preserve and enhance the special architectural and historic character of Conservation Areas. Saved Policy C16 of the South Lakeland Local Plan seeks to preserve and enhance the special architectural and historic character of Conservation Areas. Policy CS8.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy seeks to safeguard and, where possible enhance heritage assets including Conservation Areas. The National Planning Policy Framework seeks to preserve heritage assets in an appropriate manner. Policy CS1.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy seeks to concentrate development in Kendal and Ulverston and Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy seeks significant residential development with priority to previously developed sites in the urban area. Neighbourliness can be a material planning consideration.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to

Page 46 respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The principle of residential development is acceptable as the current bungalow detracts from the historic and architectural character of the Conservation Area. The refusal of the previous application for the site did not include any objection in terms of traffic generation and parking. The acceptability of the proposal therefore depends on the judgement as to whether this revised submission has overcome the previous refusal based on the impact of the height and bulk of the new development. A site visit will have assisted in making this judgement but in the context of adjoining high buildings and the rising land to the rear an increase in ridge height of 1.3 metre compared to the existing bungalow ridge is considered acceptable both in terms of neighbourliness and the impact on the Conservation Area.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT planning permission SL/2012/0821 subject to conditions relating to: (1) Standard time limit. (2) Amended Plans. (3) Levels. (4) External materials. (5) Provision and retention of parking spaces. (6) Implementation of access improvements. (7) Retention of southern boundary wall.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION: This revised scheme overcomes previous objections to the impact of the height and bulk of development and would achieve a development which preserved and enhanced the special architectural and historic character of this part of Kendal Conservation Area in accordance with saved Policy C16 of the South Lakeland Local Plan, Policy CS8.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework and a development that was not unneighbourly in respect to the amenity of adjoining dwellings. There are no other material planning considerations that indicate that planning permission should not be granted.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT Conservation Area Consent SL/2012/0822 subject to conditions relating to: (1) Standard time limit. (2) Demolition not to take place until a contract has been entered for the redevelopment of the site.

Page 47 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 48 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 5 SL/2012/0837

EGTON WITH NEWLAND: LAND TO THE WEST OF ARRAD FOOT, ULVERSTON LA12 7SW

PROPOSAL: SITING OF SINGLE WIND TURBINE (34.2M TO BLADE TIP)

MR DANNY Website Link: SATTERTHWAITE http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/fastweb/detail.asp?AltRef=SL/2012/ 0837

E329290 N481737 20/12/2012

SUMMARY: Proposed siting of a 34.2 metre high wind turbine on elevated agricultural land. The application raises concerns relating to visual impact upon the surrounding landscape.

EGTON WITH NEWLAND, MANSRIGGS AND OSMOTHERLEY PARISH COUNCIL: The Parish Council object to this application on the grounds of the impact on the visual amenity and noise level of the turbine for neighbouring properties.

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: To be reported.

NATURAL ENGLAND: From the information provided, it does not appear to fall within the scope of the consultations that Natural England would routinely comment on. However, we would expect the LPA to assess and consider the possible impacts resulting from this proposal on protected species, local wildlife sites and opportunities to incorporate biodiversity enhancements. If the LPA is aware of any protected species, the authority should request survey information before determining the application.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: No objection.

Page 49 CABLE & WIRELESS WORLDWIDE: No objection.

ARQIVA (TELEVISION TRANSMISSION): No objection.

NATS: No objection.

VODAFONE: No objection.

OTHER: A total of 9 letters of objection have been received from local residents. The main concerns are as follows: • Visual impact. The rural charm of South Lakeland is the natural asset which attracts thousands of visitors to this area and must be protected. The proposal will deter visitors from coming to this area which would be a real threat to the local economy. This area is currently unspoilt by such structures and should remain so. • Current Government policy is tending towards having wind turbines at sea and not on shore, blighting the landscape. • There is a concerning trend of these small turbine companies offering a “scatter gun” approach in their attempts to get these machines onto the grid. These type of machines are noisy and inefficient compared to some of the larger direct driven turbines and are far more suitable and appropriate for locating adjacent to farms or commercial properties. • A current Bill before Parliament recommends that wind turbines of this height should be at least 1000m from the nearest residential properties. Several properties are closer than this distance, but not that of the applicants. • The noise levels arising that have been provided are generic and do not take into account the topography of the area. There is a serious concern from immediate residents about the constant noise levels arising from the turbine, especially at night which could affect sleep. • The turbine will require a significant concrete foundation, together with tracks leading to the site. These would cause irreparable damage to the local eco- system. There are migrating birds that fly over this area en-route of Morecambe Bay and they could be killed or injured by the rotating blades. • Access to the site is by very narrow lanes and steep hills and is inappropriate for large construction traffic which is likely to damage these routes. • Approval of the proposal could lead to further applications.

Page 50 One letter of support has been received from a local resident who states that wind power is essential for the future as it genuinely provides energy. Having lived one km from the Kirkby Moor wind farm, there has been no adverse impacts on the ecology of the area, noise impact or house prices. There seems to be more holiday cottages now than before the wind farm appeared.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is located in a relatively isolated elevated area of agricultural land, approximately 1 km to the south east of Broughton Beck, and 1.6 km to the north west of Arrad Foot where the applicants farm is based. The nearest residential properties are located some 290m to the west of the site. It is proposed to position the turbine close to the summit of a promontory known as Ben Crag, at an elevation of approximately 140 m. The site is part of an area of grazing land at the southern end of the applicants land holding. The 50 kW turbine would be a three bladed structure measuring 23.6 metres to the base of the hub and 34.2 metres to the tip of the blades, which would be 9.6 metres in diameter. The base of the turbine would be 1.8 metres in diameter and comprised of a galvanised steel tower with white blades and hub. The electricity generated would be connected directly to the grid to the north of the site. Access to the site for the construction phase would be via the minor public highway to the east, across the adjacent field. It will not be necessary to construct a hardcore track as temporary reinforcing cover sheets would be used for vehicular access. The turbine would be delivered in parts and would not necessitate unduly large vehicles during the construction phase. The submitted design and access statement states that the applicant wishes to generate electricity to create an additional income stream and the whole thrust of this application is based on climate change mitigation. The submitted noise report states that the noise generated from the turbine will not be a nuisance to the nearest residential property. This was based on generic noise data derived from an example of a wind turbine in Devon. A further site specific noise report has been requested. The submitted ecology statement concludes that there are no statutory designations on or adjacent to the site and the National Park boundary is located 2.2km to the east. It states that there is limited tree cover adjacent to the site and the proposal will not result in any significant impacts on possible bat populations as it is located outside the 50 m buffer zone recommended by Natural England. Given the size and location of the turbine, it also concludes that the risk of bird collision would be minimal.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Section 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change , states that planning plays a key role in supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. When determining applications, LPAs should approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Section 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment , states that the planning system should seek to protect and enhance valued landscapes and to

Page 51 minimise impacts upon biodiversity.

Regional Policy Policy EM17 specifically promotes renewable energy sources and states that significant weight should be given to the wider environmental, community and economic benefits of renewable energy schemes. It lists wide-ranging criteria which should be taken into account when assessing renewable energy proposals, including the effects on local amenity, visual impact and nature conservation. The visual impact of such schemes is a matter to be taken into account but should not be used to rule out or place constraints on the development of all, or specific types of, renewable energy technologies. Policy DP7 promotes the protection and enhancement of environmental quality, including green infrastructure, but at the same time respecting the character and distinctiveness of landscapes and the maintenance and enhancement of the tranquillity of the open countryside.

Structure Plan Policy Saved Structure Plan Policy R44 states that outside the Lake District National Park and the AONB proposals for renewable energy will be favourably considered if : (1) there is no significant adverse effect on the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage of the area either individually or cumulatively through their relationship with other utility infrastructure; (2) there is no significant adverse effect on local amenity, the local economy, highways or telecommunications; (3) the proposal takes all practicable measures to reduce any adverse impact on the landscape, environment, nature conservation, historical and local community interests. In considering applications for planning permission in relation to the above criteria, and other policies in the Structure Plan, the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight. Saved Structure Plan Policy E37 requires development to be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types, Policy E37 requires proposals to be assessed in relation to: (1) locally distinctive natural or built features; (2) visual intrusion or impact; (3) scale in relation to the landscape features; (4) the character of the built environment; (5) public access and community value of the landscape; (6) historic patterns and attributes; (7) biodiversity features, ecological networks and semi-natural habitats; and (8) openess, remoteness and tranquillity.

Page 52 South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS 7.7 supports in principle appropriately located renewable energy schemes. It is acknowledged that there are some energy sources which need to be remote from residential areas and other sensitive land uses, and projects should avoid any harmful impact upon the historic environment. Policy CS 8.2 states that development proposals should be informed by and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscapes identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect and conserve the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area.

Local Plan Policy Saved Policy C26 of the Local Plan covers wind energy proposals and states that their acceptability will be judged according to whether a number of defined criteria can be satisfied. One of the criteria is that the proposal’s energy contribution and other benefits outweigh any significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape, the amenity of residential properties, nature conservation, archaeological or geographical interests.

OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit document was prepared by Cumbria County Council in conjunction with the district authorities in March 2011. The application site lies within the landscape character type of “Foothills” which comprises of, improved pasture with open moorland and rocky outcrops, strong patterns of stone walls and hedgerows and small belts of trees. The guidance recommends that development in these areas should be carefully controlled to protect uncluttered skylines and key views to and from the area from large scale wind turbines. The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Guidance which was adopted in 2007 provides guidance for the consideration of wind energy developments. Part 2 of the guidelines provides specific guidance on landscape and visual issues and identifies the potential capacity of various landscape types throughout the county to accommodate different scales of wind farms. The landscape type for this location the “Upland Fringes” has low / moderate capacity to accommodate wind turbines, because of its sensitive nature. The cumulative impact of separate turbine developments within a locality is also a material planning consideration.

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

Page 53 ASSESSMENT: The main issue in this case is considered to be the visual impact of the proposed turbine on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural landscape. The undulating and unspoilt open nature of the landscape in this area is such that a turbine of this scale would appear as an isolated and extremely prominent vertical structure. The turbine would be sited close to the highest point of Ben Crag and as such it would appear on the skyline. It would be highly visible from the surrounding area, particularly when viewed from the minor road immediately to the east and south and from the B5281 and Broughton Beck to the west and north. This substantial structure would loom above these vantage points and there are no trees, landforms, buildings or other structures in the immediate vicinity of the site that would serve to act as a foil for the turbine which might reduce its prominence. With regard to the impact of the proposal upon residential amenity, the nearest residential properties are located some 290 metres to the west of the site. In view of the concerns that have been raised about the potential noise impact arising from the turbine, the applicants have been asked to provide a site specific noise report to enable an assessment of this issue to be undertaken. In conclusion, although it is recognised that the wind turbines will have wider environmental, economic and energy benefits, it is considered that in this case the harmful visual impact of the proposed turbine in particular, outweighs the potential benefits in this particular case and the application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below - The proposed turbine would appear as an isolated and prominent vertical structure which would appear incongruous in its surroundings. As a consequence, the turbine will have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the landscape and would thus be in conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policies R44 and E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and saved Policy C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

Page 54 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 6 SL/2012/0870

KENDAL: 30 OAK TREE ROAD, KENDAL LA9 6AN

PROPOSAL: CONSERVATORY AND CAR PORT

MR and MRS J Website Link: YARDLEY http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/fastweb/detail.asp?AltRef=SL/2012/ 0870

E353052.7 N492616.3 20/12/2012

SUMMARY: The proposed conservatory would be in a prominent position between the side of the bungalow and Rowan Tree Crescent and would adversely affect the appearance of the street scene.

KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL: Approve.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site consists of a detached bungalow on the corner of Oak Tree Road and Rowan Tree Crescent. The bungalow has a large gable which fronts onto Oak Tree Road with the main architectural features, including a small projecting gable facing towards Rowan Tree Crescent. The estate contains a mixture of modern bungalows and houses which are set back about 5 to 6 metres from the pavement behind front gardens. The application site is typical of the bungalows on the estate. It is proposed to erect a conservatory between the side elevation and Rowan Tree Crescent and a car park attached to the side of the garage at the rear.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework states that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to improve the character and quality of an area.

Page 55

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS8.10 of the Core Strategy requires that all development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the townscape and where appropriate, should be in keeping with the local vernacular.

Local Plan Policy Saved Policy S2 of the Local Plan seek to ensure that development is of an appropriate design.

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

ASSESSMENT: The application is being reported to the Planning Committee on the request of a Councillor. Members will also have visited the site. The main issue relates to the design of the proposed conservatory and its impact upon the street scene. The side of the house facing toward Rowan Tree Crescent is staggered with a small gable protruding forward of the main elevation. While not of significant architectural merit the bungalow is typical of the estate and appears harmonious on this corner plot. The proposed conservatory is of a utilitarian hipped roof and glass design seen in many rear gardens. In this case, the conservatory would extend 3.6 metres forward of the main elevation and 2.44 metres forward of the gable. It would be located in a prominent position on Rowan Tree Crescent and would harm the appearance of the bungalow and the street scene. The proposed car port is appropriate in terms of the design and position at the rear. Neither the conservatory or car port would harm the privacy or amenity of neighbouring properties.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below - The proposed conservatory, by reason of the utilitarian design, the prominent position forward of the bungalow and the close proximity of the highway, would present an intrusive feature which would detract from the appearance of the street scene. The proposed conservatory is therefore contrary to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework which seek to promote good design, Policy CS8.10 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Page 56

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

Page 57 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 58 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 7 SL/2012/0920

LOWER ALLITHWAITE: WELLS HOUSE FARM, CARTMEL, GRANGE over SANDS LA11 6PN

PROPOSAL: RE-USE PART OF CAMPSITE FOR TEN GLAMPING PODS; RELOCATION OF FIVE HOLIDAY CARAVANS FROM Website Link: ADJACENT SITE http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/fastweb/detail.asp?AltRef=SL/20 (VARIATION OF 12/0920 COND. 2 AND 3 5/97/2773) E337853 N478566 20/12/2012 MR A CRETNEY

SUMMARY: It is proposed to replace tent camping with static caravans and glamping pods. Provided that additional landscaping is carried out, the scheme has the potential to improve the visual impact on the landscape and the conservation area.

LOWER ALLITHWAITE PARISH COUNCIL: Comments to be received by 13 December 2012.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS: To be reported.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: To be reported.

UNTITED UTILITIES: The upstream of the sewerage network system is currently overloaded and creates flooding issues in the area. Any additional surface water connections to the network would exasperate the flooding event conditions. United Utilities have no objection to the proposal provided the surface water is drained on a separate system and conditions requiring details of the drainage of both foul and surface water are submitted, approved and maintained.

Page 59 OTHER: Letters of support have been received from three nearby residents. The letters state that the camping field has caused noise nuisance, camp fires and other disturbance for many years. It is anticipated that the reduced number of caravans will create a quieter use.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: The static caravan site has been in existence since before the early 1960’s. Planning permission was granted for use of the field subject to this application as a camping site in 1998, a subsequent increase in the numbers of tents permitted and an increase in the size of the camping site in 2005. The permissions in 1998 and 2005 restricted the use of the site to tents.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: The site is located to the south of the static caravan site at Wells House Farm, Cartmel. The static caravan park has little natural screening and is highly visible from the racecourse in the west. The site subject to this application has a greater degree of screening from the wider area. The field is screened from the north by the static caravan site, the land rises then falls to the east and is also screened from this direction by residential properties. The land also rises to the south screening the site from the wider landscape. A river runs along the western edge of the static caravan site with little screening along the edge. The application site is set approximately 45 metres back from the river and is screened by trees along the river’s edge and hedging along the western edge of the site. The application seeks planning permission to site five static caravans on the western lower half of the field and 10 camping pods in the eastern half of the field.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Section 3 of the NPPF supports sustainable tourism including the expansion of facilities in appropriate locations. The NPPF seeks to ensure that development is appropriate within the landscape and provides guidance for determining applications within areas at risk of flooding.

The North West Regional Spatial Strategy Within rural areas, Policy RDF2 seeks to focus development upon Key Service Centres. In the remoter rural areas, flexible solutions should be used to meet particular development needs to achieve a more diverse economic base. The accompanying text states that proposals which seek to diversify and expand rural business in areas that are lagging economically should be regarded positively as long as they demonstrate the potential to help build sustainable communities and are sensitive to the local environment. Policy W6 states that plans, strategies, proposals and schemes should seek to deliver improved economic growth and quality of life through sustainable tourism

Page 60 activity. Policy W7 states that plans and strategies should ensure high quality, environmentally sensitive attractions which improve the tourism offer.

The Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Policy E37 seeks to ensure that development is appropriate to the distinctive landscape.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS1.1 sets out a range of sustainable development principles. It states that most new development should be directed to service centres. It notes that the economy needs to grow in a sustainable way and states that support for tourism, needs to be balanced with protecting and enhancing the attractiveness of the area. Policy CS4 refers specifically to the Cartmel Peninsula. The policy states that the Council will aim to maintain and enhance the strength of tourism across the area. The policy together with Policy CS8.2 also seeks to protect and enhance the diverse character and natural environment. Policy CS7.6 supports the enhancement and expansion of tourist attractions and tourism infrastructure. Development that improves high value-added tourism, such as high quality development in sport and recreation, will be particularly encouraged. Particular emphasis is placed on improving the quality of existing visitor accommodation and in particular the need to broaden the range of accommodation provided. Policy CS8.4 requires that development proposals should protect, enhance and restore the biodiversity and geological value of land and buildings. Policy CS8.6 states that the Core Strategy supports safeguarding and, where possible, enhancing historic environment assets. Policy CS8.8 seeks to ensure that development is located in areas at the least risk of flooding. Development should not adversely affect capacity to store flood water and measure to manage flood risk.

Local Plan Policy Saved Policy T6 allows for new caravan sites or small scale extensions to existing sites provided that there is no adverse impact on the landscape, the built environment, wildlife or archaeological features and the capacity of the road system is adequate. Saved Policy T7 relates to the extension of caravan opening seasons. It states that extension will be allowed subject to the following: • the site is closed for a minimum period of six weeks over the winter period; • there will be no detrimental impact to landscape or nature conservation interest; and • there will be no adverse impact on Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves or the Arnside / Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Page 61 Saved Policy C16 states that development in a conservation area will be considered in relation to the effect on the character and appearance of the area. Development will not be permitted unless the scale, siting and design are in keeping with the area or where the proposal would result in the loss of open spaces which make a valuable contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Saved Policy S3 seeks high quality landscaping.

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

ASSESSMENT: The main issues relate to the impact the installation of static caravans and glamping pods will have upon the appearance of the site, the surrounding landscape and the conservation area. The field currently has planning permission for use as a camping field for tents only and tends to be used just during the spring and summer months. When in use the bright coloured tents are clearly visible through the trees from the racecourse car park across the river. During the remaining months the field is not in use and it appears part of the open countryside. The proposed caravans and glamping pods would be in place all year round and would have a more permanent impact on the landscape. The static caravans shown on the plan are of the smaller single unit type and glamping pods are of a similar size to small touring caravans. Both types of structure would be finished with timber and have dark coloured roofs. The colours and materials would be less intrusive within the landscape than the tents during the summer months. The submitted scheme includes little in the way of landscaping but this is an opportunity to increase the density and height of hedge and trees planting along the western boundary and to add further tree planting within the site. Such planting would both improve screening and enhance biodiversity. The proposals will reduce the number of site users and therefore will not adversely affect traffic generation. Holiday caravans are appropriate within Flood Zone 2 areas subject to a specific warning and evacuation plan. The response form the Environment Agency with regard to flood storage will be reported at the meeting. The application seeks use as holiday accommodation all year round, contrary to saved Policy T7 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. However, it has been acknowledged that the operation of holiday caravan parks all year round benefits the local economy and it has been agreed to allow all year round occupancy on other parks in the area. There is adequate justification for a decision contrary to the requirements of saved Policy T7 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Subject to adjustment of the siting of the caravans to allow additional landscaping along the western edge and the addition of trees within the site, the proposal will enhance the appearance during the summer months. The use of dark materials and

Page 62 landscaping will ensure that over the winter months the proposal has a neutral visual impact. The proposal will therefore be acceptable in terms of the impact on the landscape and the conservation area.

RECOMMENDATION: That delegated authority be issued to GRANT planning permission subject to a satisfactory conclusion to negotiations over the position of the caravans, additional landscaping, no adverse comment from the Environment Agency and subject to conditions relating to the following: (1) Standard time limit. (2) Development in accordance with the amended plans. (3) Submission, approval and implementation of a flood evacuation scheme. (4) Restriction of use of site for five static caravans and ten glamping pods. (5) Submission, approval, implementation and retention of maximum floor and ridge heights. (8) Submission, approval, implementation and retention of a soft landscaping scheme. (9) Use of dark paint / stain and roof materials on the caravans. (10) No lighting other and in accordance with a scheme to be submitted, approved, implemented and thereafter retained. (11) Submission, approval and implementation of a surface water drainage scheme. (12) Restriction of occupation to holiday accommodation. (13) Restriction on the provision of other structures and overhead lines.

Page 63 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 64 Item No.7

PART I

South Lakeland District Council

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Meeting Date: 20 December 2012 Report Author: Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer Portfolio: Cllr Jonathan Brook Report from: David Sykes - Director (People and Places) Wards affected: All Key Decision: Not applicable Forward Plan: Not applicable

A REPORT ON MONTHLY ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY BETWEEN 1 OCTOBER TO 31 OCTOBER 2012 INCORPORATING QUARTERLY REPORT

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 To inform Members about enforcement activity between 1 Oct and 31 Oct 2012. This report aims to provide a brief and informative insight into current enforcement cases, action taken and on-going investigations, and seeking authority to take enforcement action.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that Members:- 1) Note the contents of appendices 1 and 2; 2) Authorise all necessary enforcement action to remedy the two breaches of planning control identified in the report; and 3) Provide comments and instructions at the meeting to refine the priorities identified by officers if considered necessary.

3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 In addition to the monthly report on specific enforcement cases, Members receive quarterly reports providing a breakdown of enforcement cases within each of the individual parishes across the District.

Page 65 3.2 Enforcement Activity : October 2012 Cases on hand at 1 October 2012 400

New cases 24

Total cases closed 11

Cases on hand at 31 October 2012 413

3.3 Enforcement cases for which Committee consideration is sought: 3.3.1 12.300 Hall more Caravan Park, Hale Introduction In the 1970’s planning permission was granted for a touring caravan site on a field to the east of the main static caravan park at Hall More, Hale. The permission restricted the months of use. The site has been used for touring caravans but they have been kept on the site on a permanent basis. An application is currently being considered for a Certificate of Lawful Use of land for retention of these caravans all year round. This report relates to the unauthorised erection of two facility buildings and installation of eight camping pods on the field to the north. Breach The unauthorised erection of two facilities buildings and the installation of eight camping pods. Policy Policy E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Structure Plan seeks to ensure that development is appropriate to the distinctive landscape. South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS8.2 aims are for protection and enhancement of the landscape and settlement. Saved Policy T5 of the South Lakeland Local Plan states that further caravan development in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty will only be permitted where there is no adverse impact on the landscape. Harm There is an overgrown hedge along the northern edge of the field but this is thin and does not provide effective screening. The buildings are unrelated to other structures and appear isolated within the field adversely affecting the appearance of the site and the surrounding Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This is particularly the case during the winter. Remedy Suggested Additional hedge and tree planting would minimise the impact of the structures and may result in retention being acceptable. Despite many requests over the last six months for the submission of an application to retain the buildings and add hedge / tree planting no action has been taken by the land owners.

Page 66 Without additional planting the retention of the buildings is inappropriate and harms the appearance of the landscape. The additional planting can only be required through the use of conditions attached to a planning permission. As no application has been forthcoming, Members are requested to authorise taking all necessary enforcement action to remove the buildings and the camping pods. If an application for their retention including additional landscaping is received by the end of January the application process should be undertaken in the first instance. 3.3.2 11.170 Land Opposite Tarn House Cottage, Urswick

Introduction An application was received to remove 3 mature trees, which were having an impact on the stability of a retaining wall. Permission was granted and the trees have been removed. A section of the stone wall was removed to create access into the agricultural field. Originally the land behind the wall was level with the top of the wall and rising from the road making access into the field difficult. The owner confirmed his intention was to reinstate the wall following planting of replacement trees. The wall has not been replaced instead the owner submitted a planning application to build a new dwelling within the site in line with adjacent dwellings. This was refused and a subsequent appeal dismissed on 20 September 2012.

Officers have requested that the land be re-graded and the wall replaced with a structural retaining wall as recommended in an engineers report, which was submitted in support of the application to remove the trees. To date the owner has not carried out the officers request, there is now increasing concern that the removal of the wall and deposit of earth may cause a land

slip.

Breach

The unauthorised excavation and grading of the land, tipping of soil and

stone waste on the land, including removal of 12 metres of retaining wall.

Policy

CS8.2 – contribute to maintain a settlements identity, landscape setting and character; distinctive settlement character.

Harm The resulting change of levels and grading to the land has created instability within the slope, presenting a safety risk to highway users and neighbouring property. Great Urswick is a rural settlement comprised of buildings maintained to high standards built around Urswick Tarn and surrounded by open countryside. The classified road (C5035) is a narrow road with boundary walls built of natural local stone. The road adjacent to the site is one of the main routes

into Great Urswick.

The missing section of the wall impacts on the continuity of the street scene

Page 67 creating an uncharacteristic break in the highway boundary. The additional tipping of soil has changed the landscape with earth mounds not in keeping

with the surrounding landscape.

Remedies suggested

Under enforcing, allowing the additional soil to remain, requesting that the land be graded, the stonewall be reinstated with adequate support to stabilise the land. The wall should be rebuilt along its entire length and faced with traditional local stone to provide sufficient stability to minimise the risk of landslide. 3.4 An update on enforcement cases involving enforcement action: 3.4.1 An update on those cases involving formal enforcement action is attached as Appendix 1 for Members information.

3.4.2 Appendix 2 is a quarterly report informing Members of the current number of cases on hand grouped by parish.

3.4.3 Appendix 3 is a quarterly report informing Members of activity on selected priority cases for the last quarter and selected cases for action in the following quarter.

4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION Not applicable. 5.0 PROPOSAL Not applicable. 6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS Not applicable. 7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 Continue dealing with priority cases in Appendices 2 and 3 and those listed in Appendix 1, receiving and prioritising all new cases, and taking appropriate action where necessary in accordance with the relevant Acts and guidance.

8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources 8.1.1 Cost implications only arise if the matter ultimately requires court or direct action in default. 8.2 Human Resources 8.2.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 8.3 Legal 8.3.1 See report. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 8.4.1 This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects.

Page 68 9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT 9.1 Risk Consequence Controls required The failure of a Ombudsman To maintain sufficient statutory requirement maladministration resources in planning to investigate investigation. Result in enforcement and breaches of planning inappropriate forms of prioritise and co- law with an effective development, which would ordinate the investigative have an adverse impact on investigation of compliance and the character, and breaches of planning enforcement system. appearance of the District’s control. rural landscape. 10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 10.1 The Statement of Community Involvement takes account of the equalities issues in seeking to define South Lakeland’s community and interests relevant to the Local Development Framework, which will influence the determination of individual planning applications.

11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 11.1 This report links to the aim of enhancing the environment in which we live and supports national performance indicators. 11.2 Having an effective robust planning enforcement regime involving people will help make South Lakeland the best place to live, work and visit. Dealing with unauthorised development in an efficient, firm and fair manner, fosters strong links with the community, increased public confidence in the Council and value for money.

12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 See report and Appendices 1, 2 and 3.

APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT: 1 A report on enforcement cases where authorisation to take enforcement action has been sought .

2 Quarterly report of cases on hand.

3 Quarterly report of cases prioritised for action in past quarter and the following quarter. CONTACT OFFICERS: Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer, Tel: 01539 797566 email: [email protected]

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE: Various planning files.

Page 69 TRACKING Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee 5 Dec 2012 N/A 5 Dec 2012 N/A N/A Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer N/A 20 Dec 2012 N/A N/A N/A Human Resource Services Manager N/A

Page 70

APPENDIX 1 The purpose of this appendix is to provide a brief summary of authorised enforcement cases.

REF No. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH / CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS / NEXT STEP

06/068 ALDINGHAM Low Sunbrick Farm Installation of uPVC windows in Enforcement action authorised with a 10 Listed Building. year compliance period. Working with

conservation officer to finalise the Notice requirements. 07/025 LOWER ALLITHWAITE Priory Close Internal alteration to listed building. Officers are making inquiries to Cartmel commence legal action.

08/345 SKELSMERGH Holme House Farm Unauthorised development Following committal hearing both parties

Page 71 Garth Row Lane involving the construction of to provide judge with further information. caravan / chalet structures and business uses. 10/208 LOWER Blenkett wood caravan park Laying new 300m access An appeal has been made to the ALLITHWAITE track. Planning Inspectorate against the Enforcement Notice. 10/209 KENDAL Boundary Bank Unauthorised use of site for Part of site has been cleared, the storage of machinery and further monitoring. hardcore. 10/311 CASTERTON Chapel House Farm Unauthorised removal of Hedge Replacement Notice hedge. served 12 July 2011. Appeal dismissed, replanting required by 31 January 2013.

REF No . PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH / CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS / NEXT STEP

11/256 SKELSMERGH Holme House Farm Material Change of Use of The unauthorised structure has been agricultural barn to a structure used included in the court injunction for its as a dwellinghouse. removal from the land.

11/257 KENDAL 55 Helmside Road Untidy land to front of dwelling. Officers have served a Section 215 Notice to tidy the front of the dwelling. Contractors are now engaged to clear the front of the property week commencing 3/12/2012. 11/078 SKELSMERGH Holme House Farm Engineering operation. Large scale Included in the court order as part of the excavation to public footpath. re-instatement works. 12/134 EGTON with NEWLAND Field adjacent Alpine Road Removal of 85m of field hedge. The hedge has been planted. Owner has stated that he will erect stock fencing.

Page 72

APPENDIX 2 To provide Members with the number of cases on hand grouped by parish. Outstanding Enforcements by Parish 01/01/2009 to 31/10/2012 14:35:05

Parish Number Of Cases

ALDINGHAM 6

ARNSIDE 4

BARBON 3

BEETHAM 6

BROUGHTON WEST (Duddon) 1

BURTON IN KENDAL 4

CASTERTON 5

DOCKER 2

EGTON WITH NEWLAND 1

EGTON WITH NEWLAND 6

FIRBANK 1

GRANGE OVER SANDS 8

GRAYRIGG 2

HELSINGTON 4

HEVERSHAM 2

HINCASTER 1

HOLME 7

HUTTON ROOF 1

KENDAL 32

KENDAL 16

KENDAL 5

KENDAL 5

KENDAL 97

KENDAL 18

KILLINGTON 2

KIRKBY IRELETH 401 2

Page 73 KIRKBY LONSDALE 14

LEVENS 1

LOWER ALLITHWAITE 32

LOWER HOLKER 4

LUPTON 4

MANSERGH 1

MANSRIGGS 3

MIDDLETON 3

MILNTHORPE 5

NATLAND 2

NEW HUTTON 5

OLD HUTTON AND HOLMESCALES 6

OSMOTHERLY 2

PENNINGTON 15

PRESTON PATRICK 8

PRESTON RICHARD 9

SCALTHWAITERIGG 1

SEDGWICK 1

SKELSMERGH 10

STAINTON 2

STRICKLAND KETEL 3

STRICKLAND ROGER 5

ULVERSTON 17

ULVERSTON 5

URSWICK 13

WHINFELL 1

WHITWELL AND SELSIDE 1

Total Number of Outstanding Cases 413

Page 74 APPENDIX 3 Quarterly report informing Members of activity on selected priority cases for the last quarter and selected cases for action in the following quarter.

Action/Activity on selected priority cases during last quarter. REF No. PARISH SITE ADDRESS ALLEGED BREACH ACTION / ACTIVITY 08/199 LOWER Anthemion Erection of lights and • Conservation officer confirms that the lights and signs ALLITHWAITE The Square signs on listed building. do not enhance or preserve the Cartmel conservation Cartmel area. • Site visit confirms the lights and signs have not been removed.

Page 75 • Consideration is been given to the course of action and may result in a report brought to committee seeking enforcement action. 09/094 KIRKBY The Barn Not constructed as • Site visit carried out work not accordance with LONSDALE Mitchelgate approved plans and the permission. unauthorised erection of • Consulted with Planning Officer decision to take a flue. necessary action. 09/260 STRICKLAND Woodland off Creation of new access • Field access existed for some time. KETTLE Winter Lane into open field. • Hardcore laid to create area of unauthorised hard standing. • Officers considering expediency.

REF No. PARISH SITE ADDRESS ALLEGED BREACH ACTION / ACTIVITY 09/272 KIRKBY 2 Mill Brow Erection of flue to listed • Site visit carried out, breached established. LONSDALE building in conservation • The flue has been erected with out permission area. • Considered course of action to request its removal. 09/302 ULVERSTON Stables to the end Construction of raised • Officers making contact with owner to invite a of Chittery Lane concrete base 25m sq. retrospective application. 10/076 MILNTHORPE Land north west of Erection of large poly Highfield tunnel. • Officers to bring report to committee.

Page 76

Cases Prioritised for Action in the Following Quarter REF No. PARISH SITE ADDRESS ALLEGED BREACH ACTION / ACTIVITY 08/345 SKELMERGH Holme House Unauthorised • The second hearing was in the County Court Kendal. Garth Row Lane development involving The Judge granted the Injunction, ordering Mr Steele the construction of to remove 15 caravans save for the 4 Lawful ones. caravan / chalet The judge ordered the unoccupied ones and the structures and business storage sheds to be removed by the 31 Oct 2012 and uses. the remaining ones by the 28 November 2012. • A committal hearing took place on the 26 th Nov 2012 at Carlisle combined courts where the judge allowed Mr Steele more time to comply with the order. • The Judge requested the Council monitor the site and Page 77 report back the work undertaken in re-housing the tenants and Mr Steeles compliance with the order. 10/253 KENDAL 55 Helmside Road Engineering operation, • This has been a long protracted case involving a Oxenholme excavation of rear considerable amount of officer time. garden. • A Section 215 Notice has been served. The compliance date is the 14 September 2012. • Contractors have been instructed to commence clearing and repairing the front of the property week commencing 3 December 2012.

Page 78

Item No.8

PART I

South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE

Meeting Date: 20 December 2012 Report Author: Mark Shipman (Development Management Group Manager) Portfolio: Jonathon Brook (Housing and Development Portfolio Holder) Report from: David Sykes (Director People and Places) Wards affected: All Key Decision: Not applicable

APPEALS UPDATE

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 To provide Members with information about the receipt and determination of planning appeals from the start of the financial year in April 2012. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 Note the report.

3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 Appeals as set out in Appendix 1.

3.2 This national indicator has been deleted. It is considered to be a valuable local indicator because it shows the efficacy of policy.

4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 4.1 Not applicable

5.0 PROPOSAL 5.1 Not applicable

6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 6.1 Not applicable

7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 Not applicable

Page 79 8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources 8.1.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any cost implications. 8.2 Human Resources 8.2.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 8.3 Legal 8.3.1 Not applicable 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 8.4.1 This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects.

9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT 9.1 Not applicable

10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 10.1 The Statement of Community Involvement takes account of the equalities issues in seeking to define South Lakeland’s community and interests relevant to the Local Development Framework which will influence the determination of individual planning applications. 11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 11.1 This report links to the aim of “Enhancing the environment in which we live .”

11.2 Indicator BVPI 204 sets a target of a maximum number of appeals allowed as 33%. All enforcement appeals are discounted from the indicator because it shows the efficiency of planning policy. The current overall performance, calculated from those decisions received since 1 April 2012, is 16.66% (ie 83.34% success to date in defending appeals against refusal). The performance on appeals for major development is 0% (i.e. 100% success for this year only)

12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED O UTCOMES 12.1 It is anticipated that targets and objectives will continue to be achieved at the year end.

APPENDIX ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix 1 Appeals table (commencing 1 April 2012), updated to include new appeals and appeal decisions received between 15 November and 5 December 2012.

CONTACT OFFICERS Mark Shipman, Development Management Group Manager – Tel: 01539 797564.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Various planning files.

Page 80

TRACKING Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee N/A N/A 2012 N/A N/A Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer N/A 20 Dec 2012 N/A N/A N/A Human Development Resource Management Services Group Manager Manager N/A 2012

Page 81 APPENDIX 1

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

LOWER Use of land for siting one static Refused 27/10/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2166797 DISMISSED ALLITHWAITE: holiday caravan (Committee) 16/12/11 11 May 2012 Blenkett Wood Lodge PO Recommend: SL/2011/0730 Park, Jack Hill, Refuse Allithwaite

Page 82 KENDAL: Redevelopment of site to form retail Refused 25/11/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2166628 DISMISSED Kendal Rugby Union development with associated car (Committee) 22/12/11 21 June 2012 Football Club parking and servicing facilities PO Recommend: SL/2010/0180 Shap Road Grant

KIRKBY IRELETH: Removal of conditions 9, 10 and 11 Refused 24/11/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2167375 DISMISSED The Boat House on PP SL/2005/0493 4/1/12 1 May 2012 Soutergate SL/2011/0793 Kirkby in Furness

EGTON with Agricultural building Refused 30/12/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2168927 DISMISSED NEWLAND: 19/1/12 30 April 2012 Field adj to Oak Bank SL/2011/0860 Broughton Beck

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

ALDINGHAM: Appeal against issuing of Enforcement APP/M0933/ C/12/2170352 ALLOWED Land at Baycliff Farm, Enforcement Notice 13/2/12 15 June 2012 Main Street, Baycliff SL/2011/0994

EGTON with Change of Use of Public House to Refused 25/8/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2169517 DISMISSED NEWLAND: dwelling (Committee) 15/2/12 - Hearing 19 June 2012 Britannia Inn PO Recommend: SL/2011/0233 Penny Bridge Refuse Page 83 KENDAL: First floor extension Refused 6/2/12 APP/M0933/ C/12/2171660 DISMISSED 46 Sandylands Road 5/3/12 (Householder) 2 May 2012 SL/2011/1020 PRESTON RICHARD: Erection of 15m high (to tip of blade) Refused 28/2/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2173166 ALLOWED Carter House wind turbine 29/3/12 27 September Crooklands SL/2011/0991 2012 ULVERSTON: Erection of four dwellings Refused 6/3/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2173314 DISMISSED Land at Old Hall Road 2/4/12 30 August 2012 SL/2011/0974 GREAT URSWICK: Dwelling, detached garage and Refused 24/11/11 APP/M0933/ A/12/2176000 DISMISSED Land adjacent to Daisy access (Committee) 14/6/12 20 September Hill Cottage PO Recommend: SL/2011/0741 2012 Refuse Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

LOWER Variation of Condition No 4 (Proof of Refused 20/4/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2176328 ALLOWED ALLITHWAITE: main residence elsewhere) on PP 19/6/12 25 October 2012 SL/2011/0862 Old Orchard SL/2012/0155 The Pastures Templands Lane WHINFELL: Change of Use of agricultural land to Refused 22/12/11 APP/M0933/ A/12/2176737 DISMISSED Patton Hall Farm form extension to existing caravan 22/6/12 28 September Patton site for the siting of 12 static caravans 2012 and associated landscaping SL/2011/0808 Page 84 LUPTON: Change of Use of partially completed Refused 26/1/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2177360 DISMISSED Thompson Fold holiday accommodation units to four 22/6/12 2 October 2012 permanent dwellings SL/2011/0950 KIRKBY LONSDALE: Completion of the partially developed Refused 26/4/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2177363 Awaited Biggins Hall Barn site, Biggins Hall Barn site to provide (Committee) 3/7/12 seven dwellings (two of which are to High Biggins PO Recommend: SL/2012/0103 be affordable) Refuse KENDAL: Erection of 25 dwellings Refused 14/3/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2176802 DISMISSED Gallowbarrow Mill, 6/7/12 10 October 2012 Natland SL/2011/1069 HOLME: Alterations to provide first floor Refused 17/4/12 APP/M0933/ D/12/2177787 ALLOWED Green Acre, accommodation and replacement 10/7/12 (Householder) 5 September 2012 single storey extension Milnthorpe Road SL/2012/0124

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspect orate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

HELSINGTON: Conversion and alterations to Refused 23/3/12 APP/M0933/ D/12/2178010 DISMISSED Hill House, Brigsteer attached outbuilding to form 16/7/12 (Householder) 4 September 2012 additional domestic accommodation SL/2012/0084 LUPTON: Dwelling with new vehicular access Refused 31/5/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2178225 Awaited Tavern House, Nook, drive 20/7/12 Cow Brow SL/2012/0295 KIRKBY LONSDALE: Discharge of Condition 5 (roofing Refused 13/4/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2179979 DISMISSED slates) on PP SL/2009/0838 (housing Page 85 Land off Biggins Road 26/7/12 29 November development) SL/2012/0147 2012 PRESTON PATRICK: Residential development Not Determined APP/M0933/ A/12/2178909 Awaited Former School playing 27/7/12 field, A65, Crooklands SL/2012/0372 LOWER Appeal against the issuing of an Enforcement APP/M0933/ C/12/2181345 Awaited ALLITHWAITE: Enforcement Notice APP/M0933/ C/12/2181343 Blenket Farm, Jack Hill APP/M0933/ C/12/2181344 20/8/12 SL/2012/0730 URSWICK: Wind turbine (34.2 m to blade tip) Refused 28/6/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2180859 DISMISSED Bolton Manor Farm 20/8/12 20 November SL/2012/0241 2012 Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

HEVERSHAM: Dwelling with vehicular access Refused 27/6/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2181825 Awaited Ghyll Cottage, Leasgill 22/8/12 SL/2012/0371 KENDAL: Replacement exterior doors and Refused 25/7/12 APP/M0933/ D/12/2182610 DISMISSED The Old Post Office, uPVC sliding sash window frames 30/8/12 (Householder) 25 October 2012 10 Greenside SL/2012/0356 LOWER HOLKER: Proposed building for storage of Refused 28/6/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2182072 Awaited Page 86 Land to the east of agricultural contractor’s machinery 4/9/12 Trino, Willow Lane, SL/2012/0265 Flookburgh MILNTHORPE: Detached dwelling Refused 22/3/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2182378 Awaited Crosby House, 7/9/12 Ackenthwaite SL/2011/0867 GRANGE over Cert of Lawful Dvpt for storage of Refused 25/7/12 APP/M0933/ X/12/2184048 Awaited SANDS: vintage cars (non-domestic garaging) 24/9/12 Former Wilson SL/2012/0313 Robinson workshop, Hampsfell Road

NEW HUTTON: Single Wind Turbine (79.6 M to blade Refused 29/6/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2183618 Awaited Hawkrigg Hill tip) and associated metering units 2/10/12 SL/2012/0289 Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate Appellant South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

LEVENS: Erection of poultry unit with manure Refused 17/4/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2185699 Awaited Land at High Sampool store (Committee) 30/10/12

PO Recommend: SL/2011/0647 Refuse

URSWICK: Erection of a single turbine (maximum Refused 5/9/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2185234 Awaited Field adjacent to blade tip height of 62 metres), 13/11/12 Harbarrow Farm widening of an existing field access, creation of a new access track and SL/2012/0448 associated infrastructure Page 87 HELSINGTON: Erection of one wind turbine (32.4M Refused 31/7/12 APP/M0933/ A/12/2187511 Awaited High House Farm to blade tip) (Committee) 20/11/12

PO Recommend: SL/2012/0327 Refuse

HUTTON ROOF: Conservatory Refused 29/8/12 APP/M0933/ D/12/2187883 Awaited 9 Lowther Court 21/11/12 (Householder) SL/2012/0579

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 88 Item No.9

PART I

South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE Meeting Date: 20 December 2012 Report Author: Mark Shipman, Development Management Group Manager Portfolio: Not Applicable Report from: David Sykes (Director People and Places) Wards affe cted: All Key Decision: Not applicable Forward Plan: Not applicable

RECENT DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITIES and LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONSULTATIONS AFFECTING PLANNING 1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 This report is presented to bring Members’ attention to: i) A Consultation by, and proposed response to DCLG - Technical Consultation on Extending Permitted Development rights for homeowners and businesses (Closing 24 December 2012); and ii) A Consultation by, and proposed response to DCLG - Open Consultation on Planning Performance and the Planning Guarantee (Closing 17 January 2013) 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Members:- 1) Provide comments at the meeting to be added to/modify the proposed response for the consultations.

3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1.1 The Government is proposing action in five areas of permitted development:

1 Page 89 • Increasing the size limits for the depth of single-storey domestic extensions from 4m to 8m (for detached houses) and from 3m to 6m (for all other houses), in non-protected areas, for a period of three years. No changes are proposed for extensions of more than one storey.

• Increasing the size limits for extensions to shop and professional / 2 financial services establishments to 100m , and allowing the building of these extensions up to the boundary of the property (except where the boundary is with a residential property), in non- protected areas, for a period of three years.

2 • Increasing the size limits for extensions to offices to 100m , in non- protected areas, for a period of three years.

• Increasing the size limits for new industrial buildings within the 2 curtilage of existing industrial premises to 200m , in non-protected areas, for a period of three years.

• Removing some prior approval requirements for the installation of broadband infrastructure for a period of five years.

3.1.2 The Growth and Infrastructure Bill, introduced to Parliament on 18 October 2012, contains a number of additional proposals that build upon the Government’s existing reforms. They include a measure to enable quicker and better decisions where there are clear failures in local planning authority performance, by giving applicants the option of applying directly to the Planning Inspectorate.

3.1.3 This measure is aimed only at those few situations where councils are clearly failing to deliver an effective service. Applicants for planning permission can reasonably expect timely and good quality decisions – justice delayed is justice denied. Where there is clear evidence of very poor performance the Government wants to give applicants the choice of a better service, but will also want to ensure that those authorities have access to the support they need in order to improve as quickly as possible.

3.1.4 This consultation asks for views on our proposals for implementing this measure once the Bill is enacted. This will help to inform debate on the clause as it progresses through Parliament. The measure would be implemented through policy and secondary legislation, the final form of which will need to reflect Parliament’s decisions on the Bill. The consultation also sets out The Government’s further proposals for implementing the planning guarantee, which is closely related to the provisions in the Bill.

3.2 Technical Consultation on Permitted Development Rights. 3.2.1 The Government states the measures outlined in this paper will ease the planning restrictions and costly bureaucracy that prevents families

2 Page 90 and businesses from making improvements to their property. Thousands of people will be helped to move up the property ladder and will be able to expand their homes to accommodate a growing family or take care of an elderly relative without having to relocate. Cutting back municipal red tape in this way will help businesses to grow and thrive, and could provide a particular boost for small traders and small builders. This continues the Government’s programme of simplifying and streamlining the planning system and reducing burdens on families and businesses.

3.2.2 The Government considers these added flexibilities will not be at the expense of neighbours and the surrounding community. Protections which are currently in place, both within the planning system and in other regimes, will remain, and these changes will not apply in Conservation Areas, National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

3.2.3 At present, single-storey rear extensions with a depth beyond the rear wall of 4m for a detached house, and 3m for any other type of house, are allowed under permitted development rights, subject to various limitations. To provide greater flexibility for homeowners who wish to improve and enlarge their properties, the Government propose that in non-protected areas these limits should be increased to 8m for a detached house, and 6m for any other type of house. This would also cover conservatories at the rear of properties.

3.2.4 To ensure that the amenity of neighbouring properties is protected, other limitations and conditions would remain the same. For example, development will not be able to cover more than 50% of the curtilage of the house, single-storey extensions must not exceed 4m in height, and any extensions which have an eaves height of greater than 3m must not be within 2m of the boundary. In addition, existing protections under other regimes (building regulations, the Party Wall Act or the ‘right to light’ for example) will continue to apply. There is no weakening of the National Planning Policy Framework policies which aim to prevent garden-grabbing.

3.2.5 The proposals do not grant permitted development rights for the construction of separate outbuildings for residential accommodation, or for the creation of separate residential units. They do not reduce the wide range of powers which local authorities have to tackle the unauthorised ‘beds-in-sheds’ development carried out by a small minority of unscrupulous landlords.

3.2.6 The Government is keen to support family annexes and is looking at how best to remove council tax and regulatory obstacles. A live-in annex for immediate relatives such as teenagers or their elderly grandparents will help increase housing supply and help ensure the elderly have dignity and security in retirement.

3 Page 91 3.2.7 Shops and financial/professional services establishments are currently 2 able to extend their premises by up to 50m , provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the original building by more than 25%, and subject to various other limitations. The Government propose that outside of protected areas, these limits should be raised 2 to 100m and 50%. The Government thinks this will bring significant benefits for businesses, and will allow them to grow quickly without the need for costly and time-consuming planning applications. To give businesses extra flexibility, the Government also propose that they should be able to build up to the boundary of the premises, except where the boundary is with a residential property, when the requirement to leave a 2m gap along the boundary would remain.

2 3.2.8 Offices are currently able to extend their premises by up to 50m , provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the original building by more than 25%, and subject to various other limitations. The Government propose that outside of protected areas, these limits 2 should be raised to 100m and 50% in order to provide greater flexibility for business expansion. Other limitations and conditions would remain the same, and protections under other regimes will continue to apply. For example, buildings within 10m of the boundary must not be more than 5m high, in other cases the extension cannot exceed the height of the existing building, and new extensions must not be within 5m of the boundary.

3.2.9 At present, new industrial buildings or warehouses which are up to 2 100m in size can be built within the curtilage of an existing industrial building or warehouse in a non-protected area, provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the original building by more than 25%. The Government propose that outside of protected areas, these 2 limits should be raised to 200m and 50%. This will allow these businesses to expand quickly without the time and expense of going through the planning process. There are already generous limits for 2 the extension of industrial and warehouse buildings (up to 1,000m ), so no changes are proposed to those limits. To protect local amenity, other limitations and conditions would remain the same, and existing protections under other regimes will continue to apply. For example, buildings within 10m of the boundary must not be more than 5m high, there must be no building within 5m of the boundary, and there must be no reduction in the space available for parking or turning of vehicles.

3.2.10 The Government proposes that these changes to permitted development rights should be in place for a period of three years, starting from the date at which the secondary legislation implementing these changes comes into force. This is because they recognise that current economic circumstances require exceptional measures to assist hard-pressed families and businesses, and to stimulate growth. In order to provide certainty to neighbours and communities, and to make sure that the three-year window is effective, the Government propose that developments will have to be completed by the end of the

4 Page 92 three-year period. This is different from planning permissions, which specify a time limit within which the development must commence, but which allow for completion later. Homeowners and businesses wishing to exercise their rights under these changes will be required to notify the local planning authority on completion of the development. Where this notification is not received by the end of the three-year period, the development will not count as permitted development, and could be subject to enforcement action.

3.2.11 In order to make sure that there is no adverse impact on protected areas, the Government propose that the changes listed above should not apply on ‘article 1(5) land’. The main areas this covers are: • National Parks • Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty • Conservation Areas • World Heritage Sites • the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads

In addition they propose that the changes should not apply on Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

3.2.12 When the permitted development rights for broadband apparatus were first introduced in 2001, the nature and needs of the technology and the likely impacts on surrounding areas were still being explored. Therefore, an approach was taken which combined permitted development rights with prior approval for certain works in certain areas. At present, under part 24 of the General Permitted Development Order, fixed broadband apparatus such as cabinets, telegraph poles, and overhead lines have permitted development rights, which means they can be installed without the need to apply for planning permission. This is subject to a prior approval process on article 1(5) land which allows planning authorities to consider the siting and appearance of communications apparatus before development commences. These permitted development rights liberalise the planning system and allow for speedier deployment of communications infrastructure, although the prior approval process can create uncertainty for developers and prolong the time taken on installation. The Government propose to remove this prior approval requirement as it applies to article 1(5) land. This change will be for a period of five years, and all works will have to be completed by the end of that period in order to count as permitted development. The Government will be asking the relevant operators to work with local planning authorities to agree good practice so that all parties are aware of how and when roll- out will be delivered in their area, and the principles governing siting and design.

3.2.13 The consultation paper is included in Appendix 1 and the draft response is included in Appendix 2. 3.3 Open Consultation on Planning Performance and the Planning Guarantee

5 Page 93 Performance 3.3.1 The legislation will allow applications to be submitted to the Secretary of State where a local planning authority has a track record of very poor performance in either the speed or quality of the decisions made by an authority; and that clear benchmarks are used to define what this means in practice.

3.3.2 Where an authority is designated, the Government propose that applications would be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State), where the applicant chooses this route. This ability would be limited to those seeking permission for major development. A designated authority would need to demonstrate a sufficient degree of improvement before the designation is lifted.

3.3.3 The Government anticipate that the legislation will stimulate an increased focus on performance across planning authorities generally, and will help to ensure that the planning guarantee is met. As a further means of ensuring that decisions are made within the guarantee period, the Government are also proposing a refund of the planning application fee, should an application remain undetermined after 26 weeks. This would apply to all planning applications, and be implemented through a change to secondary legislation.

3.3.4 The Government intend to set out the criteria for assessing performance, and the thresholds for designating any authorities under this measure, in a policy statement that will be published in response to this consultation once the Growth and Infrastructure Bill gains Royal Assent. At the same time they consider that the basis for identifying any cases of very poor performance needs to be kept relatively simple, so that the approach is transparent, and to avoid placing additional reporting burdens on authorities. For this reason they propose to monitor and assess performance on the basis of two key measures: the speed and quality of decisions on planning applications. These have a direct bearing on the planning system’s efficiency and effectiveness for both applicants and communities; and on its contribution to growth.

3.3.5 The government propose to use the existing statutory time limits for determining planning applications, as in principle all decisions should be made within these periods – unless an extended period has been agreed in writing between the parties. This means a maximum of 13 weeks for applications for major development and eight weeks for all others. They also propose, for identifying and addressing very poor performance, to focus only on applications for major development – as these are the proposals which are most important for driving growth, and which have the greatest bearing upon communities.

3.3.6 Some authorities deal with relatively few applications for major development, and performance in dealing with such proposals in any one authority can fluctuate from quarter to quarter, depending on the number and scale of proposals under consideration. The Government

6 Page 94 therefore propose that performance should be assessed on the extent to which applications for major development are determined within 13 weeks, averaged over a two year period. They wish to avoid frequent changes in the authorities to which a designation applies; to provide certainty for both applicants and councils, and to ensure that any designated authorities have sufficient time to improve. They therefore propose that designations would be made once a year, and that those authorities which are designated would remain in that situation for at least a year.

3.3.7 The National Planning Policy Framework encourages the use of planning performance agreements. These involve a bespoke timetable agreed between the authority and the applicant where it is clear – at the pre-application stage – that more time than the statutory period will be required to reach a decision. Such agreements are reported separately by authorities, and are excluded from the statistics on the extent to which decisions are made within the statutory period.

3.3.8 The Government proposes that post-application agreements to extend the timescale for determination should in future be recorded as a form of planning performance agreement, provided there is explicit agreement to the extension of time from the applicant (in writing), and the agreement specifies a clear timescale for reaching a decision.

3.3.9 The Government propose to use the appeal success rate for major developments to indicate the ‘quality’ of decisions made by each planning authority. An authority that acts positively and approves the great majority of its applications for major development, but loses a very small number of appeals brought against it, should not be penalised for ‘poor performance’. It follows that the number of appeals lost each year needs to be related to the total volume of applications dealt with. The Government propose that the measure of quality should be the proportion of all major decisions made that are overturned at appeal, over a two year period.

3.3.10 The proposed measures of speed and quality both rely upon accurate data being supplied to the Department on a regular basis. At present there are very few gaps in the data provided by authorities, but the Government is concerned that there is a risk that in future authorities could withhold data for quarters in which their performance has slipped.

3.3.11 To discourage this the Government propose the following: • Data for a single missing quarter in one reporting (financial) year would be estimated by the DCLG from the returns for other quarters – based on average performance for the quarters for which information is available; • Where data for two or three quarters in a reporting year are missing, figures for the absent quarters would be imputed in a similar way, but with a penalty then applied in proportion to the amount of data missing. DCLG propose that this penalty would be

7 Page 95 a reduction of five percentage points per missing quarter for the speed of decisions, and one percentage point per missing quarter for decisions overturned at appeal.

• Any authority with a whole year of data missing would automatically be designated as very poor performing.

3.3.12 To ensure that the information on which any designations would be based is readily available, DCLG will publish quarterly statistics on the extent to which decisions on applications for major development have been overturned at appeal, alongside the existing data on the extent to which decisions are made within the statutory time periods.

3.3.13 The Government wish to set out very clearly what constitutes sufficiently poor performance for a planning authority to be designated once the Growth and Infrastructure Bill becomes law. A minimum standard will provide certainty to authorities about the action they must take where their performance is poor; and make clear to applicants the circumstances in which they can expect the Government to act when there is demonstrable evidence that planning is not being delivered effectively.

3.3.14 The Government intend to set these thresholds so that only very poor performance would result in an authority being designated: where 30% or fewer major applications have been determined within the statutory period or more than 20% of major decisions have been overturned at appeal. The government consider it important that a designation could be made on the basis of either measure (rather than a combination of the two), so that applicants can access a better service where speed or quality is a significant issue.

3.3.15 Any designations would need to be made fairly and transparently. The Government propose that the designation process would follow automatically, following the publication of the relevant statistics on processing speeds and appeal outcomes for the year, were an authority to appear below the thresholds that have been set. For the first year, before any initial designations are made, authorities will be given an opportunity to correct any gaps or errors in the existing data; cases that were subject to environmental impact assessment will also be taken into account.

3.3.16 Once the Growth and Infrastructure Bill receives Royal Assent the Government anticipate that the first designations would be made once the necessary secondary legislation is in place (planned for October 2013). The timetable would be: • April 2013: Response to consultation announced; criteria and initial thresholds for designations confirmed; • July 2013: Performance data for 2012-13 (as well as 2011-12) available, indicating which authorities are liable for designation;

8 Page 96 • August-September 2013: Opportunity to correct any data errors and account for applications subject to environmental impact assessment; • October 2013: Secondary legislation in place and initial designations made.

3.3.17 Where a planning authority is designated on the basis of very poor performance, the Growth and Infrastructure Bill would give applicants the option of applying directly to the Secretary of State; applicants could if they wish continue to apply to the designated authority in the usual way.

3.3.18 Where an application is submitted directly in this way, certain related applications may also be made to the Secretary of State at the same time. The Bill makes specific provision for applications for listed building and conservation area consent; the Government do not intend at present to prescribe any additional categories of related consent. It should be noted that the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill currently before Parliament proposes to remove the requirement for Conservation Area consent to be obtained.

3.3.19 Where a planning application is submitted directly to the Secretary of State there will be a small number of administrative functions which, for practical reasons, will need to be carried out locally. The Government propose that these should continue to be undertaken by the designated local planning authority (and the Bill allows the Secretary of State to issue directions to this effect). We propose that these functions would include: • Site notices and neighbour notification; • Providing the planning history for the site; • Notification of any cumulative impact considerations, such as where environmental impact assessment or assessment under the Habitats Regulations is involved, or there may be cumulative impacts upon the highways network.

3.3.20 Most applications for major development determined by local planning authorities are decided at a planning committee meeting, providing an opportunity for the merits of the proposal to be considered in public. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to determine the procedure to be followed where an application is submitted directly to him. The Government propose that the Planning Inspectorate should choose the most appropriate procedure to employ on a case by case basis (which could be an abbreviated form of hearing or inquiry, or written representations); but that the presumption should be that applications are examined principally by means of written representations with the option of a short hearing to allow the key parties to briefly put their points in person.

3.3.21 The Government do not propose that the Planning Inspectorate would enter into discussions with the applicant about the nature and scope of

9 Page 97 any section 106 agreement that may be appropriate, as they consider these are best determined locally by the applicant and the planning authority. In determining an application the Inspectorate would take into account, as a material consideration, any planning obligation advanced by the applicant, or any agreement which the applicant has entered into (or is prepared to enter into) with the authority.

3.3.22 The Bill does not provide for any right of appeal once an application has been decided by the Inspectorate, other than judicial review, as the application will already have been considered on behalf of the Secretary of State. This mirrors the position where applicants for planning permission choose to appeal against non-determination. Applicants will be made fully aware of this if they choose to submit their applications directly to the Inspectorate.

3.3.23 Designated authorities will not necessarily be dealing with a significant number of applications for major development, so the Government propose that any assessment of improvement should be based on a range of other considerations that we will set out in policy: • The authority’s performance in determining all those applications for which it remains responsible; • Its performance in carrying out any administrative tasks associated with applications submitted directly to the Secretary of State; • A review of the steps taken by the planning authority to improve, and its capacity and capability to deal efficiently and effectively with major planning applications. This assessment would be undertaken by the Department for Communities and Local Government.

The Guarantee

3.3.24 The planning guarantee was announced in the Plan for Growth (March 2011). The principle is simple: that no planning application – major or otherwise – should take more than a year to decide, even where a planning appeal has been made. In practice the guarantee means that cases should spend no more than 26 weeks with either the local planning authority or, in the case of appeals, the Planning Inspectorate.

3.3.25 The guarantee applies to the time a valid application spends with these decision-making bodies. It does not cover the period before an application is submitted, after permission is granted, or any time between the local planning authority’s decision and any subsequent decision by the applicant to appeal. This is because the behaviour of applicants can have a significant bearing upon the length of these periods; for example, they have up to six months to decide whether to lodge an appeal against a refusal (12 weeks in the case of householder applications).

10 Page 98 3.3.26 There are a small number of cases which, exceptionally, the Government propose to exclude from the scope of the planning guarantee. These are: • Applications subject to Planning Performance Agreements, due to the bespoke timetables involved; • Similarly, planning appeals subject to bespoke timetables agreed between the main parties for particularly complex cases (including Secretary of State casework where this applies); • Planning appeals that relate to enforcement cases (which are often particularly complex with additional evidence coming forward during the course of the appeal); or which involve re- determinations following a successful judicial review.

3.3.27 As the guarantee applies to individual decisions (rather than individual planning authorities) the Government consider that an additional measure would also help to ensure that the guarantee is met. They propose to amend secondary legislation to require a refund of the planning application fee, where a planning application remains undecided after 26 weeks. This would apply to planning authorities and to the Planning Inspectorate (where it is responsible for determining major planning applications).

4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 4.1 Not applicable. 5.0 PROPOSAL 5.1 That Members consider the draft response to the Consultation Paper as set out in Appendices 2 and 4 any additions or modifications they may wish to make to the same. 6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 6.1 Not to agree the proposed course of action . 7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 Once agreed, the response to the consultations will be submitted to the Department of Communities and Local Government. 8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources 8.1.1 There are no financial or resource implications at present. 8.2 Human Resources 8.2.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications 8.3 Legal 8.3.1 The legal implications are clearly set out in the report. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 8.4.1 The report does not any registered significant effects.

11 Page 99 9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT Risk Consequence Controls required Response not SLDC views not taken Ensure response is submitted. into account. sent in time. 10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 10.1 Not applicable to this proposal. 11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 11.1 Not applicable to this proposal. 12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 That Members note the Consultation Papers on the Technical Consultation on Permitted Development and Planning performance and agree the responses to be made.

CONTACT OFFICERS Mark Shipman, Development management Group Manager, Tel: 01539 797564 email: [email protected] BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Contained in Appendices. TRACKING Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee 5.12.2012 N/A 5.12.2012 N/A N/A Executive Committee Council Section 151 Mon itoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer N/A 20 Dec 2012 N/A 5.12.2012 5.12.2012 Human Resource Services Manager N/A

12 Page 100 Extending permitted development rights for homeowners and businesses

Technical consultation

November, 2012 Department for Communities and Local Government Page 101 © Crown copyright, 2012

Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.

You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected] .

This document/publication is also available on our website at www.communities.gov.uk

Any enquiries regarding this document/publication should be sent to us at:

Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 030 3444 0000

November, 2012

ISBN: 978-1-4098-3694-0

Page 102 Contents Introduction 2

The consultation process and how to 4 respond

Policy context 6

Legal background 6

Proposals for change 7

Benefits and impacts from our proposals 12

Consultation questions – response form 13

Consultation information 19

Glossary 20

Annex 1: Consultation stage impact 21 assessment

Page1 103 Introduction

1. Under the current system, homeowners wishing to extend their home more than a few metres from the property’s rear wall have to fill in complicated application forms that can take eight weeks or longer for the council to consider. The large majority of homeowner applications are uncontroversial: around 200,000 are submitted each year, and almost 90 percent are approved, in almost all cases at officer level. The application process adds costs and delays, and in many cases adds little value.

2. We propose to make it quick, easier and cheaper to build small-scale single-storey extensions and conservatories, while respecting the amenity of neighbours. We estimate that up to 40,000 families a year wishing to build straightforward extensions will benefit from our proposals, and will be able to undertake home improvements to cater for a growing family or look after an elderly relative without unnecessary costs and bureaucracy. Some 160,000 homeowner applications will continue to be considered through the planning system as at present, including all the larger, more complex and controversial cases.

3. These measures will bring extra work for local construction companies and small traders, as families and businesses who were previously deterred take forward their plans. For illustration, 20,000 new extensions could generate up to £600m of construction output, supporting up to 18,000 jobs. In addition, each family who benefits will save up to £2,500 in planning and professional fees, with total savings of up to £100m a year.

4. Permitted development already removes hundreds of thousands of developments from the planning system every year, benefiting homeowners and businesses of all sizes, and reducing costs and delays. Extending permitted development rights further will promote growth, allowing homeowners and businesses to meet their aspirations for improvement and expansion of their homes and premises.

5. It is of course important to ensure that any impact on neighbours and communities is acceptable. For this reason, safeguards under planning and other regimes will remain in place, and the changes to permitted development rights for homeowners and businesses will not apply in protected areas such as conservation areas, National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Sites of Special Scientific Interest. These proposals do not remove the requirement for separate listed building consent.

6. The Government is proposing action in five areas:

 Increasing the size limits for the depth of single-storey domestic extensions from 4m to 8m (for detached houses) and from 3m to 6m (for all other houses), in non- protected areas, for a period of three years. No changes are proposed for extensions of more than one storey.

 Increasing the size limits for extensions to shop and professional/financial services establishments to 100m 2, and allowing the building of these extensions up to the boundary of the property (except where the boundary is with a residential property), in non-protected areas, for a period of three years.

 Increasing the size limits for extensions to offices to 100m 2, in non-protected areas, for a period of three years.

 Increasing the size limits for new industrial buildings within the curtilage of existing industrial premises to 200m 2, in non-protected areas, for a period of three years.

Page 2104  Removing some prior approval requirements for the installation of broadband infrastructure for a period of five years.

7. We also wish to explore whether there is scope to use permitted development to make it easier to carry out garage conversions.

8. Other changes to permitted development are also being taken forward separately: making it easier for commercial properties to be converted to residential use; and encouraging the reuse of existing buildings through making changes of use easier. These changes have been subject to consultation already, so are not included in this paper.

Page3 105 The Consultation Process and How to Respond

Topic of this The freeing up of planning regulation to allow homeowners and consultation: businesses to make larger extensions to their homes and business premises without requiring a planning application, and to allow quicker installation of broadband infrastructure. Scope of this The consultation seeks views on the Government’s proposals to consultation: amend the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) to grant increased permitted development rights allowing homeowners, shops and offices to build larger extensions, for industrial premises to construct larger new buildings within their curtilage, and for quicker installation of broadband infrastructure. Geographical These proposals relate to England only. scope: Impact A consultation stage impact assessment is attached to this Assessment: consultation document.

Basic information To: This is a public consultation and it is open to anyone to respond. We would particularly welcome views from: Local planning authorities Developers Businesses Individuals who may be affected by the changes Community representatives and parish councils Body/bodies Department for Communities and Local Government responsible for the consultation: Duration: The consultation begins on 12 November 2012 and ends on 24 December 2012. This is a six week period. Enquiries: Helen Marks E-mail: [email protected] How to By e-mail to: [email protected] respond: A downloadable questionnaire form, which can be emailed to us, will be available on our website.

Alternatively paper communications should be sent to: Helen Marks Permitted Development Rights – Consultation Department for Communities and Local Government Zone 1/J3 Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Background Getting to The current framework for permitted development is contained in the this stage: Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended).

Page 4106 Previous No changes have been made to these parts of the General Permitted engagement: Development Order under this Government.

Page5 107 Policy Context

9. The measures outlined in this paper will ease the planning restrictions and costly bureaucracy that prevents families and businesses from making improvements to their property. Thousands of people will be helped to move up the property ladder and will be able to expand their homes to accommodate a growing family or take care of an elderly relative without having to relocate. Cutting back municipal red tape in this way will help businesses to grow and thrive, and could provide a particular boost for small traders and small builders. This continues the Government’s programme of simplifying and streamlining the planning system and reducing burdens on families and businesses.

10. These added flexibilities will not be at the expense of neighbours and the surrounding community. Protections which are currently in place, both within the planning system and in other regimes, will remain, and these changes will not apply in conservation areas, National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

11. These proposals will also help to provide essential business infrastructure for a modern economy, and will contribute towards delivery of the Government’s ambition for the UK to have the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015.

Legal Background

12. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 1 sets out the changes to land or buildings which constitute ‘development’ and which are therefore subject to planning control. However, many types of development have only minor impacts, or impacts which can be controlled by standard conditions. It would be an unreasonable burden to require planning applications for these developments, so they are given a national grant of planning permission via permitted development rights.

13. Permitted development rights are set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Schedule 2 contains various Parts, each of which deals with a different aspect of permitted development. The Parts which are relevant to this consultation 2 are:

 Part 1 (Development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse)  Part 8 (Industrial and warehouse development)  Part 24 (Development by electronic communications code operators)  Part 41 (Office buildings)  Part 42 (Shops or catering, financial or professional services establishments)

14. The General Permitted Development Order sets out both what is allowed under permitted development, and any limitations and conditions that apply. Where a proposed development does not fall within the permitted development limits, this does not mean

1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s.55. 2 A complete and up-to-date version of Part 1 appears in The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2008 (SI 2008 No. 2362). The Government has also published Technical Guidance on Part 1; this is available at http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf . Complete and up-to-date versions of Parts 8, 41 and 42 appear in The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2010 (SI 2010 No. 654). Part 24 of the General Permitted Development Order was introduced in England by SI 2001 No. 2718 and amended in 2003 by SI 2003 No. 2155. Statutory instruments are available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/

Page 6108 that the development is not acceptable and cannot be built. It means that an application for planning permission needs to be made so that the local planning authority can consider all the circumstances of the case.

15. Permitted development only covers the planning aspects of the development. It does not remove requirements under other regimes (e.g. building regulations, the Party Wall Act 3 or environmental legislation). While these permitted development rights may apply to listed buildings outside protected areas, they only grant planning permission and do not remove the requirement for separate listed building consent.

16. There is already scope for local planning authorities to tailor permitted development rights to their own particular circumstances. They can be extended by means of local development orders, following local consultation. Alternatively, if there are genuine local concerns, councils can consult with the community about whether there are exceptional circumstances that merit withdrawal of permitted development rights locally using existing powers known as article 4 directions. 4 The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that the use of Article 4 directions to remove national permitted development rights should be limited to situations where this is necessary to protect local amenity or the wellbeing of the area. 5

Proposals for Change Increased limits for homeowner rear extensions and conservatories

17. At present, single-storey rear extensions with a depth beyond the rear wall of 4m for a detached house, and 3m for any other type of house, are allowed under permitted development rights, subject to various limitations.6 To provide greater flexibility for homeowners who wish to improve and enlarge their properties, we propose that in non- protected areas these limits should be increased to 8m for a detached house, and 6m for any other type of house. This would also cover conservatories at the rear of properties.

18. We are not proposing any changes for flats, which do not have permitted development rights for rear extensions, and are not proposing any changes for extensions of more than one storey, which under permitted development can have a maximum depth of 3m beyond the rear wall.

19. To ensure that the amenity of neighbouring properties is protected, other limitations and conditions would remain the same. For example, development will not be able to cover more than 50% of the curtilage of the house, single-storey extensions must not exceed 4m in height, and any extensions which have an eaves height of greater than 3m must not be within 2m of the boundary. In addition, existing protections under other regimes (building regulations, the Party Wall Act or the ‘right to light’, 7 for example) will continue to apply. There is no weakening of the National Planning Policy Framework policies which aim to prevent garden-grabbing.

3 See glossary. 4 See glossary. 5 National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 200. 6 This is set out in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, A1(e)(i) of the General Permitted Development Order. 7 See glossary. Page7 109 20. The proposals do not grant permitted development rights for the construction of separate outbuildings for residential accommodation, or for the creation of separate residential units. They do not reduce the wide range of powers which local authorities have to tackle the unauthorised ‘beds-in-sheds’ development carried out by a small minority of unscrupulous landlords. 8

Question 1: Do you agree that in non-protected areas the maximum depth for single-storey rear extensions should be increased to 8m for detached houses, and 6m for any other type of house?

Making it easier to carry out garage conversions

21. The Government is keen to support family annexes and is looking at how best to remove council tax and regulatory obstacles. A live-in annex for immediate relatives such as teenagers or their elderly grandparents will help increase housing supply and help ensure the elderly have dignity and security in retirement.

22. The use of existing garages for residential accommodation, where no separate residential unit is created, 9 does not usually require planning permission, as it does not constitute ‘development’. Where alterations are made which change the external appearance, such as the insertion of windows, this may constitute development. In most cases, these alterations can be carried out under permitted development rights. If there is a particular local problem with parking, councils may consider exercising an Article 4 direction, provided that there is a clear justification for doing so in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

23. Local authorities sometimes impose conditions restricting the conversion of garages, particularly in new developments. Such conditions should not be imposed unless they are fully justified, for example there is reason to believe that parking problems would otherwise result. Garages can provide a valuable source of extra space, and wherever possible, families should be able to adapt them to meet their changing needs.

24. Permitted development rights currently allow for improvements and alterations to garages, which can facilitate their conversion. 10 This already helps homeowners to provide extra family accommodation – however, we are keen to explore whether more could be done.

Question 2: Are there any changes which should be made to householder permitted development rights to make it easier to convert garages for the use of family members?

8 The Department for Communities and Local Government has published a guide on all the powers councils have to tackle unauthorised development: Dealing with rogue landlords: A guide for local authorities http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/roguelandlordsguide 9 Whether a separate residential unit is created depends not just on the physical structures involved, but on the way the annex is used, and by whom – for example, whether the occupant is a close relative, and lives as part of the main household. 10 Under Class A if the garage is an integral part of the house; under Class E if it is a freestanding outbuilding. Page 8110 Increased limits for extensions to shops and financial/professional services establishments, with development to the boundary of the premises

25. Shops and financial/professional services establishments are currently able to extend their premises by up to 50m 2, provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the original building by more than 25%, and subject to various other limitations. 11 We propose that outside of protected areas, these limits should be raised to 100m 2 and 50%. This will bring significant benefits for businesses, and will allow them to grow quickly without the need for costly and time-consuming planning applications. To give businesses extra flexibility, we also propose that they should be able to build up to the boundary of the premises, except where the boundary is with a residential property, when the requirement to leave a 2m gap along the boundary would remain.

26. Other limitations and conditions would remain the same, and existing protections under other regimes will continue to apply. For example, the height of the building as extended must not exceed 4m, and the development must not consist of changes to a shop front, or extensions beyond a shop front.

Question 3: Do you agree that in non-protected areas, shops and professional/financial services establishments should be able to extend their premises by up to 100m 2, provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the original building by more than 50%?

Question 4: Do you agree that in non-protected areas, shops and professional/financial services establishments should be able to build up to the boundary of the premises, except where the boundary is with a residential property, where a 2m gap should be left?

Increased limits for extensions to offices

27. Offices are currently able to extend their premises by up to 50m 2, provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the original building by more than 25%, and subject to various other limitations. 12 We propose that outside of protected areas, these limits should be raised to 100m 2 and 50% in order to provide greater flexibility for business expansion.

28. Other limitations and conditions would remain the same, and protections under other regimes will continue to apply. For example, buildings within 10m of the boundary must not be more than 5m high, in other cases the extension cannot exceed the height of the existing building, and new extensions must not be within 5m of the boundary.

Question 5 : Do you agree that in non-protected areas, offices should be able to extend their premises by up to 100m 2, provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the original building by more than 50%?

11 This is set out in Schedule 2, Part 42, Class A, A1(a) and (c) of the General Permitted Development Order. 12 This is set out in Schedule 2, Part 41, Class A, A1(a) of the General Permitted Development Order. Page9 111 Increased limits for new industrial buildings

29. At present, new industrial buildings or warehouses which are up to 100m 2 in size can be built within the curtilage of an existing industrial building or warehouse in a non-protected area, provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the original building by more than 25%. 13 We propose that outside of protected areas, these limits should be raised to 200m 2 and 50%. This will allow these businesses to expand quickly without the time and expense of going through the planning process. There are already generous limits for the extension of industrial and warehouse buildings (up to 1,000m 2), so no changes are proposed to those limits.

30. To protect local amenity, other limitations and conditions would remain the same, and existing protections under other regimes will continue to apply. For example, buildings within 10m of the boundary must not be more than 5m high, there must be no building within 5m of the boundary, and there must be no reduction in the space available for parking or turning of vehicles.

Question 6: Do you agree that in non-protected areas, new industrial buildings of up to 200m 2 should be permitted within the curtilage of existing industrial buildings and warehouses, provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the original building by more than 50%?

A time limit on the changes

31. We propose that these changes to permitted development rights should be in place for a period of three years, starting from the date at which the secondary legislation implementing these changes comes into force. This is because we recognise that current economic circumstances require exceptional measures to assist hard-pressed families and businesses, and to stimulate growth.

32. In order to provide certainty to neighbours and communities, and to make sure that the three-year window is effective, we propose that developments will have to be completed by the end of the three-year period. This is different from planning permissions, which specify a time limit within which the development must commence, but which allow for completion later. Homeowners and businesses wishing to exercise their rights under these changes will be required to notify the local planning authority on completion of the development. Where this notification is not received by the end of the three-year period, the development will not count as permitted development, and could be subject to enforcement action.

33. We will keep the impact of these measures, and whether there may be a case for their continuation at the end of the three-year period, under review.

Question 7 : Do you agree these permitted development rights should be in place for a period of three years?

Question 8: Do you agree that there should be a requirement to complete the development by the end of the three-year period, and notify the local planning authority on completion?

13 This is set out in Schedule 2, Part 8, Class A, A1(d) of the General Permitted Development Order. Page 10112 Protected areas

34. In order to make sure that there is no adverse impact on protected areas, we propose that the changes listed above should not apply on ‘article 1(5) land’. 14 The main areas this covers are:  National Parks  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty  conservation areas  World Heritage Sites  the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads

In addition we propose that the changes should not apply on Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

Question 9 : Do you agree that article 1(5) land and Sites of Special Scientific Interest should be excluded from the changes to permitted development rights for homeowners, offices, shops, professional/financial services establishments and industrial premises?

Delivery of Superfast Broadband

35. When the permitted development rights were first introduced in 2001, the nature and needs of the technology and the likely impacts on surrounding areas were still being explored. Therefore, an approach was taken which combined permitted development rights with prior approval for certain works in certain areas. At present, under part 24 of the General Permitted Development Order, fixed broadband apparatus such as cabinets, telegraph poles, and overhead lines have permitted development rights, which means they can be installed without the need to apply for planning permission. This is subject to a prior approval process on article 1(5) land which allows planning authorities to consider the siting and appearance of communications apparatus before development commences. These permitted development rights liberalise the planning system and allow for speedier deployment of communications infrastructure, although the prior approval process can create uncertainty for developers and prolong the time taken on installation.

36. We propose to remove this prior approval requirement as it applies to article 1(5) land. This change will be for a period of five years, and all works will have to be completed by the end of that period in order to count as permitted development. 15 The Government will be asking the relevant operators to work with local planning authorities to agree good practice so that all parties are aware of how and when roll-out will be delivered in their area, and the principles governing siting and design.

37. There is now a considerable body of experience and good practice in the delivery of this infrastructure, and it is essential for growth and international competitiveness that we deliver on our ambition for the UK to have the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015. This will not only boost UK businesses, but will ensure that rural areas can share the same benefits as cities, and that everyone across the country can be certain of access to a fast reliable network.

14 ‘Article 1(5) land’ refers to types of areas set out in article 1(5) of the General Permitted Development Order. 15 These proposals relate to the infrastructure used for the fixed broadband service, which does not include masts, certain types of antenna, public call boxes, radio equipment housing over a certain size and development ancillary to such radio equipment: see Schedule 2, Part 24, Class A, paragraph A2(4)(b) of the General Permitted Development Order. Page11 113 38. The prior approval requirement will continue to apply in Sites of Special Scientific Interest in order to ensure that these sensitive sites are not damaged.

39. The Electronic Communications Code (Conditions & Restrictions) Regulations currently require all lines to be placed underground except in certain circumstances such as where poles already exist, or it is not practical to do so. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport will be consulting later this month on a proposal to relax the restriction on overhead lines everywhere except in Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

Question 10 : Do you agree that the prior approval requirement for the installation, alteration or replacement of any fixed electronic communications equipment should be removed in relation to article 1(5) land for a period of five years?

Benefits and Impacts from our Proposals

40. These proposals will offer benefits to individuals, businesses and the economy as a whole. Individuals will be able to get on with an extension without needing to go through the slow and costly process of applying for planning permission, and more people will be able to properly house their growing families and care for elderly relatives. Savings to individual homeowners could be up to £2,500, and we estimate that up to 40,000 families a year could benefit from these savings.

41. Individual businesses will benefit from the freedom to expand and improve their existing premises. They will be able to grow and thrive without the disruption and cost of relocating. These measures will also bring extra work to small construction businesses and traders – approximately 30 jobs are supported for every additional £1m spent on housing repairs and maintenance. The amount of extra development which will come forward will depend on how many families and businesses who were previously deterred by the planning application process now decide to develop. For illustration, 20,000 new extensions could generate up to £600m of construction output, supporting up to 18,000 jobs.

42. Businesses and communities, particularly in rural areas, will benefit from quicker roll-out of broadband, and this essential business infrastructure will help to build a modern and competitive economy.

43. It is important that any impacts on neighbours and communities are minimised. Protections and limitations, both within the planning system and other regimes (such a building regulations or the Party Wall Act) will still remain in place, and the changes to permitted development rights for homeowners, offices, shops, professional/financial services establishments and industrial premises will not apply in conservation areas, National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Larger, more complex and controversial proposals will continue to go through the planning system to ensure that their impacts can be fully considered.

Page 12114 Consultation Questions – Response Form

We are seeking your views to the following questions on the proposals to increase the permitted development rights for homeowners, businesses and installers of broadband infrastructure. How to respond:

The closing date for responses is 5pm, 24 December 2012.

This response form is saved separately on the DCLG website.

Responses should be sent to: [email protected]

Written responses may be sent to: Helen Marks Permitted Development Rights – Consultation Department for Communities and Local Government 1/J3, Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU About you i) Your details:

Name:

Position:

Name of organisation (if applicable):

Address:

Email:

Telephone number: ii) Are the views expressed on this consultation an official response from the organisation you represent or your own personal views?

Organisational response Personal views iii) Please tick the box which best describes you or your organisation:

District Council

Page13 115 Metropolitan district council London borough council Unitary authority County council/county borough council Parish/community council Non-Departmental Public Body Planner Professional trade association Land owner Private developer/house builder Developer association Residents association Voluntary sector/charity Other

(please comment):

iv) What is your main area of expertise or interest in this work? (please tick one box)

Chief Executive Planner Developer Surveyor Member of professional or trade association Councillor Planning policy/implementation Environmental protection Other (please comment):

Would you be happy for us to contact you again in relation to this questionnaire?

Yes ! ! ! No ! ii) Questions

Please refer to the relevant parts of the consultation document for narrative relating to each question.

Page 14116 Question 1: Do you agree that in non-protected areas the maximum depth for single- storey rear extensions should be increased to 8m for detached houses, and 6m for any other type o f h ouse?

Yes ! ! ! No !

Comments

Question 2: Are there any changes which should be made to householder permitted deve lo pme nt r ights to make it easier to convert garages for the use of family members?

Yes ! ! ! No !

Comments

Question 3: Do you agree that in non-protected areas, shops and professional/financial services establishments should be able to extend their premises by up to 100m 2, provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the original building by more than 50%?

Yes ! ! ! No !

Comments

Question 4: Do you agree that in non-protected areas, shops and professional/financial services establishments should be able to build up to the boundary of the premises, exce pt whe re the boundary is with a residential property, where a 2m gap should be left?

Yes ! ! ! No !

Page15 117 Comments

Question 5: Do you agree that in non-protected areas, offices should be able to extend their premises by up to 100m 2, provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the origi na l building by more than 50%?

Yes ! ! ! No !

Comments

Question 6: Do you agree that in non-protected areas, new industrial buildings of up to 200m 2 should be permitted within the curtilage of existing industrial buildings and warehouses, provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the original build in g by more than 50%?

Yes ! ! ! No !

Comments

Question 7: Do you agree these permitted development rights should be in place for a period of three years?

Yes ! ! ! No !

Comments

Page 16118 Question 8: Do you agree that there should be a requirement to complete the development by the end of the three-year period, and notify the local planning authority on completion?

Yes ! ! ! No !

Comments

Question 9: Do you agree that article 1(5) land and Sites of Special Scientific Interest should be excluded from the changes to permitted development rights for homeowners, offices, shops, professional/financial services establishments and industrial premises?

Yes ! ! ! No !

Comments

Question 10: Do you agree that the prior approval requirement for the installation, alteration or replacement of any fixed electronic communications equipment should be removed in relation to article 1(5) land for a period of five years?

Yes ! ! ! No !

Comments

Do you have any comments on the assumptions and analysis set out in the consultation stage Impact Assessment? (See Annex 1)

Yes ! ! ! No !

Page17 119 Comments

Thank you for your comments.

Page 18120 Consultation Information About this consultation

Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent, and where relevant who else they have consulted in reaching their conclusions when they respond.

Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004). If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, there is a statutory code of practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department.

The Department for Communities and Local Government will process your personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and in the majority of circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties. Individual responses will not be acknowledged unless specifically requested. Your opinions are valuable to us. Thank you for taking the time to read this document and respond.

If you have any queries or complaints regarding the consultation process, please contact: DCLG Consultation Co-ordinator Zone 6/H10 Eland House London SW1E 5DU email: [email protected]

Page19 121 GLOSSARY

Article 4 directions Article 4 of the General Permitted Development Order allows local planning authorities to consult with their local communities about whether to withdraw particular permitted development rights over a specified area. Where an article 4 direction is in place, those permitted development rights no longer apply, and a planning application must be submitted. Article 4 directions do not affect development which has already been begun or completed under the permitted development rights.

Guidance on the operation of article 4 directions is available at http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2160020.pdf . This states that local planning authorities should consider making article 4 directions only in those exceptional circumstances where evidence suggests that the exercise of permitted development rights would harm local amenity or the proper planning of the area. While article 4 directions are confirmed by local planning authorities, the Secretary of State must be notified, and has wide powers to modify or cancel most article 4 directions at any point.

Curtilage In general, the curtilage of a house refers to land within the boundaries of the property, including any closely associated structures and buildings. Precisely what is within the curtilage of a house will vary depending on the nature of the property in question.

‘Right to light’ The ‘right to light’, which operates separately from the planning system, protects the rights of owners of buildings with windows which have received natural light for 20 years or more. It will be important for people thinking of constructing an extension under these proposed changes to make sure they don’t infringe their neighbours’ right to light.

The Party Wall etc Act 1996 The Party Wall Act provides a framework for preventing and resolving disputes in relation to party walls and excavations near neighbouring buildings. Anyone intending to carry out work of the kinds described in the Act must give the Adjoining Owners notice of their intentions. An Adjoining Owner cannot stop someone from exercising the rights given to them by the Act, but may be able to influence how and at what times the work is done through the drawing up of a Party Wall Award. However, if a Building Owner starts work without having first given notice in the proper way, Adjoining Owners may seek to stop the work through a court injunction or seek other legal redress.

The Department publishes an explanatory booklet which sets out the rights and responsibilities of both parties. It also gives information and guidance which individuals may find useful, such as sample letters. The booklet is available at: http://communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/partywall

Page 20122 Title: Impact Assessment (IA) EXTENDING PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR HOMEOWNERS AND BUSINESSES: TECHNICAL Date: 12 November 2012 CONSULTATION Stage: Consultation IA No: Source of intervention: Domestic Lead department or agency: Type of measure: Secondary legislation Department for Communities and Local Government Contact for enquiries : Helen Marks Other departments or agencies:

Summary: Intervention and Options RPC Opinion: N/A

Cost of Preferred (or more likely) Option Total Net Present Business Net Net cost to business per In scope of One-In, Measure qualifies as Value Present Value year (EANCB on 2009 prices) One-Out? Yes Out What is the problem under consideration? Why is government intervention necessary? The policy issue under consideration is whether the thresholds that govern the available permitted development rights for householder extensions and certain non-domestic extensions and new buildings could be increased for a limited period. This would allow more development to take place without the requirement fo r local authority planning permission and provide an incentive for developers to carry out works in the short term, rather than delay. There would be benefits for businesses who carry out development and businesses wishing to expand. There are also potential growth benefits where development takes place that would not otherwise have done so due to the requirement to obtain local authority planning permission.

Superfast broadband is key to boosting economic growth, increasing competitiveness and creating jobs. Accordingly, Government has allocated £530 million to help take superfast broadband to rural areas and is keen to incentivise greater roll out by easing the planning consideration of associated development. What are the policy objectives and the intended effects?  A boost for growth by incentivising developers to carry out work in the short term, rather than delaying, and where development takes place that would not otherwise have done so due to the requirement to obtain local authority planning permission.  Benefits for businesses who carry out development and businesses wishing to expand. Business will no longer be required to prepare planning applications for certain development.  Developers will make fee savings from no longer submitting planning applications.  Reducing the need for local authority assessment of development with more limited impacts to allow them to concentrate on larger development of more strategic benefit to their local area.  Fast track the roll out of superfast broadband.

What policy options have been considered, including any alternatives to regulation? Please justify preferred option (further details in Evidence Base) •Option 1 – do nothing: make no changes to permitted development rights. •Option 2 – deregulate by increasing the permitted development thresholds for householder extensions and certain non-domestic extensions and new buildings. For broadband deployment, remove the requirement for prior approval for electronic communications apparatus in protected areas.

Will the policy be reviewed? Yes If applicable, set review date: Does implementation go beyond minimum EU requirements? N/A Are any of these organisations in scope? If Micros not Micr o < 20 Small Large Medium exempted set out reason in Evidence Base.

What is the CO 2 equivalent change in greenhouse gas emissions? Traded: Non-traded: (Million tonnes CO 2 equivalent) 0 I have read the Impact Assessment and I am satisfied that, given the available evidence, it represents a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impact of the leading options.

Signed by the responsible Minister: Date:

Page21 123 Evidence Base (for summary sheets)

The planning system provides a mechanism through which the impacts and external costs of development to third parties can be taken into consideration when new development is proposed. The planning system plays an important role in promoting the efficient use of land and considering and mitigating the adverse impacts that development can have on third parties. However, applying for planning permission places an administrative burden on business, estimated at around £1.1 billion in 2006.16

Where a development has little or limited adverse impact, or the impacts can be controlled in a way that does not require assessment of each individual proposal, the requirement to obtain planning permission can place burdens on business and others that are out of proportion with the potential impacts of the development.

The planning system aims to achieve proportionality by exercising different degrees of control over types of development with different degrees of impact. The requirement for local authority scrutiny of proposals with little or limited adverse impact is removed using permitted development rights. Permitted development rights are a deregulatory tool, established nationally, and use a general impacts-based approach to grant automatic planning permission for development that complies with limitations and conditions that are set out in the Parts to Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. The 1995 Order has been amended several times as new rights have been added or existing rights have been changed.

Policy issue under consideration and objectives

The policy issue under consideration is whether the thresholds that govern the available permitted development rights for householder extensions and certain non-domestic extensions and new buildings could be increased for a limited period. This would allow more development to take place without the requirement for local authority planning permission and provide an incentive for developers to carry out works in the short term, rather than delay. There would be benefits for businesses who carry out development and businesses wishing to expand. There are also potential growth benefits where development takes place that would not otherwise have done so due to the requirement to obtain local authority planning permission.

Superfast broadband is key to boosting economic growth, increasing competitiveness and creating jobs. Government has a target to have the best superfast broadband in Europe by 2015. Accordingly, Government has allocated £530 million to help take superfast broadband to rural areas and and is keen to incentivise faster roll out by easing the planning consideration of associated development.

16 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/corporate/pdf/regulation-burden.pdf

22 Page 124 The relevant parts of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 that are being considered are:

 Part 1 (Development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse)  Part 8 (Industrial and warehouse development)  Part 24 (Development by electronic communications code operators)  Part 41 (Office buildings)  Part 42 (Shops or catering, financial or professional services establishments)

The policy objective is to deregulate by removing more development from the requirement for detailed local authority assessment of proposals by increasing the permitted development thresholds for householder extensions and certain non-domestic extensions and new buildings for a three year period. In addition, for broadband deployment, the objective is to remove the requirement for prior approval for electronic communications apparatus in protected areas, excluding Sites of Special Scientific Interest, for a period of five years. These policies are deregulatory measures.

The intended effects of the proposal are to reduce the burden of the planning system on homeowners and business, and boost growth. Specific effects include:

 A boost for growth by incentivising developers to carry out work in the short term, rather than delaying, and where development takes place that would not otherwise have done so due to the requirement to obtain local authority planning permission.  Benefits for businesses who carry out development and businesses wishing to expand. Business will no longer be required to prepare planning applications for certain development. Business will also make fee savings from no longer submitting planning applications.  Reducing the need for local authority assessment of development with more limited impacts to allow them to concentrate on larger development of more strategic benefit to their local area.  Fast tracking the roll out of superfast broadband.

Current position

Presently, development that exceeds the existing thresholds set out in the relevant part of the Order is likely to require an application for planning permission, with an associated fee and other costs payable by the applicant. The requirement for planning permission can be seen as one of the disincentives to undertake development, particularly at the margins where the perceived benefits of the development are relatively low.

Options for change

Two options are considered.

23 Page 125 Option 1 – do nothing: make no changes to permitted development rights.

Option 2 – deregulate by increasing the permitted development thresholds for householder extensions and certain non- domestic extensions and new buildings. For broadband deployment, remove the requirement for prior approval for electronic communications apparatus in protected areas. The detailed proposals are:

Householder extensions (Part 1) At present, the permitted development rights in Part 1 allow single-storey rear extensions (including conservatories) of 4m depth from the rear wall for a detached house, and 3m for any other type of house. We propose that outside of protected areas (such as conservation areas, National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Sites of Special Scientific Interest) these thresholds should be extended to 8m for a detached house, and 6m for any other type of house for a three year period. Other limitations and conditions in Part 1 would still apply to reduce the risk of adverse impacts on neighbouring properties and the wider area. This includes requirements on the height of development. The feasibility of making it easier to convert garages to habitable accommodation is also being explored.

Extensions to shops and financial/professional services establishments (Part 42) Shops and financial/professional services establishments are currently able to extend their premises by up to 50m 2, provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the original building by more than 25%, and provided that the extension is no higher than 4m. We propose that outside of protected areas, these limits should be raised to 100m 2 and 50% for a three year period. We also propose that they should be able to build up to the boundary of the premises, except where the boundary is with a residential property. Other limitations and conditions would still apply.

Office extensions (Part 41) Offices are currently able to extend their premises by up to 50m 2, provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the original building by more than 25%, and subject to various other limitations. We propose that outside of protected areas, these limits should be raised to 100m 2 and 50% for a three year period. Other limitations and conditions would still apply.

Industrial and warehouse buildings (Part 8) At present, new industrial buildings or warehouses which are up to 100m 2 in size can be built within the curtilage of an existing industrial building or warehouse, provided that the floor space of the original building would not be exceeded by more than 25% in non-protected areas. We propose that in non- protected areas, these limits should be raised to 200m 2 and 50% for a three year period.

Development to facilitate the roll out of broadband (Part 24) At present, under part 24 of the General Permitted Development Order, fixed broadband apparatus such as cabinets, telegraph poles, and overhead lines

24 Page 126 have permitted development rights, which means they can be installed without the need to apply for planning permission. This is subject to a prior approval process on article 1(5) land which allows planning authorities to consider the siting and appearance of communications apparatus before development commences. These permitted development rights liberalise the planning system and allow for speedier deployment of communications infrastructure, although the prior approval process can create uncertainty for developers and prolong the time taken on installation. We propose to remove this prior approval requirement as it applies to article 1(5) land. This change will be for a period of five years.

Option 2 is preferred as it would meet the policy objectives outlined above.

Consultation

A consultation exercise will be used to test the appropriateness of the proposals and also identify whether that are further opportunities to deregulate in respect of garage conversions.

Sectors and groups affected

The main sectors and groups most likely to be affected by the proposal are:

 Home and business owners wishing to extend their property (particularly those who are encouraged to do so through reduced planning costs)

 Businesses that carry out development work on behalf of home and business owners wishing to extend their property

 Businesses that install broadband equipment

 Planning services/staff at local authorities who will determine fewer applications for planning permission

 Third parties who live or work in the vicinity of new development

 Society more widely is likely to benefit from economic growth and broadband rollout

Cost-Benefit Analysis

Option 1 - ‘Do nothing’ scenario

The planning application process would continue to apply for those who do not meet the thresholds to benefit from permitted development rights. Those wishing to develop outside existing thresholds would continue to pay planning fees and the administrative costs of making a planning application, and these

25 Page 127 costs may deter development and the growth and other benefits associated with Option 2.

Option 2 – Changing the permitted development thresholds

In making the assessment of costs and benefits it is important to distinguish between:

(1) planning applications that would have happened under the ‘do nothing’ scenario and therefore benefit from administration and fee savings related to the application process; and

(2) those cases where development would not have occurred but for this policy change, i.e. where the economic costs imposed by the planning system were sufficient to prevent development at the margin.

We identify and describe all sources of costs and benefits below and have attempted to quantify these using illustrative scenarios wherever this is possible.

Costs and savings for householder applicants Householder applicants who intended to develop before the changes, and meet the increased thresholds will save directly on the £150 cost of the planning application fee that will no longer apply as the development is permitted development. There will also be indirect savings on transaction costs such as professional fees, production of scaled drawings, time spent compiling and presenting information etc. The estimated total savings on the planning application process (including fee) is between £150 and £2470 17 depending on the level of information required to support the application. If the requirement to seek planning permission were removed these costs would no longer be incurred.

In the year ending March 2012 18 there were just under 195,000 decisions on ‘householder development’ applications. If we assume that 10-20% of these would fall within permitted development rights after the policy change, between 20,000 and 40,000 developments would no longer be subject to planning requirements. It should be noted that these figures represent a tentative estimate. It is likely that a proportion of the 195,000 decisions involved applications for development within a National Park or conservation area etc, and these developments will be unaffected by the policy changes proposed.

Under this illustrative scenario – between 10% and 20% of existing householder developments no longer require an application – the saving to applicants might range between £5m and £100m annually.

17 Based on ARUP benchmarking work in http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/benchmarkingcostsapplication.pdf 18 DCLG live table P124.

26 Page 128 There will be further benefit from householders who were previously deterred from development by the cost of preparation and submission of a planning application. Householders may now choose to develop their homes. It is not possible to estimate the number of applicants that are currently deterred from making changes to their homes because of the economic costs the planning system imposes.

Table 1 shows a range of construction output that may result from this additional development based on construction cost, floor area and illustrative take-up assumptions.

Table 1: Construction Output (illustrative) Additional Unit Floor Construction Construction Extensions Area (sqm) Cost (per Output sqm) 19 Low 10,000 40 £750 £300,000,000 High 20,000 40 £750 £600,000,000

Under these illustrative scenarios, the additional annual construction output ranges between £300m and £600m.

Costs and savings for business and other organisations wishing to carry out development under Parts 8, 41 and 42 to Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning Order 1995, and meeting the increased size thresholds Businesses and other organisations intending to develop (that would have done so in the absence of permitted development rights) but also now meeting the increased thresholds will make direct fee savings from submitting a reduced number of planning applications being required. They will also save on the associated transaction costs such as professional fees, production of scaled drawings, time spent compiling and presenting information etc. If the requirement to seek planning permission were removed these costs would no longer be incurred.

In 2011/12 there were 9,600 planning applications for minor development in ‘offices/research and development/light industry’ and ‘retail distribution and servicing’ categories. 20 Only a proportion of these applications will be for extensions that will be covered by the proposed permitted development rights: if we assume that between 10% and 20% of these applications fall within permitted development rights following the proposed policy changes, between 960 and 1,920 developments will no longer be subject to planning requirements.

19 Based on an assumed construction cost in a range of £500- £1000 per sqm. 20 DCLG (2006) Householder Consents - Survey of Applicants: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/151327.pdf

27 Page 129 In 2011/12 there were 2,200 applications for minor development in ‘general industry/storage/warehouse’ categories. 21 Once again, only a proportion of these will be covered by the proposed permitted development rights: assuming that 10-20% of these applications will be covered by permitted development rights under the proposed policy changes, then between 220 and 440 developments will no longer be subject to planning requirements.

The administration and fee savings on the above applications will vary depending on the size. Given that these applications are for business premises, the cost savings from no longer preparing (time and resource) and submitting (fees) are likely to accrue to business. Table 2 shows the application savings based on the illustrative scenarios set out above.

Table 2: Application administrative and fee savings Annual Applications Fee Saving 22 Office / Research and Low 960 £170 £163,200 Development / Light Industry High 1,920 £2,540 £4,876,800 23 General Industry / Storage / Low 220 £3,500 £770,000 Warehouse High 440 £3,500 £1,540,000

As before, there is likely to some additional economic activity as a result of development that would not otherwise have come forward due to the perceived cost of the planning system. It is not possible to estimate the number of business applicants that are currently deterred from development because of the economic costs the planning system imposes.

Table 3 shows the additional construction output under illustrative scenarios for additional development. These are based upon assumed floor area and construction costs.

Table 3: Construction output (illustrative ) Additional Unit Floor Construction Cost (per Construction Extensions Area (sqm) sqm) 24 Output Low 500 200 £1,250 £125,000,000 High 1,000 200 £1,250 £250,000,000

Under these illustrative scenarios, the additional annual construction output ranges between £125m and £250m.

21 DCLG (2006) Householder Consents - Survey of Applicants: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/151327.pdf 22 Based on Arup (2009) and the costs for dwelling house extensions, it is estimated that planning process costs are in a range between £170 and £2540. 23 Arup (2009) estimate the costs of preparing and submitting a warehouse development range between £3,500 and £36,500. 23 This cost is based on developments of under 1,000m² so applications for under 100m² are likely to be at the lowest end of the range. 24 Based on an assumed construction cost range between £1000 and £1500 per sqm.

28 Page 130 Development to facilitate the roll out of broadband Firms seeking to make installations as part of the roll out of superfast broadband in protected areas, for example Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, conservation areas, heritage sites etc, but not including Sites of Special Scientific Interest, for a limited period of five years will no longer be required to engage in a lengthy prior approval process. As a result there will be direct administration savings. Arup (2009) estimate the costs of preparing a submitting a prior approval application ranges between £1,410 and £4,335 25 .

Businesses are also likely to benefit from access to superfast broadband.

Construction businesses Businesses which carry out construction work are also likely to benefit from increased economic activity.

Costs and benefits for local authorities Local authorities will benefit from a reduced number of planning applications, freeing up resources to be employed elsewhere. However, they will also now not receive the fee income associated with having to assess the planning applications that they previously would have received, which is designed to cover the full costs of determining the planning application.

There may be an increased number of enquiries by homeowners and their neighbours relating to whether new development meets the conditions laid out in the permitted development rights. This could impose some administrative costs on local planning authorities in terms of dealing with these queries. However, even in the absence of these permitted development rights, the local planning authority would receive pre-application enquiries regarding their policies and their views of development proposals. It is therefore considered that the permitted development rights would result in a transfer of resources from dealing with planning application queries to permitted development rights’ queries that will broadly net out overall.

Costs and benefits to neighbours and communities Third parties living and working close to new development that proceeds under permitted development rights at the higher thresholds may consider that amenity has been unduly impacted on as a result of the proposals. This could be, for example, due to perceived harmful visual impact or loss of light resulting from the development.

It is proposed to minimise this risk by maintaining appropriate limitations and conditions that will need to be met for the permitted development rights to apply. Other non-planning related protections will also still apply, including the Party Wall Act and the ‘right to light’.

25 Arup (2009) Benchmarking the cost of submitting a planning application: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/benchmarkingcostsapplication.pdf

29 Page 131 If, in exceptional circumstances, it is clearly demonstrated that the permitted development rights are materially harmful in a particular locality, local authorities are able to consult with their communities on using an Article 4 direction to withdraw the rights. Removal of the rights in these exceptional circumstances allows all the potential planning impacts of the development to be considered locally by requiring planning applications.

Communities may benefit from increased economic activity in their area. Construction work supports local employment in trades such as building and plumbing, as well as the businesses that provide materials to them and others in the supply chain. For example, every additional £1m of output in housing repairs and maintenance supports around 30 jobs (in gross terms).

Impact on small firms There may be positive impacts for small firms wishing to expand their premises or involved in the construction business. In addition small firms involved in the supply chains of these firms could benefit.

Rural proofing The proposals for householder and business extensions will not apply in protected areas, including National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Beauty. As these landscape designations are generally rural areas, the policy has the potential to exclude home and business owners in these areas. There is a need to strike an appropriate balance between deregulating and maintain appropriate protections, particularly in those sensitive areas where tighter controls are needed as development can have a disproportionate impact on the quality and character of the natural and built landscape.

Effective, reliable and fast communications are vital for the economic prosperity and social sustainability of rural England. The proposals to facilitate the roll out of superfast broadband will boost growth in rural areas, and has the potential to make services more accessible to rural communities.

Implementation If these proposals are adopted, an amendment will be made to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

Monitoring The proposed extensions to homeowner and business permitted development rights are a temporary measure for three years. A light touch review of the policy will be undertaken towards the end of this period to establish how best to proceed. Similarly, a light touch review of the broadband changes will be undertaken towards the end of the five year period.

30 Page 132 RECENT DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITIES and LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONSULTATIONS AFFECTING PLANNING – APPENDIX 2

PURPOSE OF APPENDIX 1 To include the draft response to the consultation on Permitted Development. Questions

Please refer to the relevant parts of the consultation document for narrative relating to each question.

Question 1: Do you agree that in non-protected areas the maximum depth for single- storey rear extensions should be increased to 8m for detached houses, and 6m for any other type of house?

Yes No √

Comments

The principle guiding the last changes to householder permitted development rights was to mitigate the impact of that type of development on the surrounding area and neighbours. Extensions of the scale proposed would, in most housing developments, result in overbearing and oppressive forms of development for adjoining neighbours. Their outlook would be unacceptably dominated and the potential for overlooking and loss of privacy would be increased. One of the core principles set out in the NPPF is that LPAs should seek to ensure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Extending PD rights in the manner proposed would not be compatible with the objectives of the NPPF and the harm that would be caused to the living conditions of neighbouring residents would be very much against the public interest.

Question 2: Are there any changes which should be made to householder permitted development rights to make it easier to convert garages for the use of family members?

Yes No √

Comments

Page 133 The current PD rights function well in respect of garage conversions and the Council cannot recall of any serious difficulties that have arisen under the present Class A or Class E provisions. There is no need for any changes to be introduced. These permitted development rights also extend to other outbuildings. One possible extension of the permitted development rights may be to allow the construction of curtilage buildings for primary living accommodation provided that this does not create a separate residential unit. Whilst this may assist the tourist industry in South Lakeland it may cause a proliferation of “Beds in Sheds” and thus control by conditions may be necessary.

Question 3: Do you agree that in non-protected areas, shops and professional/financial services establishments should be able to extend their 2 premises by up to 100m , provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the original building by more than 50%?

Yes No √

Comments

2 2 An increase from 50m to 100m could give rise to problems of over- development, particularly if extensions are permitted to be built up to the boundaries of premises.

Question 4: Do you agree that in non-protected areas, shops and professional/financial services establishments should be able to build up to the boundary of the premises, except where the boundary is with a residential property, where a 2m gap should be left? Yes No √

Comments

An increase could give rise to problems of over-development, particularly if extensions are permitted to be built up to the boundaries of premises.

Question 5: Do you agree that in non-protected areas, offices should be able to extend their premises by up to 100m 2, provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the original building by more than 50%? Yes No √

Page 134 Comments

South Lakeland District Council considers that the 2m buffer should also be applied to this class as well as to shops and professional /financial services because the same issues occur as stated above.

Question 6: Do you agree that in non-protected areas, new industrial buildings of up to 200m 2 should be permitted within the curtilage of existing industrial buildings and warehouses, provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the original building by more than 50%? Yes √ No

Comments

None

Question 7: Do you agree these permitted development rights should be in place for a period of three years? Yes No √

Comments

This time period is illogical. Either the extensions are acceptable and therefore there is no need for a time period or they are not acceptable, i.e. they have an adverse impact on the neighbours and therefore should not be implemented.

Question 8: Do you agree that there should be a requirement to complete the development by the end of the three-year period, and notify the local planning authority on completion? Yes √ No

Comments

Does completion mean that it is completed internally or just the external works? The consultation document states that an uncompleted extension may be subject to enforcement action. The only reason enforcement action would be taken would be because the extension causes public harm, i.e. it has an adverse impact on the neighbouring properties. If these large extensions have

Page 135 an adverse impact then they are contrary to the design objectives of the NPPF and this change of permitted development rights should not be implemented. If there is no public harm why is there a need for sanctions to ensure completion within 3 years, indeed what sanctions are available?

Question 9: Do you agree that article 1(5) land and Sites of Special Scientific Interest should be excluded from the changes to permitted development rights for homeowners, offices, shops, professional/financial services establishments and industrial premises? Yes √ No

Comments

None

Question 10: Do you agree that the prior approval requirement for the installation, alteration or replacement of any fixed electronic communications equipment should be removed in relation to article 1(5) land for a period of five years? Yes √ No

Comments

There should be no poles or overhead cables in article 1(5) land.

Do you have any comments on the assumptions and analysis set out in the consultation stage Impact Assessment? (See Annex 1) Yes √ No

Comments

It is considered that the architectural/drawing savings of £2,330 are overstated based on prices in South Lakeland. Extensions of the size proposed, even if constructed on a Building Notice, will require drawings so that the builder can estimate costs and have a plan to assist construction as well as indicating structural integrity and thus architectural/drawing fees will be incurred.

Page 136 Planning performance and the planning guarantee

Consultation

November, 2012 Department for Communities and Local Government Page 137 © Crown copyright, 2012

Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.

You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected] .

This document/publication is also available on our website at www.communities.gov.uk

Any enquiries regarding this document/publication should be sent to us at:

Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 030 3444 0000

November, 2012

ISBN: 978-1-4098-3711-4

Page 138 Contents

Page

The consultation process and how to respond 2

Introduction 4

Context 6

Assessing performance 8

Effects of designation 15

The planning guarantee 19

Consultation questions 21

1 Page 139 The consultation process and how to respond

Scope of the consultation

Topic of this The Growth and Infrastructure Bill will allow consultation: applicants for planning permission to apply directly to the Planning Inspectorate, where a planning authority has been designated as poorly performing. This consultation seeks views on our proposals for how this measure would be implemented, and for related proposals for the planning guarantee. Scope of this The consultation sets out the criteria that might be consultation: used to assess planning authority performance, what thresholds might be used, how any designations would be made and the consequences of such a designation (including the procedures that would apply where an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and the basis on which a designation would end). It also proposes a refund of the planning application fee in cases where the planning guarantee is not met. Geographical scope: These proposals relate to England only. Impact assessment: The Impact Assessment for the Growth and Infrastructure Bill can be viewed at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/upl oads/attachment_data/file/14682/growth_and_infras tructure_bill_-_impact_assessment.pdf

Basic information

To: This is a public consultation and it is open to anyone with an interest in these proposals to respond. Body responsible for The Department for Communities and Local the consultation: Government is responsible for the policy and the consultation exercise. Duration: This consultation will run for 8 weeks. It will begin on Thursday 22 November 2012 and end on Thursday 17 January 2013.

Enquiries: E-mail: [email protected]

2 Page 140 How to respond: Please respond to this consultation by email to: [email protected]

Alternatively, please send postal responses to:

Robert Shane Planning Performance Consultation Department for Communities and Local Government 1/J1 Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Additional ways to N/A become involved: After the A summary of responses to the consultation will be consultation: published.

Background

Getting to this stage: The Growth and Infrastructure Bill can be viewed at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2 012-2013/0075/cbill_2012-20130075_en_1.htm The Planning Guarantee was announced in the Plan for Growth in March 2011: http://cdn.hm- treasury.gov.uk/2011budget_growth.pdf Previous Further details of how the planning guarantee could engagement: be implemented were announced in July 2011.

3 Page 141 Introduction

About this consultation

1. An effective planning system plays a vital part in supporting growth – promoting and enabling the homes, jobs and facilities that communities need, and minimising uncertainty and delay for those proposing or affected by development.

2. The Government has already taken important steps to ensure that the planning system fulfils this potential – in particular by publishing the National Planning Policy Framework in March 2012. This not only represents a radical simplification of national policy, but also emphasises the need for a positive approach to both plan making and decision taking, while retaining important protections. A number of reforms to simplify and speed-up planning procedures have also been announced, including the planning guarantee – that applications should take no more than a year to decide, including any planning appeal.

3. Our reforms have given significant additional power to councils and communities in deciding the scale, location and form of development in their areas. But with this power comes a responsibility to exercise planning functions properly. The Growth and Infrastructure Bill, introduced to Parliament on 18 October, contains a number of additional proposals that build upon our existing reforms. They include a measure to enable quicker and better decisions where there are clear failures in local planning authority performance, by giving applicants the option of applying directly to the Planning Inspectorate.

4. This measure is aimed only at those few situations where councils are clearly failing to deliver an effective service. Applicants for planning permission can reasonably expect timely and good quality decisions – justice delayed is justice denied. Where there is clear evidence of very poor performance we want to give applicants the choice of a better service, but will also want to ensure that those authorities have access to the support they need in order to improve as quickly as possible.

5. This consultation asks for views on our proposals for implementing this measure once the Bill is enacted. This will help to inform debate on the clause as it progresses through Parliament. The measure would be implemented through policy and secondary legislation, the final form of which will need to reflect Parliament’s decisions on the Bill. The consultation also sets out our further proposals for implementing the planning guarantee, which is closely related to the provisions in the Bill.

6. We would welcome comments from any individuals or organisations with an interest in these proposals, which apply to England only. The closing date for responses is Thursday 17 January 2013.

4 Page 142 What are we proposing?

7. The legislation will allow applications to be submitted to the Secretary of State where a local planning authority is designated for this purpose. We intend that this power would be used only where there is a track record of very poor performance in either the speed or quality of the decisions made by an authority; and that clear benchmarks are used to define what this means in practice.

8. Where an authority is designated, we propose that applications would be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State), where the applicant chooses this route. This ability would be limited to those seeking permission for major development 1. A designated authority would need to demonstrate a sufficient degree of improvement before the designation is lifted.

9. Apart from its direct effects, we anticipate that the legislation will stimulate an increased focus on performance across planning authorities generally, and will help to ensure that the planning guarantee is met. As a further means of ensuring that decisions are made within the guarantee period, we are also proposing a refund of the planning application fee, should an application remain undetermined after 26 weeks. This would apply to all planning applications, and be implemented through a change to secondary legislation.

10. These proposals are set out in detail in the remainder of this consultation, along with a number of questions (which are summarised at the end of the document).

1 ‘Major development’ is defined in The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, as amended. It includes housing schemes of 10 or more houses (or 0.5 hectares or more where the number of dwellings is not yet known); development involving 1,000 square metres or more of new floorspace or a site area of 1 hectare or more; and development involving minerals and waste.

5 Page 143 Context

Why positive and timely planning decisions matter

11. Obtaining planning permission is a key step for those wishing to carry out development – whether house builders proposing new homes, businesses with plans to expand or individuals hoping to make significant changes to their property. Delays in the process can mean frustration, unnecessary expense and the loss of investment and jobs. It can also create uncertainty for communities with an interest in the proposals.

12. In 2011-12 local planning authorities made 435,000 decisions on planning applications 2. Some 87% of these were approved, and the majority – 78% overall – were determined within the statutory time limits.

13. However the picture is far from uniform. In particular there has been a decline in the speed with which applications for major development are decided, despite a decrease in workload: over the past four years the proportion of major applications determined within the statutory 13 week time limit has fallen from 71% (2008-2009) to 57% (2011-12) – despite an 18% drop in major decisions during the same period.

14. In the past year over a fifth of applications for major development took more than half a year to determine, and 9% took more than a year; any subsequent appeal against a refusal of permission would add further time. Some 43% of planning appeals involving major development were successful in the past year.

15. There are also big variations in the performance of individual planning authorities. For example over 25 authorities decided more than 80% of applications for major development on time in 2011-12; whereas 14 authorities dealt with fewer than 25% on time. Appeal success rates against local authority decisions ranged from 14% to 80% (excluding authorities that had five or fewer appeals).

16. We recognise that there can be good reasons for some delays, in particular where authorities and applicants have both recognised that more time than the statutory period is required to negotiate the right outcome on large or complex proposals. This is not the issue that we wish to tackle; rather it is the instances of unnecessary delay and of poor quality decisions on applications that add to costs, and which delay or deter investment and growth.

17. The quarterly survey of home builders conducted by the Home Builder’s Federation consistently cites ‘planning delays’ as one of the most

2 Excluding ‘county matter’ applications, such as decisions on minerals and waste schemes.

6 Page 144 significant constraints on homebuilding; in June 2012, 77% of respondents considered such delays to be a major constraint.

18. The costs of delay can be substantial. It has been estimated that the financing costs to developers of holding onto land and other assets while their projects are being evaluated amounts to £1 billion per year, with further substantial costs associated with land holdings that are required due to the uncertainty of the planning process and as a consequence of sites that fail to gain consent. This could push financing costs from £1 billion to over £2 billion 3.

19. It is because of the consequences of unnecessary delays – whether those delays arise from slow decisions or poorly judged decisions that are overturned at appeal – that we believe it is right to take action where there is clear evidence that particular planning authorities are performing very poorly. We expect to have to use this power very sparingly. The Government remains committed to decentralising power and responsibility wherever possible, and this measure will not affect the great majority of authorities that already provide an effective planning service, other than to act as a reminder of the importance of timely and well considered decisions.

3 Professor Michael Ball (November 2011) Memorandum to Communities and Local Government Committee’s Inquiry into the Draft National Planning Policy Framework

7 Page 145 Assessing performance

Our approach

20. We intend to set out the criteria for assessing performance, and the thresholds for designating any authorities under this measure, in a policy statement that will be published in response to this consultation once the Growth and Infrastructure Bill gains Royal Assent.

21. The performance of planning authorities can be looked at in a number of ways, from a focus on particular indicators to wider measures of the ‘quality of service’. The overall service that planning authorities provide to applicants and local communities needs to be efficient, proportionate and effective. It is right that this continues to be the focus of improvement efforts by authorities, supported by organisations such as the Planning Officers’ Society and the Planning Advisory Service.

22. At the same time we consider that the basis for identifying any cases of very poor performance needs to be kept relatively simple, so that the approach is transparent, and to avoid placing additional reporting burdens on authorities. For this reason we propose to monitor and assess performance on the basis of two key measures: the speed and quality of decisions on planning applications. These have a direct bearing on the planning system’s efficiency and effectiveness for both applicants and communities; and on its contribution to growth.

Question 1: Do you agree that local planning authority performance should be assessed on the basis of the speed and quality of decisions on planning applications?

Speed of decisions

23. We propose to use the existing statutory time limits for determining planning applications, as in principle all decisions should be made within these periods – unless an extended period has been agreed in writing between the parties. This means a maximum of 13 weeks for applications for major development and eight weeks for all others 4.

24. We also propose, for identifying and addressing very poor performance, to focus only on applications for major development – as these are the

4 The statutory time limits are set out in The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, as amended. An extended period of 16 weeks applies for applications subject to The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.

8 Page 146 proposals which are most important for driving growth, and which have the greatest bearing upon communities.

25. Some authorities deal with relatively few applications for major development, and performance in dealing with such proposals in any one authority can fluctuate from quarter to quarter, depending on the number and scale of proposals under consideration. We therefore propose that performance should be assessed on the extent to which applications for major development are determined within 13 weeks 5, averaged over a two year period . This assessment would be made once a year (see paragraph 46).

26. We have considered whether an alternative approach – of using the average processing time for determining applications for major development – could be used instead. This would not reflect the obligation to make decisions within the statutory time limits; nor would it address as effectively the minority of decisions that take considerably longer to decide. It would also require a new reporting regime, additional to the existing arrangements for reporting planning performance, to capture the time taken to decide each individual application.

Question 2: Do you agree that speed should be assessed on the extent to which applications for major development are determined within the statutory time limits, over a two year period?

The role of planning performance agreements

27. We want to ensure that we focus on genuinely poor performance, and that authorities are not penalised unfairly for delays that are beyond their control. Some applications for major development do need more than the statutory time period to decide, especially where the issues are particularly complex and involve statutory consultees. Sometimes, delays may be at the instigation of the applicant, such as where a delay is sought to avoid triggering a purchase clause linked to the granting of planning permission.

28. The National Planning Policy Framework encourages the use of planning performance agreements. These involve a bespoke timetable agreed between the authority and the applicant where it is clear – at the pre- application stage – that more time than the statutory period will be required to reach a decision. Such agreements are reported separately by authorities, and are excluded from the statistics on the extent to which decisions are made within the statutory period.

29. Agreements to extend the time for a decision beyond the statutory period sometimes need to be made after an application is submitted (as the Development Management Procedure Order explicitly allows). We

5 Or 16 weeks in the case of applications subject to Environmental Impact Assessment.

9 Page 147 consider that it would be fair to treat these in the same way as planning performance agreements for reporting purposes – so that they are not included in the assessment of the time within which an authority makes its planning decisions.

30. We therefore propose that post-application agreements to extend the timescale for determination should in future be recorded as a form of planning performance agreement, provided there is explicit agreement to the extension of time from the applicant (in writing), and the agreement specifies a clear timescale for reaching a decision.

31. In proposing this, we also consider that the approach sometimes taken towards planning performance agreements needs to change. Existing guidance 6 encourages a very thorough approach that will not always be appropriate. We would like to see a more proportionate approach which is tailored to the size and complexity of schemes and the stage that they have reached in the application process. However agreements should, as a minimum, set out a clear and agreed timescale for determining the application.

Question 3: Do you agree that extensions to timescales, made with the written consent of the applicant following submission, should be treated as a form of planning performance agreement (and therefore excluded from the data on which performance will be assessed)?

Question 4: Do you agree that there is scope for a more proportionate approach to the form and content of planning performance agreements?

Quality of decisions

32. We propose to use the appeal success rate for major development to indicate the ‘quality’ of decisions made by each planning authority.

33. Successful appeals against planning authority decisions represent cases where the Secretary of State, or an Inspector acting on his behalf, concludes that a different decision should have been reached and the application allowed 7. As such they provide an indication of whether planning authorities are making positive decisions that reflect policies in up-to-date plans (where relevant) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

6 Advisory Team for Large Applications (2008) Guidance Note: Implementing Planning Performance Agreements 7 Where the authority has failed to make a decision within the statutory period, and the applicant then exercises their right to appeal against non-determination, the planning authority is deemed to have refused permission. A small minority of appeals are made against conditions attached to a grant of permission.

10 Page 148 34. Some individual appeal outcomes can turn on small differences of view about the application or interpretation of particular policies; or about the weight to be given to different material considerations. Where, however, an authority has a sustained track record of losing significantly more appeals than the average, it is likely to reflect the quality of its initial decisions. For this reason we propose that appeal success rates should be assessed over a two year period.

35. The appeal success rate also needs to be read in context. An authority that acts positively and approves the great majority of its applications for major development, but loses a very small number of appeals brought against it, should not be penalised for ‘poor performance’ 8. It follows that the number of appeals lost each year needs to be related to the total volume of applications dealt with. We therefore propose that the measure of quality should be the proportion of all major decisions made that are overturned at appeal, over a two year period .

Question 5: Do you agree that quality should be assessed on the proportion of major decisions that are overturned at appeal, over a two year period?

Having the right information

36. The proposed measures of speed and quality both rely upon accurate data being supplied to the Department on a regular basis (i.e. decisions made within the statutory period, and the total volume of major decisions made so that the proportion overturned at appeal can be calculated).

37. This information is already supplied by local authorities as part of the quarterly returns required by the single data list 9. At present there are very few gaps in the data provided by authorities, but there is a risk that in future authorities could withhold data for quarters in which their performance has slipped.

38. To discourage this we propose the following:  Data for a single missing quarter in one reporting (financial) year would be estimated by the Department from the returns for other quarters – based on average performance for the quarters for which information is available.  Where data for two or three quarters in a reporting year are missing, figures for the absent quarters would be imputed in a similar way, but with a penalty then applied in proportion to the amount of data

8 An authority could, of course, have also refused applications for sound reasons, such as a clear conflict with up-to-date local or national policies; but these refusals should not result in a high appeal success rate against the authority’s decisions. 9 Department for Communities and Local Government (March 2012) Single list of central government data requirements from local government

11 Page 149 missing. We propose that this penalty would be a reduction of five percentage points per missing quarter for the speed of decisions, and one percentage point per missing quarter for decisions overturned at appeal 10 .  Any authority with a whole year of data missing would automatically be designated as very poor performing.

39. For the initial introduction of the measure we also propose that planning authorities would be given an opportunity to fill gaps in the existing data prior to any designations being made 11 . Gaps in the existing data which are not filled by authorities in this way will be imputed (and, if necessary, penalised) as described above.

40. The current statistical returns supplied to the Department do not indicate the determination times for district applications which are subject to environmental impact assessment. These could, as a result, be counted against the 13 week time limit for applications for major development, rather than the 16 weeks which the law allows. We propose to amend the returns so that this can be remedied for future data collection. As a transitional measure, any authorities identified for potential designation on the basis of existing data will be given an opportunity to notify us of any environmental impact assessment cases relating to applications for major development during the assessment period, which will be discounted from the calculation of performance.

41. To ensure that the information on which any designations would be based is readily available, the Department will publish quarterly statistics on the extent to which decisions on applications for major development have been overturned at appeal, alongside the existing data on the extent to which decisions are made within the statutory time periods.

Question 6: Do you agree with the proposed approach to ensuring that sufficient information is available to implement the policy? Setting the bar

42. We wish to set out very clearly what constitutes sufficiently poor performance for a planning authority to be designated once the Growth and Infrastructure Bill becomes law. A minimum standard will provide certainty to authorities about the action they must take where their performance is poor; and make clear to applicants the circumstances in which they can expect the Government to act when there is demonstrable evidence that planning is not being delivered effectively.

10 For example: an authority that processed 40% of its major decisions within the statutory period over the reporting year as a whole (calculated in part using imputed data), and which had three quarters of data missing, would have its overall figure reduced to 30% for the year. 11 i.e. information for the two reporting years against which performance will be assessed – likely to be 2011-12 and 2012-13

12 Page 150 43. We therefore propose using absolute thresholds below which authorities would be designated, rather than a fixed percentage of authorities that are performing most poorly on the basis of speed or quality.

44. We intend to set these thresholds so that only very poor performance would result in an authority being designated: where 30% or fewer major applications have been determined within the statutory period or more than 20% of major decisions have been overturned at appeal. We consider it important that a designation could be made on the basis of either measure (rather than a combination of the two), so that applicants can access a better service where speed or quality is a significant issue.

45. We also propose raising the bar for the speed of decisions after the first year, to ensure that there is a strong but achievable incentive for further improvement in performance, and to reflect an anticipated increase in the use of planning performance agreements for the more difficult cases as proposed elsewhere in this consultation.

Question 7: Do you agree that the threshold for designations should be set initially at 30% or fewer of major decisions made on time or more than 20% of major decisions overturned at appeal?

Question 8: Do you agree that the threshold for designation on the basis of processing speeds should be raised over time? And, if so, by how much should it increase after the first year?

Making a designation

46. We wish to avoid frequent changes in the authorities to which a designation applies; to provide certainty for both applicants and councils, and to ensure that any designated authorities have sufficient time to improve. We therefore propose that designations would be made once a year, and that those authorities which are designated would remain in that situation for at least a year.

47. Any designations would need to be made fairly and transparently. We therefore propose that the designation process would follow automatically, following the publication of the relevant statistics on processing speeds and appeal outcomes for the year, were an authority to appear below the thresholds that have been set. For the first year, before any initial designations are made, authorities will be given an opportunity to correct any gaps or errors in the existing data (see paragraph 39 above); cases that were subject to environmental impact assessment will also be taken into account (see paragraph 40).

48. It will be clear from each year’s data not just which authorities are to be designated (if any), but also which authorities are just above the bar and need to improve to avoid a designation the following year.

13 Page 151 Question 9: Do you agree that designations should be made once a year, solely on the basis of the published statistics, as a way to ensure fairness and transparency?

49. Once the Growth and Infrastructure Bill receives Royal Assent we anticipate that the first designations would be made once the necessary secondary legislation is in place (planned for October 2013). The timetable would be:  April 2013: Response to consultation announced; criteria and initial thresholds for designations confirmed  July 2013: Performance data for 2012-13 (as well as 2011-12) available, indicating which authorities are liable for designation  August-September 2013: Opportunity to correct any data errors and account for applications subject to environmental impact assessment  October 2013: Secondary legislation in place and initial designations made

50. For unitary authorities we propose that ‘county matter’ applications would be assessed – and any designations made – separately from the assessment of ‘district’ performance. Because unitary authorities deal with both types of application, taking their average performance across all types of case would not involve the same mix of application types faced by either district authorities or county councils (and so preclude a comparable assessment of performance).

51. The Bill sets out a limited number of planning authorities to which a designation would not apply: the Homes and Communities Agency, Mayor of London, a Mayoral development corporation and an urban development corporation. Where these organisations have responsibility for determining applications, it is specifically for deciding particularly large or complex schemes, so it would not be appropriate to assess their performance in the same way.

14 Page 152 Effects of designation

Application process

52. Where a planning authority is designated on the basis of very poor performance, the Growth and Infrastructure Bill would give applicants the option of applying directly to the Secretary of State; applicants could if they wish continue to apply to the designated authority in the usual way.

53. The legislation would allow the Secretary of State to prescribe the types of development to which this choice would apply. As already explained (paragraph 24 above) we propose that it be limited to applications for major development, being those which are most important for driving growth, and which have the greatest bearing upon communities.

54. Where an application is submitted directly in this way, certain related applications may also be made to the Secretary of State at the same time. The Bill makes specific provision for applications for listed building and conservation area consent 12 ; we do not intend at present to prescribe any additional categories of related consent.

55. The Bill also allows the Secretary of State to appoint persons to determine applications on his behalf, and we propose that the Planning Inspectorate carries out this role (the Secretary of State would also be able to ‘recover’ any such cases for his own determination, but we would expect that this power would be used sparingly).

56. Early pre-application discussions can have significant benefits for the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the planning application process, including the prospects for securing timely decisions once a planning application has been submitted. Those applying directly to the Secretary of State would be able (and encouraged) to seek pre-application advice from the Planning Inspectorate, the local planning authority or both. We propose that the Inspectorate would charge for any pre-application advice on a cost recovery basis.

57. The Planning Inspectorate would also receive the application fee (on behalf of the Secretary of State) for any application submitted directly to it, and we propose to amend the regulations so that this would be set at the same level as the fees payable to local planning authorities.

58. We propose that the process for determining applications submitted to the Inspectorate should mirror, as far as possible, that which usually applies when an application is submitted to a local planning authority. The Development Management Procedure Order would be modified

12 The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill currently before Parliament proposes to remove the requirement for conservation area consent to be obtained

15 Page 153 accordingly. A necessary exception to this principle is the planning committee stage, alternative proposals for which are set out below.

59. Where a planning application is submitted directly to the Secretary of State there will be a small number of administrative functions which, for practical reasons, will need to be carried out locally. We propose that these should continue to be undertaken by the designated local planning authority (and the Bill allows the Secretary of State to issue directions to this effect). We propose that these functions would include:  Site notices and neighbour notification  Providing the planning history for the site  Notification of any cumulative impact considerations, such as where environmental impact assessment or assessment under the Habitats Regulations is involved, or there may be cumulative impacts upon the highways network

60. The Planning Inspectorate would specify a timescale for the completion of these tasks. While we think that the planning authority is best placed to do this work, we would welcome views on whether alternative approaches should be considered, such as the use of a local agent.

61. The local planning authority would remain responsible for maintaining the planning register for its area, including details of any applications that are submitted directly to the Planning Inspectorate. The Planning Inspectorate would notify the planning authority of such applications.

62. Most applications for major development determined by local planning authorities are decided at a planning committee meeting, providing an opportunity for the merits of the proposal to be considered in public. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to determine the procedure to be followed where an application is submitted directly to him. We propose that the Planning Inspectorate should choose the most appropriate procedure to employ on a case by case basis (which could be an abbreviated form of hearing or inquiry, or written representations); but that the presumption should be that applications are examined principally by means of written representations with the option of a short hearing to allow the key parties to briefly put their points in person.

63. We do not propose that the Planning Inspectorate would enter into discussions with the applicant about the nature and scope of any section 106 agreement that may be appropriate, as we consider these are best determined locally by the applicant and the planning authority. In determining an application the Inspectorate would take into account, as a material consideration, any planning obligation advanced by the applicant, or any agreement which the applicant has entered into (or is prepared to enter into) with the authority.

64. We want to ensure that the Planning Inspectorate can offer a high standard of service when applications are submitted to it. We propose

16 Page 154 that the performance standard for the Inspectorate in dealing with applications would, initially, be to determine 80% of cases within 13 weeks 13 (or 16 weeks in the case of applications for major development which are subject to environmental impact assessment); unless an extended period has been agreed in writing with the applicant. This compares to the current average performance among planning authorities of deciding 57% of applications for major development within 13 weeks. The Inspectorate will provide quarterly data on its performance, and the performance standard will be reviewed annually.

65. The Bill does not provide for any right of appeal once an application has been decided by the Inspectorate, other than judicial review, as the application will already have been considered on behalf of the Secretary of State. This mirrors the position where applicants for planning permission choose to appeal against non-determination. Applicants will be made fully aware of this if they choose to submit their applications directly to the Inspectorate.

66. The discharge of any planning conditions attached to a planning permission issued by the Inspectorate would remain the responsibility of the local planning authority.

Question 10: Do you agree that the option to apply directly to the Secretary of State should be limited to applications for major development?

Question 11: Do you agree with the proposed approaches to pre- application engagement and the determination of applications submitted directly to the Secretary of State?

Supporting and assessing improvement

67. Any authorities designated on the basis of very poor performance will need time to improve, support while they are doing so and a fair opportunity to show when – and to what extent – their performance has improved.

68. We are proposing that any designation would last for at least a year, but would be subject to review well before that year ends, so that the authority has every opportunity for the designation to be lifted at the end of the one year period. During the period of designation we would expect the authority to take maximum advantage of opportunities for peer support and other forms of sector-led improvement (such as those offered through the Planning Advisory Service); and to explore options for radical change such as shared services.

13 This is in line with a number of existing performance standards for the Inspectorate

17 Page 155 69. Designated authorities will not necessarily be dealing with a significant number of applications for major development, so we propose that any assessment of improvement should be based on a range of other considerations that we will set out in policy:  The authority’s performance in determining all those applications for which it remains responsible  Its performance in carrying out any administrative tasks associated with applications submitted directly to the Secretary of State (see paragraph 59 above)  A review of the steps taken by the planning authority to improve, and its capacity and capability to deal efficiently and effectively with major planning applications

70. This assessment would be undertaken by the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Question 12: Do you agree with the proposed approach to supporting and assessing improvement in designated authorities? Are there specific criteria or thresholds that you would propose?

18 Page 156 The planning guarantee

Principles and scope

71. The planning guarantee was announced in the Plan for Growth (March 2011). The principle is simple: that no planning application – major or otherwise – should take more than a year to decide, even where a planning appeal has been made. It does not replace the statutory time limits for determining applications, which should continue to be met wherever possible, but instead provides a ‘longstop’ date by which any schemes that take longer (or which involve a planning appeal) should be determined.

72. In practice the guarantee means that cases should spend no more than 26 weeks with either the local planning authority or, in the case of appeals, the Planning Inspectorate. This gives both decision-making bodies an equal maximum time to come to a view, limiting the risk that over-runs with one part of the process might restrict the scope for the guarantee to be met. A similar 26 week limit would in future apply to the Planning Inspectorate where it is determining planning applications submitted to it directly as a result of the proposals in the Bill.

73. The guarantee applies to the time a valid application spends with these decision-making bodies. It does not cover the period before an application is submitted, after permission is granted, or any time between the local planning authority’s decision and any subsequent decision by the applicant to appeal. This is because the behaviour of applicants can have a significant bearing upon the length of these periods; for example, they have up to six months to decide whether to lodge an appeal against a refusal (12 weeks in the case of householder applications).

74. There are a small number of cases which, exceptionally, we propose to exclude from the scope of the planning guarantee. These are:  Applications subject to Planning Performance Agreements, due to the bespoke timetables involved  Similarly, planning appeals subject to bespoke timetables agreed between the main parties for particularly complex cases (including Secretary of State casework where this applies 14 )  Planning appeals that relate to enforcement cases (which are often particularly complex with additional evidence coming forward during the course of the appeal); or which involve re-determinations following a successful judicial review

14 i.e. ‘recovered’ appeals and call-ins

19 Page 157 Question 13: Do you agree with the proposed scope of the planning guarantee?

Delivering the guarantee

75. An initial monitoring report on performance against the planning guarantee was published earlier this year, and we will continue to report on it annually 15 . The great majority of decisions on both planning applications and appeals are made well within 26 weeks, but it is reasonable to consider what further measures could be taken to encourage all decisions to be made within this time (subject to the exemptions mentioned above).

76. The prospect of authorities being designated on the basis of very poor performance in determining applications for major development within the statutory period will help to deliver the planning guarantee, as this should encourage an increased focus on the timeliness of decisions.

77. As the guarantee applies to individual decisions (rather than individual planning authorities) we consider that an additional measure would also help to ensure that the guarantee is met. We therefore propose to amend secondary legislation to require a refund of the planning application fee, where a planning application remains undecided after 26 weeks 16 . This would apply to planning authorities and to the Planning Inspectorate (where it is responsible for determining major planning applications).

78. Applications subject to a planning performance agreement would be excluded from this measure. We would want to avoid any risk of applicants deliberately delaying the determination of an application in order to obtain a refund, or of authorities refusing applications just to avoid the penalty; such behaviour would be taken into account by an Inspector in considering whether to award costs in any subsequent appeal proceedings.

Question 14: Do you agree that the planning application fee should be refunded if no decision has been made within 26 weeks?

15 Department for Communities and Local Government (September 2012) Planning Guarantee Monitoring Report 16 Unless the application falls into one of the exempted categories noted above

20 Page 158 Consultation questions

Question 1: Do you agree that local planning authority performance should be assessed on the basis of the speed and quality of decisions on planning applications?

Question 2: Do you agree that speed should be assessed on the extent to which applications for major development are determined within the statutory time limits, over a two year period?

Question 3: Do you agree that extensions to timescales, made with the written consent of the applicant following submission, should be treated as a form of planning performance agreement (and therefore excluded from the data on which performance will be assessed)?

Question 4: Do you agree that there is scope for a more proportionate approach to the form and content of planning performance agreements?

Question 5: Do you agree that quality should be assessed on the proportion of major decisions that are overturned at appeal, over a two year period?

Question 6: Do you agree with the proposed approach to ensuring that sufficient information is available to implement the policy?

Question 7: Do you agree that the threshold for designations should be set initially at 30% or fewer of major decisions made on time or more than 20% of major decisions overturned at appeal?

Question 8: Do you agree that the threshold for designation on the basis of processing speeds should be raised over time? And, if so, by how much should they increase after the first year?

Question 9: Do you agree that designations should be made once a year, solely on the basis of the published statistics, as a way to ensure fairness and transparency?

Question 10: Do you agree that the option to apply directly to the Secretary of State should be limited to applications for major development?

Question 11: Do you agree with the proposed approaches to pre-application engagement and the determination of applications submitted directly to the Secretary of State?

Question 12: Do you agree with the proposed approach to supporting and assessing improvement in designated authorities? Are there specific criteria or thresholds that you would propose?

21 Page 159 Question 13: Do you agree with the proposed scope of the planning guarantee?

Question 14: Do you agree that the planning application fee should be refunded if no decision has been made within 26 weeks?

22 Page 160 RECENT DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITIES and LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONSULTATIONS AFFECTING PLANNING – APPENDIX 4

PURPOSE OF APPENDIX 1 To include the draft response to the consultation on Planning Performance. Questions

Please refer to the relevant parts of the consultation document for narrative relating to each question.

Q1: Do you agree that local planning authority performance should be assessed on the basis of the speed and quality of decisions on planning applications? Yes √ No

Comments

This is a reversion from Local Indicators to the previously recognized performance Best Value Performance indicators. South Lakeland has continued to measure its performance against those and the previous indicator of achieving 70% success in defending all appeals.

Q2: Do you agree that speed should be assessed on the extent to which applications for major development are determined within the statutory time limits, over a two year period? Yes √ No

Comments

The number of major developments received at South Lakeland District Council is variable each year and has been depressed as a result of Strategic Plans that directed development to other areas in the region and by market forces.

Q3: Do you agree that extensions to timescales, made with the written consent of the applicant following submission, should be treated as a form of planning performance agreement (and therefore excluded from the data on which performance will be assessed)? Yes √ No

Page 161 Comments

This seems a good practical and proportionate approach and South Lakeland District Council would have preferred to use this tool in the scenario detailed in the comments to Q14. Applicants may be more inclined to use these agreements if they are not in the comprehensive format at present and can be simplified to just include project milestones that need to be achieved in determining the application. It is thought they may be more useful and appealing to developers if they could be re-negotiated during the course of the determination if the applicant has supply more information.

Q4: Do you agree that there is scope for a more proportionate approach to the form and content of planning performance agreements? Yes √ No Comments

See comments in Q3.

Q5: Do you agree that quality should be assessed on the proportion of major decisions that are overturned at appeal, over a two year period? Yes √ No Comments

This averages out decision where there is a difference on the interpretation of policy.

Q6: Do you agree with the proposed approach to ensuring that sufficient information is available to implement the policy? Yes √ No

Comments

Submitting data electronically is an efficient way for a Local Planning Authority to upload the data and it is presumed that this method will remain.

Page 162

Q7: Do you agree that the threshold for designations should be set initially at 30% or fewer of major decisions made on time or more than 20% of major decisions overturned at appeal? Yes √ No

Comments

South Lakeland District Council continues to monitor performance on appeal. It is considered that the previous 30% failure rate is more suitable. An unintended consequence of such a low initial threshold as 20% for appeal failure may result in more referrals to the Courts and this will introduce delay.

Q8: Do you agree that the threshold for designation on the basis of processing speeds should be raised over time? And, if so, by how much should they increase after the first year? Yes √ No

Comments

A gradual rise to the previous national indicator of determining 60% of major applications measured over two years is considered suitable. It is considered that this should be achieved over a six year period, i.e. 5% per year. The reason for this modest increase is that if the rate of improvement is 10%, then this may cause a council to be designated because to achieve 40% measured over two year requires a council achieving 30% to improve to 50% for the next year and this rate of increase may not be possible. Whereas a 5% rise equates to a 10% improvement on the previous year. There seems limited scope to reduce the appeal failure rate beyond 20% without penalizing Authorities regarding differences of policy interpretation.

Q9: Do you agree that designations should be made once a year, solely on the basis of the published statistics, as a way to ensure fairness and transparency? Yes √ No

Comments

None

Page 163 Q10: Do you agree that the option to apply directly to the Secretary of State should be limited to applications for major development? Yes √ No

Comments

It is likely that if other application types are added, then the Planning Inspectorate will not have sufficient resources. It is considered that to extend the scope would not be a good use of PINs resources for what are very local decision and would take away resources from councils trying to improve.

Q11: Do you agree with the proposed approaches to pre-application engagement and the determination of applications submitted directly to the Secretary of State? Yes No √

Comments

The pre-application discussions will not be undertaken with the designated Council if the application is to be determined by the planning inspectorate, the two will be completely disconnected. It is unlikely that the case officer at the Planning Inspectorate (PINs) have sufficient knowledge to be able to give meaningful advice. This will result in the Planning Inspectorate requiring the Council to provide information and thus the designated Council will be penalized by the need to undertake work without a fee.

It is not understood what is meant by the expression “Notification of any cumulative impact considerations..”. If this merely means notification then that is not onerous; if it means assessing the impacts then again, the designated council is actually doing the work.

Any highway consultations should be directed to the highway authority and not via the council, otherwise there will be time delays in transmission that will not the responsibility of the designated council. The same applies for the Environment Agency, Natural England and English Heritage.

PINs will have to develop their website so that they can display plans and reports submitted so that they are available to the public. They will have to have the resources to be able to respond to questions about the plans. This is not a function currently performed by PINs and training will be required. It is usual for developers to submit amended plans to overcome issues that arise during the course of an application and it is the usual practice of South Lakeland District Council to re-consult affected parties. There is no statutory basis for this but if this is not undertaken then this will result in a poorer service to the public and there will be no surety that the statutory consultee agrees to the amended plans. Members of the public will not receive the same level of service that is provided

Page 164 by a council if the PINs case officer will not speak with them on the telephone. To deliver a poorer service to the public and to exclude them by determining a majority of applications on a written representation process that relies on a sigle submission of plans and documents is likely to result in refusals where a consultee objects and PINs will not be able to make the “Positive & Proactive Statement” required to be included in all decision notices. The planning service is not just focused on the applicant but has a wide variety of “customers”. The public will want the decision maker at PINS to explain matters to them in much the same way that council planning staff.

PINs will have to be responsible for S106 negotiations so that they can resolve differences between the designated council and the developer. PINs will have adjudicate on viability arguments. A designated council and the developer cannot negotiate with the absence of PINs because PINs will have to indicate what they consider to be acceptable. If PINs are absent then this is disconnecting the negotiations from the decision making.

PINs will be unable to issue the decision involving a S106 that requires payment of money until it is signed and sealed by all parties. This is often the reason for delay beyond 13 weeks and indeed 26 weeks. Developers do not wish to incur legal expenses if planning permission is in the balance.

Q12: Do you agree with the proposed approach to supporting and assessing improvement in designated authorities? Are there specific criteria or thresholds that you would propose? Yes √ No

Comments

There appears to be no alternative. It will be illogical to make a designation if a council only fails on its performance in determining major applications because it would appear that it can request to come out of designation early because of continued good performance in the other categories.

Q13: Do you agree with the proposed scope of the planning guarantee? Yes √ No

Comments

None

Page 165 Q14: Do you agree that the planning application fee should be refunded if no decision has been made within 26 weeks? Yes No √

Comments

In theory this seems a good idea. Experience in South Lakeland is that applicants are not keen to enter into Planning Performance Agreements (PPA). With the proposal to refund planning fees after 26 weeks as set out in the Guarantee there is now an incentive to developers not to enter into a PPA and not to agree to an extension of time because if the delay lies with them then they have their fees refunded as a bonus.

As an example, the Council is currently dealing with a large scale major housing outline application. For contractual reasons between the landowner and the developer, there have been no pre-application discussions because the application had to be submitted swiftly. The application was validated on 10 August 2012 and all negotiations have taken place since then with requests for additional information being made and provided by the applicant after delays because of further survey work needed by their consultants. The Council is now waiting for the applicant to complete a viability appraisal to ascertain if they can meet the affordable housing and education contributions. Depending on when that is submitted, the application will be determined in January or February 2013 and the decision will not be issued until the S106 has been completed. In this situation the Council would lose the fee through no fault of its own. A possible response in this scenario would be to refuse the application for want of information. This will be self defeating because the applicant can use the time before an appeal to remedy the information defects and so the appeal is lost and the Council is then judged to be poorly performing. Paragraph 192 of the NPPF makes this point.

It is considered that where an applicant has been offered a PPA or an extension of time because of their delays and refuses, then these provisions should not apply.

Page 166