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, 26 November 2015, at 10.00 a.m. in the Main Hall, Coronation Hall, Ulverston

Committee Membership Councillors

Brian Cooper Joss Curwen Philip Dixon (Vice-Chairman) Sheila Eccles Sylvia Emmott David Fletcher Gill Gardner Brenda Gray Heidi Halliday John Holmes Helen Irving Janette Jenkinson Kevin Lancaster Eric Morrell Bharath Rajan Phil Walker David Williams Mary Wilson (Chairman)

Tuesday, 17 November 2015

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

For all enquiries, please contact:- Committee Administrator: Paul Rogers Telephone: 01539 793497 e-mail: [email protected] AGENDA

Page Nos. PART I

1 APOLOGIES To receive apologies for absence, if any. 2 MINUTES 5 - 10 To authorise the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 29 October 2015 (copy attached). 3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive declarations by Members 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 prior to noon on the last working day before 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 Committee Administrator on 01539 793497.

(1) Planning Applications

Planning applications for which requests to speak have been made.

(2) Agenda Items

Agenda items for which requests to speak have been made. 6 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR PEOPLE AND PLACES To determine planning applications received. (a) KIRKBY IRELETH - SL/2014/1220 - Land at Kirkby Moor Wind 11 - 66 Farm, KIRKBY in FURNESS Decommissioning of 12 existing wind turbines and ancillary infrastructure; erection of a wind farm comprising 6 turbines (Maximum blade tip height of up to 115m), a meteorological mast, new and upgraded access tracks, substation and other ancillary development. (b) GRANGE OVER SANDS - SL/2015/0924 - Church Buildings, 67 - 76 Main Street, GRANGE over SANDS Change of use to hot food takeaway. (c) URSWICK - SL/2015/0823 - Land at Wellwood, Bardsea 77 - 86 ULVERSTON Proposed demolition of a stable building and the erection of a single storey dwelling. (d) GRANGE OVER SANDS - SL/2015/0894 - Lingwood Park, 87 - 100 Cartmel Road, GRANGE over SANDS Siting of 5 caravans for holiday use, new landscaping and ground works, installation of package treatment works and soakaway and temporary permission for the use of a caravan for site warden (retrospective). (e) PRESTON PATRICK - SL/2015/0741 - Agricultural Quarter, 101 - 106 Crooklands MILNTHORPE Remodelling of mounding and landscaping, including new tree and shrub planting, and extension to penning area of main building. (f) KIRBY LONSDALE - SL/2015/0905 - Kirkby Lonsdale Institute, 107 - 112 Bective Road, Kirkby Lonsdale CARNFORTH Installation of illuminated lettering on gable. (g) LEVENS - SL/2015/0242 and SL/2015/0257 - Land to south of 113 - 120 Wayside Cottage, Cotes, Levens and Land at Sizergh Quarry Proposed erection of 3 dwellings at Wayside Cottage, Cotes, Levens and 8 dwellings at Sizergh Quarry. 7 A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 1 SEPTEMBER - 30 121 - 142 SEPTEMBER 2015 To inform Members about enforcement activity. 8 APPEALS UPDATE AT 26 NOVEMBER 2015 143 - 152 To provide Members with information about the receipt and determination of planning appeals.

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. 33 29.10.2015 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 October 2015, at 10.00 a.m.

Present

Councillors

Mary Wilson (Chairman) Philip Dixon (Vice-Chairman)

Brian Cooper Heidi Halliday Eric Morrell Joss Curwen John Holmes Phil Walker Sylvia Emmott Helen Irving David Williams David Fletcher Janette Jenkinson Brenda Gray Kevin Lancaster

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Sheila Eccles, Gill Gardner and Bharath Rajan.

Officers

Simon Fawcett Planning Officer Nicola Hartley Senior Solicitor Mike Hoar Planning Officer Mark Loughran Development Control Team Leader Paul Rogers Assistant Democratic Services Officer

P/51 MINUTES

RESOLVED – That the Chairman be authorised to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 1 October 2015.

P/52 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

(1) Councillor John Holmes – Minute No. P/60 (Planning Applications Nos.SL/2015/0733 and SL/2015/0736);

(2) Councillor Philip Dixon – Minute No. P/60 (Planning Applications Nos.SL/2015/0733 and SL/2015/0736);

(3) Councillor Brian Cooper – Minute No. P/59 (Planning Application No. SL/2015/0761); and

34 29.10.2015 Planning Committee

(4) Councillor Janette Jenkinson – Minute No. P/58 (Planning Applications Nos.(SL/2015/0887, SL/2015/0693 and SL/2015/0747).

P/53 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - EXCLUDED ITEMS

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

P/54 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/55 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The Chairman explained the process for public procedure to the meeting.

P/56 OLD HUTTON AND HOLMESCALES - SL/2015/0694 - Proposal to form a Solar Farm and Ancillary Infrastructure - Greaves Farm, Popplemire Lane, Old Hutton (Mr Jochen Kleimaier)

The Planning Officer presented the plans and photographs which detailed the proposal and site layout. Members noted that the 2.7 metres maximum height of the solar panels referred to in the first bullet point on page 14 of the report should be replaced with 3 metres.

Stephen Hinchliffe, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. He felt that the proposal was industrialising a green field site. Also that the position of the solar farm as proposed together with the loss of performance due to airborne debris would result in poor effectiveness in so far as the production of electricity was concerned.

Axel Puttkalmer, the applicant, responded. He emphasised that there would not be any intrusive lighting at the solar farm. That minimal resources would be used to form the solar farm and the panels would be matt black in colour to negate intrusion. The proposal would be temporary and reversible and, therefore, it would not have a negative impact. He was of the view that the proposal would have a positive impact on the local economy providing job opportunities and benefitting the local retail food industry.

35 29.10.2015 Planning Committee

Members’ attention was drawn to the late representations which had been circulated prior to the meeting.

GRANT subject to the conditions as set out in the Schedule and to the following additional condition:-

(11) The works for construction and decommissioning should take place in compliance with the recommendations of Paragraph 3.74 and 3.75 on Page 14 of the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (JER6573-Greaves dated August 2015 and received by the Local Planning Authority on the 24 August 2015). These works should take place before the operation of the solar farm and within six months after the decommissioning of the solar farm hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure that the existing surface water rates are maintained and there will be no off site negative effects as required by Policy CS8.8 Development and Flood Risk of the South Lakeland District Council Local Plan.

Note - The Committee adjourned at 11.25 a.m. and reconvened at 11.30 a.m. when the same Members were present.

P/57 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR PEOPLE AND PLACES

The following applications were considered as set out below.

P/58 LOWER ALLITHWAITE - SL/2015/0693 - Proposed Solar Farm and Associated Infrastructure ; SL/2015/0747- Minor Road Widening and Mitigation Works ; SL/2015/0887 - Temporary Access Track Land at Lane Head, Northwest of Beckside, Cartmel, Grange (Mr A Miejimolle)

Councillor Janette Jenkinson made a personal explanation that the applicant was a distant cousin in respect of this application. As she did not know the applicant there was no bias or pre-determination. She remained in the meeting during the discussion and voting thereon.

The Planning Officer presented the plans and photographs which detailed the proposals and the layout of the sites.

Members’ attention was drawn to the late Representations which had been circulated prior to the meeting.

SL/2015/0693 – The application be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

(1) The solar farm would introduce extensive area of development of an industrial appearance that would lead to a significant visual degradation of a particularly sensitive transitional landscape that lies adjacent to and is contiguous with the protected landscape of the Lake District National Park. The development is of such a size, scale and form that it would not be possible to adequately mitigate the harm caused by means of planting and landscaping. This is contrary to Policies CS1.1, CS7.4, CS7.7, CS8.2 and CS8.7 of the South Lakeland Core

36 29.10.2015 Planning Committee

Strategy; and under saved South Lakeland Local Plan Policies C25, C39 and S2; and the material planning considerations contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy.

(2) The proximity of an extensive area of solar arrays and the ancillary infrastructure to an established network of Public Rights of Way would have a significant and detrimental impact on the quiet recreational enjoyment of this open upland area by virtue of the size scale and industrial appearance of the development. This is contrary to Policies CS7.4, CS7.7, CS8.2 and CS8.7 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy; and under saved South Lakeland Local Plan Policies C25, C39 and S2; and the material planning considerations contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy.

SL/2015/0747 – The application be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

(1) The proposed improvements to the existing public highway, access track and public rights of way in order to access the site of the proposed solar farm would by virtue of the extraordinary traffic loading and need for adjustments to road geometry, carriageway width and extent of hard surfacing result in an unnecessary material change to the character and appearance of the local road network to the detriment of the wider visual amenity and experience of the locality. This is contrary to Policies CS 1.1 CS7.7, CS8.2 and CS10.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy; and under Saved South Lakeland Local Plan Policy C30; and the material planning considerations contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy.

(2) The proposed improvements to the existing public highway, access track and public rights of way in order to access the site of the proposed solar farm would by virtue of the extraordinary traffic loading and the need for a adjustments to road geometry, carriageway width and extent of hard surfacing would result in a unacceptable short term impact on the amenity of residents at Beckside. This is contrary to Policies CS 1.1 CS7.7, CS8.2 and CS10.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy; and under Saved South Lakeland Local Plan Policy C30; and the material planning considerations contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy.

SL/2015/0887 – The application be REFUSED for the following reason:-

The proposed temporary access required in order to access the site of the proposed solar farm is considered unnecessary and unjustified engineering works in the absence of planning permission for the proposed solar farm. This would result in an unnecessary material change to the character and appearance of the local road network to the detriment of the wider visual amenity and experience of the locality. This is contrary to Policies CS 1.1 CS7.7, CS8.2 and CS10.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy; and under Saved South Lakeland Local Plan Policy C30; and the material planning considerations contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy.

37 29.10.2015 Planning Committee

P/59 PRESTON PATRICK - SL/2015/0761 -Proposal to erect a detached dwelling with associated access - Otterburn, Crooklands, MILNTHORPE (Mr Brian Nellist)

Councillor Brian Cooper made a personal explanation that he knew the applicant in respect of this application. He indicated that the applicant was not so well known to him as to amount to an issue of bias and pre- determination and he therefore remained in the meeting during discussion and voting thereon.

The Planning Officer presented the plans and photographs which detailed the proposal and site layout.

Members considered that development satisfied Core Strategy CS 2.1 in respect of rounding off.

The Director People and Places be authorised to GRANT subject to appropriate conditions and reasons.

P/60 KENDAL - SL/2015/0733 - Proposal to erect 50 dwellings Phase 1 and SL/2015/0736 - Proposal to erect 21 dwellings Phase 2 (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale); Condition 7 (travel plan) and Condition 10 (surface water foul water drainage) - land at Kendal, Parks Farm, Kendal (Mr David Hayward)

Note – Councillors Philip Dixon and John Holmes declared an other registerable interest in this planning application by virtue of the fact that they were Members of South Lakes Housing Board. They remained in the meeting during the discussion and voting thereon.

The Planning Officer presented the applications and displayed plans and photographs which detailed the proposals and site layout.

Members’ attention was drawn to the Late Representations which had been circulated prior to the meeting.

SL/2015/0733 – The Director People and Places be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to the completion of a revised S106 Agreement with regard to the provision of affordable housing and long term maintenance of the surface water drainage scheme and the conditions as set out in the schedule.

SL/2015/0736 – The Director People and Places be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to the completion of a revised S106 Agreement with regard to the provision of affordable housing and long term maintenance of the surface water drainage scheme and the conditions as set out in the schedule.

P/61 A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 1 JULY - 31 AUGUST 2015

The Committee was presented with a report on enforcement activity between 1 July to 31 August 2015.

38 29.10.2015 Planning Committee

The Planning Officer informed Members that the cases on hand at 31 August had risen to approximately 150 due to officer holidays and sickness.

RESOLVED – That

(1) the report and contents of Appendix 1 be noted; and

(2) the actions of the officers in closing cases as set out in Appendix 2 be endorsed.

P/62 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY PROGRESS BETWEEN 1 JUNE - 30 SEPTEMBER 2015

The Committee was presented with a report about Community Infrastructure Levy activity between its introduction on 1 June to 30 September 2015.

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that in future, the report will be site and parish specific.

RESOLVED – That the report and the actions taken so far as set out in Appendix 1 to the Report be noted.

P/63 APPEALS UPDATE AT 29 OCTOBER 2015

Members were presented with an update on performance measures and recent appeals.

RESOLVED – That the report and the contents of Appendix 1 to the report be noted.

The meeting ended at 1.47 p.m.

SCHEDULE SL/2014/1220 (a)

KIRKBY IRELETH: Land at Kirkby Moor Wind Farm, KIRKBY in FURNESS

PROPOSAL: Decommissioning of 12 existing wind turbines and ancillary infrastructure; erection of a wind farm comprising 6 Website Link to Application turbines (Maximum blade tip height of up to 115m), a E325762 N482676 26/11/2015 meteorological mast, new and upgraded access RWE Innogy UK Ltd tracks, substation and other ancillary development

SUMMARY The application seeks permission for the decommissioning and removal of twelve existing 42 metre high wind turbines and replacement with six new wind turbines, along with a meteorological mast, new and upgraded access tracks, a substation and other ancillary infrastructure. The maximum height to blade tip of each new turbine would be 115 metres (377ft). The main issues arising from the proposal include: • Visual and landscape Impact, including cumulative impacts and impacts upon the setting of the Lake District National Park. • Residential amenity impacts. • Impacts upon ecology and in particular the Kirkby Moor SSSI. • Impacts upon tourism, recreation and the local economy. • Impacts upon the setting of designated Heritage Assets and archaeological interests. • Impacts upon communication networks, in particular the Ministry of Defence air traffic control radar. Although the proposal will make a tangible contribution to targets for renewable energy generation, it is considered that this does not outweigh the harmful landscape, visual and cumulative impacts of the proposed development including the adverse impacts upon the setting of the Lake District National Park; harmful impacts upon the setting of designated heritage assets and unresolved impacts upon the Ministry of Defence communications network. DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL Site Description The site comprises an upland area of moor directly to the east of Kirkby Slate Quarry, known as Kirkby Moor and Lowick High Common. It is positioned at the southern edge of the Cumbrian Mountains just beyond the southern boundary of the Lake District National Park, with the northern most proposed turbine lying just over 1km to the south of the National Park boundary. The application site is located approximately 5 km to the northwest of Ulverston. The village of Grizebeck lies approximately 2 km to the northwest, Kirkby in Furness lies approximately 2 km to the southwest, and Broughton Beck lies approximately 2 km to the east of the site. The nearest hamlets and villages are located in the low lying land on either side of the moor. To the east of the moor these include Gawthwaite, Broughton Beck and Netherhouses whilst to the west of the moor these include Grizebeck, Chapels, Beck Side and Kirkby in Furness. The nearest residential properties to the site are located at Moor House Farm, Groffa Cragg to the east, Croglin Farm and Cop Cross to the west and Friars Ground and High Ghyll Farm to the south west, which are within 1km of the proposed turbines. The primary highway routes immediately surrounding the Kirkby Moor site are the A5092 which crosses Gawthwaite Moss approximately 1km north of the site, and the A595 which runs along the eastern side of the Duddon Estuary through Kirkby in Furness. Kirkby Slate Quarry extends for approximately 1.5 km along the north western slopes of Kirkby Moor. Access to the existing Kirkby Moor wind farm for operational and maintenance purposes, is via the quarry, whose main access is from the A5902. A minor road / track, known as the Kirkby Slate Road is located to the south of the site and provides access to an existing substation building located to the south of the current turbine group. Much of the application site is designated as part of the Kirkby Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) for its upland heath habitat, in particular its heather moorland. An area of Access Land designated under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act covers the majority of Kirkby Moor and much of the Kirkby Moor site, including the area in which the existing wind farm is sited. There are also a number of Public Rights of Way (PROW) which cross the site. The site boundary extends across two units of Common Land, Kirkby Moor Common and Lowick High Common. A number of designated heritage assets are located within the vicinity of the application site including Kirkby Hall, a Grade I listed building; Ashlack Hall, St Cuthbert’s Church Beckside, and the Sir John Barrow monument which are Grade II * listed buildings, and St John’s Church Netherhouses and St Luke’s Church Lowick Grade II listed buildings. The nearest conservation areas to the proposed development is at Broughton in Furness, 5.5 km to the north-west and Ulverston Conservation area 5.2 km to the south east. Long Moor Cairn, a Scheduled Monument, is located within the application site. The Cairn is formed of two parts; the monument consists of a Bronze Age tumulus, a mound placed over a cist burial. There is also a ring cairn, a circular enclosure formed by a bank. The current wind farm comprises 12 no. 400 kW turbines, with a blade tip height of 42.4 metres. The wind farm, which was one of the first operational windfarms in the UK, was granted consent in March 1992 by the Secretary of State. The existing windfarm has a capacity of 4.8MW, and since becoming operational in 1993 has generated approximately 228GWh of renewable electricity. The site also contains two temporary 80 metre high met masts, the permission for which expires 28th February 2016.

Proposal The application comprises the following elements: 1) The decommissioning and removal of the current turbines; 2) The construction of six new turbines and associated infrastructure and access routes; 3) The installation of a transformer at the base of each turbine; 4) The creation of crane hard standing areas beside each turbine; 5) The construction of new and upgraded on-site access tracks, including vehicle turning heads; 6) The construction of a permanent meteorological mast, including Mountain Rescue radio equipment; 7) The construction of a new substation and associated compound and parking area; and 8) The provision of a temporary construction compound, storage area and setting down area. 1) The existing turbines and unit transformers including all above ground equipment would be removed from the site. A Draft Decommissioning and Construction Method Statement forms part of the submitted documents which set out how this will be achieved together with details of the proposed restoration works. The top 1 metre of the existing turbine foundations would be reduced / removed and overlain with topsoil to enable long term reinstatement. The turbine foundations would remain in situ unless their removal is required to facilitate the construction of the new turbines. The transformer bases would be removed from site and the exposed ground would be topsoiled to enable vegetation establishment. The existing cabling for each turbine will be cut and capped. The existing track network would remain. 2) The six proposed turbines would have three blades with a maximum height to blade tip of 115 metres, a maximum hub height of 74 metres and a base diameter of approximately 5.5 metres. Each of the proposed turbines would have an installed generating capacity of between 2MW and 3MW, giving a combined installed generating capacity of between 12MW and 18MW for the wind farm in total. Each turbine would be constructed on a reinforced concrete base measuring 20 metres in diameter and built to a depth of approximately 3 metres. The turbines would be positioned within the existing general envelope of the current windfarm, with two of the turbine positions on or very close to existing turbines. Five of the turbines with their associated works would be located within the SSSI. The sixth would be positioned just outwith the SSSI to the south of the current turbine group. The base of the turbines would be set at between 251 metres and 319 metres above ordinance datum. In order to enable adjustments to the precise siting of the turbines in response to any additional ecological or engineering constraints, the application allows for an area of 10 metres for potential micro-siting of the turbines. 3) An electrical transformer would be located at the base of each turbine with separate transformer housing measuring 6 metres by 3.5 metres by 3 metres high and positioned on an elevated concrete base. 4) A crane hardstanding measuring 45 metres by 25 metres would be constructed alongside each of the turbines. These would be constructed of compacted unbound granular material using local stone and remain in position for the lifetime of the development. 5) New and upgraded access tracks would be constructed to connect the turbine bases, incorporating turning heads to accommodate abnormal load turbine delivery vehicles. The tracks would be 4.5 metres wide with passing places and include turning areas adjacent to where they terminate. They would be constructed of unbound granular material using local stone and reinforced with geogrid material. 6) A permanent meteorological mast would be sited on the western side of the turbine group close to the position of one of the existing turbines. This would replace the current two temporary masts. The mast would be of a lattice tower design, 80 metres in height and incorporate the Duddon and Furness Mountain Rescue radio equipment which is currently sited on one of the temporary masts. 7) A new substation and associated compound, including a temporary construction compound would be constructed adjacent to the existing substation at the head of the Kirkby Slate Road. The building would comprise a single storey 10 metre by 20 metre stone faced building with a pitched tiled roof. It would house switchgear and metering, protection and control equipment as well as welfare facilities. The associated compound would house a generator and parking area. This part of the proposed development is outside the designated SSSI. 8) A temporary construction compound, storage and set down area would be created within the current Kirkby Slate Quarry site. These elements would be located outside the designated SSSI.

The connection to the grid would be made by upgrading the cables on timber poles similar to those already servicing the substation. The turbine components would be delivered to the application site from junction 36 of the M6, then westwards along the A590, then north-westwards along the A5092 to reach the access point to the proposed development. To gain access to the upland area on which the turbines will be sited, the applicant proposes to follow the same access route through Kirkby Slate Quarry which was used for the construction of the existing Kirkby Moor wind farm. A separate application to the Secretary of State will be required to be made under Section 38 of the Commons Act 2006, as the development would take place on registered common land. The application includes the provision of an area of Common exchange land to offset the area of land that would be taken up by the development. This area of land is located to the south east of the turbine group, adjacent to the substation. Permission is sought for a period of 25 years as is standard with this type of development.

Pre application consultation The applicants have undertaken a pre application consultation with the local community and key stakeholders which is set out in the submitted Consultation Report. The consultation was undertaken in two phases during 2013 and 2014 and took the form of a series of briefings at Kirkby Ireleth, Lowick and Blawith and Subberthwaite Parish Councils and manned public exhibitions held at Grizebeck village hall. Members of the public were also kept informed of the evolving development proposals through newsletters, press articles and the project website. The main issues arising from the public consultation related to cumulative impacts of the proposal, concerns about increase height of proposed turbines and visual impacts, concerns about noise and shadow flicker impacts, impacts on wildlife, habitats and the SSSI, and identifying community and economic benefits of the proposal.

Environmental Impact Assessment Due to the size and nature and location of the proposed development, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been formally scoped and undertaken in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. This process examines and assesses the potential impacts of the proposed development on the environment, under the following topic areas: Socio-Economics, Tourism, Recreation and Land Use, Landscape and Visual, Non-Aviation Ecology, Ornithology, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, Noise and Vibration, Access, Traffic and Transport, Ground and Water Conditions, Shadow Flicker and Telecommunications and Infrastructure.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The current Kirkby Moor windfarm was granted permission by the Secretary of State in March 1992, following a call-in of the application. The consent was the subject of a number of conditions including a requirement to remove the turbines on the expiration of 25 years from the date of the turbines being first brought into use. The current turbines will need to be removed by August 2018.

CONSULTATIONS Askam and Ireleth Parish Council: Object to the application. The parish council feels that the proposed height of the turbines is unacceptable and would cause not only a negative visual impact but also an environmental one. The current turbines which are nearing the end of their life, have impacted on water flows in the area, and the site should be returned to its natural state at the end of life, so the assumption is that the larger turbines would have a bigger impact. Further the increased traffic for development of a new site would have a negative impact on the Moor. This is an unwelcome development and should be rejected and not just reduced in scale.

Blawith and Subberthwaite Parish Council: Strongly oppose this development and recommend refusal on the following points:- • Access to local roads during construction. The council is aware of proposals to alter the A5092 as well as disruption caused by the transportation of the turbines. • Access for servicing once it is completed. The servicing of the turbines requires new access roads which will create further damage to the SSSI. • The council does not feel that this is an appropriate industrial development for a SSSI. • Visual Impact. The scale of the development will affect significantly the amenity and enjoyment of the surrounding area. • Unknown effect of environmental impact. The pressure waves caused by the turbines may have a detrimental effect on both the ecology of the site and on the personal wellbeing of the local population as will the impact of noise and flicker. • Impact on landscape. Loss of habitat caused by the creation of additional concrete plinths will create unacceptable damage to the environment and set an unacceptable precedent for future redevelopment. • Not a replacement but a new development. Provision was made for the restoration of the site in the granting of the previous permission. The council believes that the scale and location of the proposal represents a completely new development and one which would not be considered to be acceptable on an SSSI if it had been put forward on a previously unaffected location. • Impact within the National Park (heritage, tourism etc.) The setting of National Parks is formally recognised as capable of being a significant material consideration in the determination of planning applications. Development outside the National Park boundary, such as a wind farm proposal may be refused consent because of the impact it would have upon areas within the National Park. The council believes that the proposed development meets this criteria for rejection.

Colton Parish Council: Originally stated that they had no objections to the proposal. The parish council have subsequently reviewed the application in the light of government policy changes and changes to the way it responds to applications. They have therefore revised their response to ‘neutral’ and have decided to defer the decision to the Planning Authority.

Above Derwent Parish Council: The existing turbines were strictly time limited to a 25 year period. To allow this application will simply encourage future applicants to have no regard to planning conditions. There is already more power generated in the North West than most other areas in England and Wales – there is an issue of fairness here. We occupy one of the most beautiful wild landscapes in the UK it is our duty to preserve that for future generations. It is almost beyond belief that we are considering sacrificing part of an endangered Common, a SSSI, which is next door to a potential World Heritage Site.

Duddon Parish Council: Duddon Parish Council have resolved unanimously to object to the above named planning application for the following reasons:- 1. The Turbines are out of scale and will have a detrimental effect on the landscape. 2. Tourists may be put off coming to the area. 3. The effect they will have on the local businesses. 4. They will be on SSSI land. 5. The level of noise created by the turbines and the intrusion this will have on people every day. 6. The possibility of more power pylons being required. A recent survey in our Parish suggests that 95% of those surveyed felt that the local landscape is very important. Duddon Parish Council are not against green power, however, these turbines need to be sited elsewhere. We urge SLDC to reject this planning application.

Egton with Newland, Mansriggs and Osmotherley Parish Council: Strongly oppose the application for the following reasons:- 1) The 115 m height of the turbines, three of which will be located on a ridge over 1000 feet above sea level, will dominate the local landscape especially when viewed from Broughton beck, Netherhouses and Mansriggs areas of the parish. 2) The wind farm will damage the appearance of our area, not just within the parish but over vast areas of South Lakeland as well as into the National Park. 3) The local area becomes a less attractive place to live, work and visit because of the presence of huge turbines. 4) The impact on parishioners health which could be affected by the drone of the turbines and the so-called ‘flicker effect’ of sunlight catching the blades. 5) The damage done to Kirkby Moor, especially the heather and peat bog, from building new access tracks, concrete bases, hard standings and a new electricity sub-station. 6) The damage done to Sites of Special Scientific Interest, wildlife habitats and archaeologically important sites on the moor. 7) Loss of opportunity to return Kirkby Moor to its pre wind farm state of a place of wild, open, heather moorland with unrivalled views in all directions.

Kirkby Ireleth Parish Council: The Parish Council believes the application to be obtrusive and detrimental to the landscape. It is better suited to an off shore development. The Parish Council therefore cannot support this application.

Lowick Parish Council: At meetings held on the 17 th and 19 th March, the overwhelming view of the community was to object to the proposal on several grounds and the Parish Council also unanimously object to the proposals. The previous permission granted in 1992 was made on the basis that the national interest outweighed the environmental and visual impact of the turbines. The approval stated that the turbines must be removed from the site on the expiration of 25 years. The present application is therefore for a new windfarm and not a repowering of the former. It also states that upon decommissioning the site should be restored to its former condition by both restoration and regeneration. This has not been restated by the applicants. The proposals contravene local authority Policy C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. Large tracts of the site are designated as a SSSI a national site of moorland ecosystem and disturbance of which by a wind farm is irrefutable; access roads and aprons requiring larger and deeper foundations; drainage and water percolation systems interrupted; disruption of nesting habitats; alterations to the food chain related to insects, small mammals, seed eating birds and raptors. The scale of the development will have a massive impact upon the visual amenity of both the site area e.g. for walkers, as well as for local residents in the immediate vicinity and the wider area down to Lowick Bridge. The size of the structures nearly as tall as Blackpool Tower, four times higher than the Hoad Monument and three times higher than the existing turbines is completely out of scale with the surrounding area. The scale of the structures over 100 metres tall will be a moving construction of awe to the human brain and could have adverse consequences for drivers on the nearby roads. Although the site is outside the National Park boundary, it has the same landscape character and acts as a buffer and should be equally protected, particularly given the application for World Heritage status. There has been increasing levels of research showing the links between noise and flicker effect of turbines on the wellbeing of residents in proximity to those turbines. As a parish council we have a duty to represent those residents, often isolated, to emphasise the need to protect them from potential dangers associated with the side effects of the wind turbine industry. In order to transport the blades to the site, the A5092 road would need to be straightened at Thurstonville, and Saunders and outside the former Lowick School. The application for the development should be rejected until a separate permission is obtained for the highway changes have been approved. We are not against renewable energy per se but would point out that the applicants would be better advised to site two new turbines on the off shore site rather than the proposed six turbines on Kirkby Moor which would achieve the same level of efficiency and output.

Millom Without Parish Council: Oppose the application on the grounds that the turbines would dominate the landscape and view for residents within the Parish and damage the appearance of the area and it may impact on the number of visitors to the area and subsequent loss of income to local business.

Ulverston Town Council: Unanimously object to the proposal because of the visual impact on the landscape and damage to the environment.

Urswick, Bardsea and Stainton Parish Council: Strongly object to this application. It is considered that the size of the proposed turbines in this location will dominate the landscape for miles around the Furness peninsula and damage the appearance of the area for residents and visitors.

Wicham Parish Council: Object. Concerns about the size of the turbines and the visual impact they would have on the surrounding area. The Wicham valley and surrounding areas rely heavily on tourism and the visual impact of the turbines may deter visitors from returning.

Winscales Parish Council: Wholehearted support for the concerns raised by Lowick and Blawith & Subberthwaite Parish Councils. Cumbria is becoming inundated with turbines and there has to be a point where our views “enough is enough” are taken into account.

Lake District National Park Authority: Object to this application. In making the assessment the visual effects on views both from the National Park, and also views of the National Park from outside the boundary have been considered. The accumulative impact of the development and existing wind turbines in the area has also been considered. The assessment takes into account a number of criteria including distance from viewpoint, landscape character including character flow across boundaries and intervisibility with adjacent landscape character types and numbers and sensitivity of receptors as well as iconic public views within the National Park. Landscape Character Although the site is outwith the National Park our Landscape Character Assessment identifies the site as being within Landscape Character Type (LCT) K – Low Fell which includes a substantial area of land of similar character and appearance running south of the boundary and strong character flow across the boundary. This is a transitional landscape with rolling hills and occasionally rugged fells. Far reaching views from elevated land are common within this and the adjacent LCT. The higher ground is open, and where a rough textured appearance dominates. On this higher ground there is a relative scarcity of built features apart from the existing turbines which have a blade tip height of 42.4 m and is a significant detractor. In terms of capacity for change, visual sensitivity is considered high as a result of the strong sense of openness throughout and strong intervisibility with adjacent Landscape Character Types. Overall, the Low Fell Landscape Character Type is considered to have limited capacity to accommodate new development without compromising key characteristics. In terms of managing landscape change there is a need to protect uncluttered skylines and key views to and from the area from tall, vertical and large scale developments that may erode the undeveloped character of the area. Therefore the erection of 115 m high (blade tip height) structures would have a significant impact on the character of the area and setting of the National Park as the introduction of these tall turbines would clutter skylines and key views which would erode the undeveloped character of the area. One of the special qualities of the National Park is the tranquillity of the fells, valleys and lakes which gives a sense of space and freedom. The relatively open character of the uplands, and the lack of modern development, is especially important. To walk freely across the fells, or climb their crags, is liberating and gives a sense of discovery. There is a feeling of wildness, offering personal challenges for some and impressive open views for everyone. This proposed development would affect that special quality. Visual Receptors Important public views within the National Park would be affected by the development. The dynamics of the views are relevant such as physical nature, duration and frequency such as prolonged views. Persons using Coniston Water both in private boats and public passage vessels such as Coniston Launch and Gondola would be aware of the proposed turbines which would be prominent in views down the length of the lake. The views down this lake are iconic and the prominence of the wind turbines puncturing the skyline would affect the special qualities of the area and enjoyment of users of the lake appearing over dominant and visually intrusive. Also visitors travelling along the A593 in the Hawthwaite area would have a long exposure to views of the turbines. There would be significant visual impact on the enjoyment of users of the high fells such as Coniston Old Man, Blackcombe and Thwaites Fell to name a few which would affect the special qualities of the National Park. Whilst the reduction in number of wind turbines from 12 to 6 is welcomed this is however offset by the significant increase in size which makes the turbines more prominent from a greater area both within and outside the National Park than the existing wind turbines, adversely affecting both the setting of the National Park and the character by the development. The existing turbines are more in scale and better related to the landform being largely below the ridge line from many viewpoints. What is proposed now is out of scale and protrudes above the ridge making the turbines stand out in the skyline. The combined impact of this proposal and the existing and consented turbines in this area would add to the cumulative impact particularly in views from the south which will affect the setting of the National Park. Conclusion The scale of the development, the cumulative impact of this proposal with the existing and consented turbines, and its proximity to the boundary of the National Park and importantly, landscape character flow across the boundary into the area including the site, in our opinion results in non-compliance with South Lakeland Local Plan saved Policy C26. The viewpoints produced do not adequately demonstrate that there will be no harmful effects on the landscape and setting of the Lake District National Park but clearly show the impact on the special character of the National Park and setting of the National Park. The development of significant vertical structures of the scale proposed on the edge of the National Park which is seeking World Heritage Status and which would affect the special qualities of the National Park should be refused. The proposed development also conflicts with the statutory purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the National Park and should be refused. The benefits of this renewable energy proposal do not outweigh the harm in this instance. For the above reasons we urge you to refuse the application.

Cumbria County Council (CCC): Cumbria County Council’s Development Control and Regulation Committee considered its consultation response to the above planning application on 12 th May 2015. The Committee resolved that a strong objection be raised to this proposed development for the following reasons:- Landscape Effects The most significant effects upon the landscape will arise when the turbines are seen in views towards the Lake District National Park from the Open Access land on the higher points on Bank House Moor. From other points, only the upper parts of the blades will be visible. This can cause an unpredictable and awkward relationship with the landscape, and can appear intrusive - particularly at close range. In close proximity in the site, and in some wider views from the north and west, the scarring caused by the slate quarry is apparent. This is the ‘working character’ alluded to be the Wind Energy SPD, to which turbines could potentially relate. Whilst the quarry lends an industrial character to the landscape, this is focused upon a localised area around the site however. From the higher undeveloped parts to the south in particular, the sense of wildness derived from a general lack of development, will be adversely affected by the proposed turbines. Of particular relevance is the inherent linkage to the ‘Low Fells’ landscape character type, as defined by the Lake District National Park Landscape Character Assessment. Kirkby Moor forms part of a range of low fells, stretching from Torver Common in the north, to Bank House Moor in the south. Although mitigated by the overall scale of the landscape, the turbines will nonetheless form a prominent skyline feature on this ridge, and as such will impact upon the setting of the Lake District National Park. To the east, the landscape is generally lower level, farmed, and settled - with numerous small scale hamlets and villages. Large scale development is generally absent. These characteristics result in an overall landscape character which is more complex. Concern is raised as to the effect of turbines of the scale proposed in such close proximity. Kirkby Moor is prominent from many areas within landscape type 11a (upland fringes). There is concern that the turbines would form a dominant, industrial feature on the skyline, which would detract from the inherent character of this landscape type. It is considered that the turbines will have an adverse effect upon the landscape character in which the turbines are sited, and the adjacent landscape types, which are considerably more sensitive to turbine development. Visual Effects The site is located within an area where there is extensive Open Access land, an extensive public right of way, trunk and local road network, as well as numerous residential properties, including isolated farms, and hamlets, as well as larger villages and towns. The applicant’s assessment highlights significant visual effects on visual receptors up to 5km from the site. This is noted. It is considered that these significant effects would extend beyond 5 km in a number of cases. Cumulative Effects The landscape types and settlements in this area currently experience ‘significant’ cumulative effects arising from vertical infrastructure. The wind farms of particular relevance to the cumulative assessment of this scheme are Harlock Hill, 3.5 km to the south, Far Old Park Farm, 6 km to the southwest, and Haverigg II and III, 12 km to the southwest. The Harlock Hill development has consent to be repowered (now known as the ‘Furness’ wind farm). It is also relevant to note that the preferred route of the upgrade of the National Grid would follow the existing line of pylons which run parallel to the A595 north of Askam.

The above assessment in regard to landscape and visual effects indicates that the turbines would result in an adverse effect upon landscape character and visual amenity in their own right. There is a concern, given the recognised cumulative effects experienced in this location that the turbines would also contribute to the increasing influence of vertical infrastructure, upon both visual amenity and landscape character. This would be counter to Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCGT). Conclusion That an objection is raised due to adverse landscape, visual and cumulative effects which are not outweighed by the environmental benefits associated with the renewable energy generation and carbon savings which would arise from this scheme.

Highways Officer: I would like to see clarification on the abnormal loads expected as part of the development; i.e. size of vehicles, access routes, potential pinch points and ease of manoeuvres, etc. It is appreciated that the applicant intends to use the same access arrangement as previous used but given the size increase in the wind turbines, we have to ensure that the access route is still sufficient. Swept Path Analysis should be carried out on any pinch points to ensure that abnormal loads can navigate them successfully and without incident.

CCC - Lead Local Flood Authority: Would look to objecting to the application on the grounds of insufficient detail regarding the drainage of the access tracks and impermeable areas. Detail of the methods of drainage and the possible impact surface water discharge from the development proposal would have on the watercourse within the area would be needed, namely Gill House Beck which runs in a south westerly direction through Beck Side village and feeds into Soutergate Beck. Both Beckside and Soutergate suffered from surface water and fluvial flooding in November 2012.

Countryside Officer: There should be no interference with public footpaths.

CCC Historic Environment Officer: The EIA acknowledges the close proximity of the proposed development to two designated heritage assets comprising Bronze Age cairns, which are legally protected as Scheduled Monuments. It states that the application site has ‘a high potential for ritual activity relating to the Bronze Age’ and that ‘it cannot be assumed that any such remains will be of less than national significance’. Given that the EIA determines there to be a high potential for possibly nationally important remains to be completely removed within the areas of the construction ground works of the development, the impact of the development would be defined as having a Significant Effect. The inevitable conclusion therefore is that further information should be supplied by the applicant on how the significance of any archaeological assets that may survive within the site would be impacted upon by the development, prior to the determination of the application. I agree with the recommendation in the EIA that this information should be obtained by an archaeological geophysical survey. An informed judgement can be made as to whether, in the event planning consent is granted, provisions will need to be included for the preservation of significant archaeological assets in situ and for the recording of assets of lower importance.

Historic England: We suggest that in making its decision your authority establishes to its satisfaction the impacts of the proposed wind turbines upon all listed buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Registered landscapes and conservation areas within the zone of visual influence. While the height of the turbines is far greater than the existing we accept the conclusions of the Environmental Statement regarding the change of impact on the setting of highly graded heritage assets within 5 km of the wind farm. We recommend that you consult with the archaeological staff at Cumbria Historic Environment Services to consider the potential impacts which the proposal might have upon those heritage assets within the site boundary which are no designated. The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.

SLDC Conservation Officer: The Environmental Statement identifies 22 listed building heritage assets that fall within 5 km of the proposal site, with 14 of these falling within South Lakeland outside the National Park. I consider that ten of these would not be significantly affected by the proposal. An assessment has therefore been made on the likely impact of the proposal on the remaining four listed buildings: Kirkby Hall; St Cuthberts Church, Beckside; St John’s Church, Netherhouses; and Angerton Farmhouse. Ulverston Conservation area and Sir John Barrow Monument on Hoad Hill in Ulverston is located 5.2 km from the application site and this has also formed part of the formal assessment. The application would have a moderately harmful impact on the combined significance of the heritage assets identified above. In all cases that impact would be less than substantial. In applying the statutory tests of the 1990 Act my advice is that the proposal would fail to preserve the special architectural or historic interest of the five listed buildings and a neutral impact upon the conservation area.

SLDC Environmental Protection Officer: I can confirm that I have reviewed the above application and have the following comments:- Construction Noise Predicted construction noise is within acceptable limits and the predictions suggest that these levels would not give rise to any significant effect on nearby residents. I would however request a condition is applied to any consent restricting hours of construction and demolition activity on the site. Construction dust The applicant has made reference to the control of dust but in order to ensure that sufficient measures are in place to control dust whilst large earth works are undertaken I request a condition requiring provisions to be made to control dust emanating from the site. Operational Noise I can confirm that the applicant has considered the operational noise which would be produced should this application receive approval. In doing so they have followed recognised guidance and assessment methodologies associated with this type of development. In preparing their assessment of operational noise, the applicant has considered noise emissions from both a Senvion MM92 2MW wind turbine and also a ENercon E82 E2 2.3MW wind turbine. These are referred to as the candidate turbines and the applicant has noted that the final decision on type and model of turbine will be confirmed following a competitive tendering process should consent be given for the development. Final choice of turbine must be confirmed by the applicant prior to installation and must comply with noise limits contained in the conditions below. In order to ensure that operational noise remains within excepted levels I would recommend that the following condition is attached to any subsequent consent:- 1. The rating level of noise emissions from the combined effects of the wind turbines, (including the application of any tonal penalty) when determined in accordance with the attached Guidance Notes, shall not exceed the values for the relevant integer wind speed set out in the tables attached to these conditions and: a) Prior to the first export date the wind farm operator shall submit to the local planning authority for written approval a list of proposed independent consultants who may undertake compliance measurements in accordance with this condition. Amendments to the list of approved consultants shall only be made with the prior written approval of the local planning authority. b) Within 21 days from receipt of a written request of the local planning authority and following the receipt of a complaint alleging noise disturbance at a dwelling, the wind farm operator shall, at its own expense, employ a consultant approved in writing by the local planning authority, to assess the level of noise emissions from the wind farm at the complainant’s property in accordance with the procedures described in the attached Guidance Notes. The written request from the local planning authority shall set out at least a date, time and location that the complaint relates to and identify meteorological conditions they consider relevant to the cause of complaint. Within fourteen days of receipt of the written request of the local planning authority made under this paragraph (b), the wind farm operator shall provide the information logged in accordance with paragraph (h) to the local planning authority in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e). c) Where a dwelling to which a complaint is related is not listed in the tables attached to these conditions, the wind farm operator shall submit in writing to the local planning authority for written approval proposed noise limits selected from those listed in the tables to be adopted at the complainant’s dwelling for compliance checking purposes. The proposed noise limits are to be those limits selected from the tables specified for a listed location which the independent consultant considers as being likely to experience the most similar background noise environment to that experienced at the complainant’s dwelling. The submission of the proposed noise limits to the local planning authority shall include a written justification of the choice of the representative background noise environment provided by the independent consultant. The representative background noise environment and proposed noise limits shall be submitted in writing within 35 days of the initial notification to the wind farm operator of the complaint. These are to be submitted to the local planning authority for their written approval. The rating level of noise emissions resulting from the combined effects of the wind turbines when determined in accordance with the attached Guidance Notes shall not exceed the noise limits approved in writing by the local planning authority for the complainant’s dwelling. d) Prior to the commencement of any measurements by the independent consultant to be undertaken in accordance with these conditions, the wind farm operator shall submit in writing to the local planning authority for written approval the proposed measurement location identified in accordance with the Guidance Notes where measurements for compliance checking purposes shall be undertaken. Measurements to assess compliance with the noise limits set out in the tables attached to these conditions or approved by the local planning authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this condition shall be undertaken at the measurement location approved in writing by the local planning authority. e) Prior to the written submission of the independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise emissions in accordance with paragraph (f), the wind farm operator shall submit in writing to the local planning authority for written approval a proposed assessment protocol setting out the following:- • The range of meteorological and operational conditions (which shall include the range of wind speeds, wind shear, wind directions, power generation and times of day) to determine the assessment of rating level of noise emissions. • A reasoned assessment as to whether the noise giving rise to the complaint contains or is likely to contain a tonal component. The proposed range of conditions shall be those which prevailed during times when the complainant alleges there was disturbance due to noise, having regard to the written request of the local planning authority and any conditions the authority identify under paragraph (b), and such others as the independent consultant considers likely to result in a breach of the noise limits. The assessment of the rating level of noise emissions shall be undertaken in accordance with the assessment protocol approved in writing by the local planning authority. f) The wind farm operator shall provide to the local planning authority the independent consultant’s written assessment of the rating level of noise emissions undertaken in accordance with the Guidance Notes within two months of the date of the written request of the local planning authority made under paragraph (b) unless the time limit is extended in writing by the local planning authority. The assessment shall include all data collected for the purposes of undertaking the compliance measurements, such data to be provided in the format set out in 1(e) of the Guidance Notes. The instrumentation used to undertake the measurements shall be calibrated in accordance with Guidance Note 1(a) and certificates of calibration shall be submitted to the local planning authority with the independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise emissions. g) Where a further assessment of the rating level of noise emissions from the wind farm is required pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the attached Guidance Notes, the wind farm operator shall submit in writing a copy of the further assessment within twenty one days of submission of the independent consultant’s assessment pursuant to paragraph (f) above unless the time limit has been extended in writing by the local planning authority. h) The wind farm operator shall continuously log power production, nacelle wind speed, nacelle wind direction and nacelle orientation at each wind turbine all in accordance with Guidance Note 1(d) as well as the site ten metre wind speed, at a location approved by the local planning authority prior to the first export date. Rainfall shall be measured during any noise measurement regime at a location within 30 metres of the noise measurement location. These data shall be retained for the life of the planning permission. The wind farm operator shall provide this information in writing in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) to the local planning authority on its request, within fourteen days of receipt in writing of such a request. Once the local planning authority has received the independent consultant’s noise assessment required by this condition, including all noise measurements and audio recordings; where the local planning authority is satisfied of an established breach of the noise limits set out in the attached tables 1 and 2, upon notification by the local planning authority in writing to the wind farm operator of the said breach, the wind farm operator shall within fourteen days propose a scheme for the approval of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be designed to mitigate the breach and to prevent its future recurrence. The scheme shall specify the timescales for implementation. The scheme shall be implemented as approved by the local planning authority and according to the timescales within it. The scheme as implemented shall be retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Excessive Amplitude Modulation 2. The wind farm shall not emit greater than expected amplitude modulation noise. At the request of the local planning authority following the receipt of a complaint the wind farm operator shall, at its own expense, employ a consultant approved by the local planning authority to assess whether noise emissions at the complainant’s dwelling are characterised by greater than expected amplitude modulation. Amplitude modulation is the modulation (fluctuation) of the level of broadband noise emitted by a turbine at blade passing frequency. These will be deemed greater than expected if the following characteristics apply: a) A change in the measured LAeq 125 milliseconds turbine noise level of more than 3dB (represented as a rise and fall in sound energy levels each of more than 3dB) occurring within a two second period. b) The change identified in (a) above shall not occur less than five times in any one minute period provided that the LAeq, one minute turbine sound energy level for that minute is not below 28dB. c) The changes identified in (a) and (b) above shall not occur for fewer than six minutes in any hour.

Location Wind speed (ms) as standardised to 10m height 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Friar’s 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 46.3 46.3 46.3 Ground Croglin Farm 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Beanthwaite 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 45.2 45.2 45.2 Parkgate 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Groffa Crag 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Moor House 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Rathvale 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 45.8 52.4 52.4 52.4 Heather 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43.7 43.7 43.7 Cottage High Ghyll 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 46.3 46.3 46.3 Table 1 - Between 23:00 and 07:00: Maximum Noise level (dB LA90, 10-minute).

Location Wind speed (ms) as standardised to 10m height 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Friar’s 35 35 35 35 35 35 36.4 38.7 41.7 45.5 45.5 45.5 Ground Croglin Farm 35 35 35 35 35 35 35.9 37.7 40.1 43.2 43.2 43.2 Beanthwaite 35 35 35 35 35.4 36.6 38.1 40 42.2 45 45 45 Parkgate 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35.6 37.4 37.4 37.4 37.4 Groffa Crag 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35.8 38.7 42.8 42.8 42.8 Moor House 35 35 35 35 35 35 35.1 36.8 38.9 41.4 41.4 41.4 Rathvale 35 35 35 36.3 38 40.2 42.6 45.4 48.3 51.4 51.4 51.4 Heather 35 35 35 35 35 36.2 37.8 39. 40.5 41.5 41.5 41.5 Cottage High Ghyll 35 35 35 35 35 35 36.4 38.7 41.7 45.5 45.5 45.5 Table 2 - Between 07:00 and 23:00: Maximum Noise level (dB LA90, 10-minute)

Private Water supplies The applicant has recognised that the proposed construction activity may have an adverse effect on local water supplies and has identified supplies which may be susceptible to both pollution and contamination. I would however request that the following condition is applied to any consent given:- 3. Prior to the start of any construction activity the applicant must submit a plan to the local planning authority detailing which private water supplies will be monitored, how they will be monitored, and what contingency measures will take place in the event of pollution or contamination. This plan must be agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

Environment Agency: No comments to make as considered to be a low risk development.

Natural England: Summary This application site is approximately 1 km from the Lake District National Park at its nearest point. Natural England has identified a likely significant impact on the purposes of designation of the Lake District National Park, we are therefore objecting to this development on landscape grounds. The application site is within Kirkby Moor SSSI. The current Habitat Management Plan (HMP) broadly covers our concerns but does not provide us with confidence that the management can be delivered as the plan relies on third parties. We also have concerns regarding the wording relating to grazing stipulations in Unit 5 of the SSSI. Providing that the HMP is amended to include the additional requirements we have requested in regards of the above concerns Natural England has no objection on biodiversity on the basis that a requirement to deliver the amended HMP is secured via a Section106 agreement. The application site is in close proximity to several internationally designated sites. Based on the information provided the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any internationally designated site. Landscape - objection Natural England believes that this development would have a significant adverse impact on the statutory purposes of the National Park and conflicts with national planning policy. We therefore object to this proposal on landscape grounds. Natural England considers that the size and scale of this development within the setting of the designated landscape would have an adverse impact on those special qualities. History of tourism and outdoor activities Many visitors come to the Lake District to enjoy the scenic beauty of the landscape and the very many recreational opportunities. The proposed development will have an adverse impact on both the landscape and the visitor experience with in the National Park in the vicinity of Kirkby Moor. Open nature of the fells For many people the Lake District National Park is synonymous with mountains and upland fells. These peaks act as focal points of attention in the landscape and are key potential visual receptor viewpoints. The proposed development will be visible from many of these fells, with significant visual effects from Great Burney peak, 2 km from the site. Views to turbines introduce man-made features to the skyline and attract the eye’s attention when admiring panoramic views and consequently would have an impact on the open nature of the fells. Celebrated social and cultural heritage Alfred Wainwright, in his “Wainwright Guides” identified key Lakeland fell peaks and outlier fell peaks, many of which are located in proximity to the Kirkby Moor Site, including Coniston Old Man, Black Combe, Great Burney, Hampsfell Gummer’s Howe, Whitfell and the Dunnerdale Fells. The proposed turbines would be clearly visible from these peaks, impacting on the long, open, panoramic views expected from these peaks.

Landscape character effects Natural England agrees with the LVIA’s Conclusion of significant effects on landscape character of the site itself, in the host landscape character types, and on neighbouring character types within the National Park. The site is elevated, open and features a heather moorland ridge and plateau with long views towards the Lakeland fells and to the coast. The turbines would be clearly visible as prominent man-made structures in this open moorland landscape. This is a sensitive landscape in the setting of a National Park and the proposals bring a very high magnitude of change resulting in a major direct significance and adverse effect on landscape character. Visual effects The repowering proposals would be visible over a wide area which includes high peaks and visitor hot spots within the core of the Lake District National Park including Scafell Pike, Helvellyn, Bow Fell, Coniston Old Man and the shores of Coniston Water. Whilst the LVIA does not consider the visual effects at these viewpoints significant, the fact they are visible, combined with the very high sensitivity of these receptors gives cause for concern. The LVIA identifies significant visual effects from viewpoints both within the National Park, and in its setting. These include receptor points around the settlements of Grizebeck, Broughton Beck and Lowick Bridge, and minor roads in the vicinity of the site, both looking out towards the site from within the national park and looking back towards the fells of the Lake District from south of the National Park. From all these viewpoints the proposed development would be prominent, bringing a high magnitude of change and a major or major / moderate level of effect to receptors. There are significant visual effects from Great Burney, an outlier fell in the Lake District National Park - the closest of numerous outlier fells mentioned in his book which will have views to the proposed turbines. Great Burney is approximately 2 km from the proposed site and has long, open panoramic 360 degree views. The turbines would form highly prominent features in the view from Great Burney and consequently the high sensitivity or the report with the high magnitude of change would lead to major and significant visual effects. There are also significant visual effects from John Barrow Monument on the edge of Ulverston a well-used local viewpoint with panoramic views including long open views back to the Lake District Fells. There would also be a significant effect on some other important recreational receptors. The LVIA identifies a significant effect on a section of the Cumbria Way between High Lath Farm (north of Ulverston) and Gawthwaite and also intermittently a significant effect on a short length of the route between Gawthwaite and Blawith Knott. There would also be a significant effect on the section of the Cumbria Coastal Way between Duddon Mosses and Dunnerholme, intermittently along parts of the Furness Way between Lowick Green and Lowick Bridge; and intermittently along parts of Regional Cycle Route 37 between Spark Bridge and Lowick Bridge. There are areas of open access and numerous PROW in the immediate vicinity of the site, some of which cross the site itself. Users of these recreational assets would have unobscured, close proximity views of the turbines in the foreground, with the Lake District Fells in the background.

Nationally Designated Sites Section 28i advice Kirkby Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) The application site is within Kirkby Moor SSSI. Kirkby Moor SSSI is one of only three upland SSSIs in south Cumbria. The main interest of the site is the heather moorland, a habitat restricted on an international basis to northern Europe and a scarce habitat in south Cumbria. The site also supports a wide range of mire communities. Other upland habitats add to the diversity of the site as a whole. Kirkby Moor provides a habitat for a number of protected bird species. Natural England welcomes the detail presented in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (Pegasus Group, December 2014) in relation to biodiversity impacts on the SSSI, and we generally concur with the overall assessment of impacts. The EIA accepts that the application will damage the SSSI and while minimising these impacts will still result in circa 6 ha of immediate designated habitat loss. To mitigate for this the draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) on which we have been consulted prior to application, proposes 26 ha of restoration / creation works. The current HMP broadly covers our concerns but does not provide us with sufficient confidence that the management can be delivered as the plan relies on third parties, including the Holker Estate, the Commons graziers and the adjacent landowner accepting the plan and allowing its implementation in full. If it is not delivered in full then Natural England takes the view that the scheme would result in unmitigated damage to a nationally important site. On Blades Moss (Unit 5 of Kirkby Moor SSSI) we support the production of a hydrological plan and restoration works including removing residual drainage to restore the mires to favourable condition. We are concerned though about the grazing stipulations for this SSSI Unit. The current wording is unnecessarily imprecise and could lead to future objections by the owner / grazier which could prevent the appropriate grazing occurring. Within the EIA it states that the Ecological Clerk of Works will be involved in selecting stockpile areas for areas of turf / soil that are removed for use elsewhere. Natural England would also need to be consulted and be in agreement about appropriate turf / soil stockpile areas to avoid unnecessary impacts. We advise that the HMP should include the following additional requirements: • Written confirmation that the Estate and graziers will support the fencing of restoration areas on the moor. Given that the Winnow upper and mid-levels are proposed this specific area can be agreed in advance and the remaining 4.5 ha agreed later as long as in principle acceptance that a further area is to be fenced is confirmed in advance. • Acquisition of legal control over the SSSI unit by RWE for a period of 30 years, as stated in the HMP. • Grazing management on Unit 5 (Blades Moss) should include the following stipulations. The SSSI area should be stock free for at least 5 years and then reviewed and if grazing is introduced at any time there should be no winter grazing (December-March). Providing that the HMP is amended to include the above requirements Natural England has no objection on biodiversity on the basis that a requirement to deliver the HMP is secured via a S106 agreement. Internationally Designated Sites The application site is in close proximity to:- • Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Duddon Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) which are European sites. The sites are also listed as Duddon Estuary Ramsar site and also notified at a national level as Duddon Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) • Morecambe Bay SPA which is a European site. This site is also listed as Morecambe Bay Ramsar site and also notified at a national level as Morecambe Bay SSSI. • Subberthwaite, Blawith & Torver Low Commons SAC. This site is notified at a national level as Subberthwaite, Blawith & Torver Low Commons SSSI. In advising your authority on the requirements relating to Habitats Regulations Assessment, Natural England advises that the proposal is not necessary for the management of the European site that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any European site, and can therefore be screened out from any requirement for further assessment. Protected Species We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species. Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species.

National Trust: The Trust has major land interests in the general area of the application site and those likely to be affected by the proposal include Sandscale Haws, land in the Thwaite Fell area to the west of the River Duddon and significant areas on the east and west sides of Coniston Water. a) Sandscale Haws Sandscale Haws has been described by Natural England as the jewel in the crown of the areas world class natural heritage. It is not only a National Nature Reserve, but also part of the Duddon Estuary Ramsar Site, Special Protection Area and Special Area of Conservation. In addition it is a Site of Special Scientific Interest. A key aspect of the importance of Sandscale Haws is its cumulative value as an eco- system, some parts of which are very fragile. The reserve, which is crossed by the Cumbrian way footpath, is a popular place for recreation, both on the beach and in the quieter areas of the dunes. The vistas over the Duddon estuary and towards the central Fells of the Lake District are a key and much valued characteristic of the property. The quality of the fine views has in recent years been eroded by features of 21 st century living such as turbines and aerials including the Askham, Harlock Hill and Haverigg wind farms, the existing Kirkby Moor wind farm and off-shore facilities. The text of the applicant’s Environmental Statement recognises that the turbines will be visible from considerable parts of the reserve at a distance of around 9 km but suggests that the impact will not be significant. For the purposes of the Landscape Institute Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Assessment the Trust considers that the sensitivity of Sandscale Haws as a receptor should be regarded as very high rather than high and even if the magnitude of change was regarded as medium this would result in a major / moderate landscape effect which would be considered significant. b) Coniston Area On the west side of Coniston Water the Trust has landholdings between Torver and Coniston village, either side of the A593, extending to the lake side as well as extensive areas to the north of Coniston village, including the iconic site of Tarn Hows. On the east side there are landholdings at the southern end of the lake with an overall lake frontage of around 4 km, including Peel Island, together with steeply rising woodland to the east of the road and an open upland area around “The Park” and “Low” and “High Parkamoor”. There is unrestricted public access to these areas. In addition to its land interests the Trust also operates the restored C19 steam yacht “Gondola” which cruises from the pier at Coniston village to the southern end of the lake, calling among other places at Parkamoor jetty. Like Coniston jetty, Parkamoor jetty is the subject of one of the applicant’s photo montages illustrating the potential impact of the proposal. Whilst the application recognises the Gondola jetty as a very highly sensitive receptor for some reason Parkamoor jetty is only considered high. Bearing in mind its location and its use by those wishing to enjoy the sublime and unspoilt beauties of the lake, both locations should be similarly categorised. In the opinion of the Trust the proposed turbines would result in moderate change to both views and would consequently have a major / moderate impact which having regard to the Landscape Institute matrix should be regarded as significant. In the opinion of the Trust, whilst the proposed turbines are themselves just outside the boundary of the National Park, they would appear as intrusive and damaging features in views from a highly valued landscape around Coniston that forms part of a relatively unspoilt section of the Lake District National Park. c) Thwaites Fell The Trust has land interests at Thwaites Fell, an open upland area within the National Park boundary to the west of Broughton in Furness that is crossed by narrow country roads affording wide panoramic views over the surrounding area. Again having regard to the sensitivity of the location and the likely effect on the views the Trust would question the conclusion of the applicants that the impact of the turbines would not be significant in terms of their landscape and visual effects. In the Trust’s opinion turbines of a height of 115 m, more than twice the height of the existing structures would have a further detrimental impact on the outlook from a section of the Lake District National Park where existing turbines already have harmful consequences for the view. Whilst no images are available the applicant’s ZTV maps also show that the turbines would be visible from Trust land at Hawes Ground / Pickthall that is crossed by public rights of way and from Pike Side where there is unrestricted public access. The former is around 8 km from the proposed turbines and the latter around 12 km. Again it is considered that the proposed turbines would have a detrimental effect on the vista from these locations within the National Park. Conclusion It is considered that the proposed development would result in detrimental impacts per se on various properties owned or controlled by the Trust; it would seriously and adversely affect their significances and the enjoyment of the many visitors to those properties. In reaching their decision on this application the Council are requested to have regard to the concerns of the Trust referred to above. These and any other adverse impacts will have to be balanced against the benefit in terms of the contribution to renewable energy generation of the proposed turbines.

Cumbria Wildlife Trust: Objects to the planning application on the following grounds:- 1. Permanent net loss of 2.93 ha of nationally important wildlife habitat. 2. The proposal does not comply with the tests and policies set out in the National Planning Policy Framework in relation to development on SSSI’s. 3. The proposal does not comply with the tests of the south Lakeland Local Development Framework, Core Strategy CS8.4 Biodiversity and geodiversity. 4. The proposed measures in the applicants Habitat Management Plan cannot be considered mitigation as they will happen regardless of whether the development occurs.

RSPB: We would like to register an objection for the following reasons:- The proposal does not comply with the tests and policies set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in relation to development on SSSI’s (paragraph 118). Planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss (NPPF Para 118). It is our opinion that the applicant has not demonstrated that the benefits of this proposal will outweigh either the harm to the special interest features of Kirkby Moor SSSI or the broader national network of SSSIs. The RSPB does not consider the proposed measures can be considered as appropriate mitigation, and therefore there will be permanent damage to the SSSI. We consider that the benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm caused and that there will be less damaging locations capable of providing those benefits. Therefore, permission should be refused.

Permanent Loss of SSSI habitat The development would result in the permanent loss of 2.93 ha of SSSI habitat. For reasons set out below, the proposed mitigation measures cannot be considered as mitigation as they are not over and above those measures required by Natural England to bring the SSSI in to favourable condition. Nor can they overcome the permanent loss of SSSI habitat. All of these management options are within the boundary of the SSSI and notwithstanding their description as mitigation measures; it is clear in this case that:- • The proposed wind farm will involve the construction of infrastructure within semi-natural habitats, resulting in direct loss of habitats of conservation value or that support species of conservation value. • There will be permanent loss of 2.93 ha of SSSI habitat that cannot be mitigated by measures taken elsewhere within the SSSI; this represents a permanent loss of habitat from a site designated as one of a series (within the UK) of the best examples of this upland habitat. Kirkby Moor is the largest area of this habitat in South Cumbria and there are no other notified examples. • The restoration / enhancement measures outlined in the draft Habitat Management Plan and discussed with Natural England relating to control of grazing and active management to restore heathland and mire vegetation are those already identified by Natural England as necessary to meet the conservation objectives of the site for the affected features. Therefore, the proposed habitat management works cannot be considered as over and above those measures necessary for SSSI management and as such cannot be considered to be mitigation for the predicted damaging impacts. Natural England already has the necessary powers under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to work with the landowner to secure the necessary measures to deliver favourable condition. In relation to this point, the RSPB notes that SSSI units 2, 3 and 4 were classified as ‘unfavourable recovering’ by Natural England in 2012. These units have been subject to overgrazing and occasional burning (to promote grazing) which has led to damage to the heathland habitat. The reason these units qualified as recovering is that these SSSI units and adjoining land outside of the application red-line boundary are receiving public funding under an entry level stewardship scheme 4 aimed at restoring the wildlife value. For these reasons, it is the RSPBs view that the proposed package of measures cannot be considered as appropriate mitigation for the predicted damage to the SSSI. Therefore, the application should trigger a requirement for compensatory measures. There are no proposals for any such compensatory measures, assuming it is practicable to compensate for the loss of the affected habitats. In this case therefore where no off-site compensation is proposed, the development cannot satisfy the requirements of the mitigation hierarchy, and planning permission should be refused as per paragraph 118 of the NPPF. Inadequate proposals for moorland restoration Notwithstanding the significant concerns and objection set out in our comments above we would like to draw the Council’s attention to the inadequacy of the proposed restoration through the use of fencing to prevent grazing. The restoration of (grazed) degraded moorland habitat requires a reduction in or the removal (exclusion) of grazing to improve the site’s condition. Presently, there are no agreements in place for this to happen, Natural England has failed to secure these agreements to date and there is no guarantee that the developer will be able to secure them as they rely entirely on the compliance of third parties. Without stock reduction any attempt at habitat restoration will fail. It should be noted that to allow for satisfactory restoration of areas identified around the turbine bases temporary fencing will also be required to allow vegetation to develop satisfactorily, in addition to the fencing that will be required to allow for 2.84 ha associated with temporary habitat loss to be adequately restored.

Friends of the Lake District (CPRE): Friends of the Lake District considers that this application would cause demonstrable harm and conflict with established local and national policies which seek to protect landscapes including the designated landscape of the Lake District National Park. The application should therefore be refused, in summary, for the following reasons:- • The proposal would result in unacceptable visual harm to the landscape due to the magnitude of change of the turbine size compared to the existing turbines on Kirkby Moor. • The development would have a significant adverse impact upon local landscape character including on the setting of the Lake District National Park not least by reason of the cumulative impact from nearby built / under construction / consented wind turbines, along with the proposed route of the National Grid North West Coast Connections pylons. • The visual impact arising from this development in such close proximity would result in significant harm to the landscape of the National Park. • The intrusive nature of the proposal would impact on the nature conservation interests of the SSSI and on recreational activities on Kirkby Moor and into the Lake District National Park including quiet contemplative opportunities on nearby fells and Coniston Water and locally cherished viewpoints including The Hoad and Birkrigg Common.

Ministry of Defence: The MOD objects to the proposal. The proposed turbines will cause unacceptable interference to the Air Traffic Control radar at Warton. Wind Turbines have been shown to have detrimental effects on the performance of MOD radars. These effects include desensitisation of radar in the vicinity of the turbines and the creation of false aircraft returns which could result in aircrafts not being detected by the radar and not presented to air traffic controllers. If the developer is able to overcome the issues stated above, the MOD will request that all turbines are fitted with appropriate safety lighting.

NATS: Following a review of our operation in the vicinity of the proposed development NATS (En Route) plc has determined that although this is likely to impact our electronic infrastructure, this impact can be managed such that it does not affect the provision of a safe and efficient en-route ATC service. Accordingly NATS (En Route) plc has no safeguarding objection to the proposal and as such, we are withdrawing our objection of the 6th February 2015.

Joint Radio Company LTD (JRC): Unfortunately part or all of the development is located within 1 km / 0.5 km of a protected link site or path managed by JRC. As a consequence JRC objects to the proposed wind farm on behalf of Electricity North West and itself.

Arqiva (Television Transmission): No objections.

Vodaphone: No Objections.

Cumbria Tourism: Cumbria Tourism has concerns about the potential harm that the proposed windfarm could have on the visitor economy and the reputation of Cumbria and The Lake District as a visitor destination. The environmental statement accompanying the application accepts that there are significant landscape and visual impacts associated with the development and that the turbines will be visible from some considerable distance including high peaks within the core of the National Park. The section of the Environmental Statement dealing with potential tourism impacts is dismissive and limited in the extent of its research. There are currently some 471 wind turbines located in Cumbria (with 17 clusters of windfarms) and around 300 more turbines at proposal stage. This makes Cumbria the most extensively wind-farmed county in England. Given the scale and accepted visual impacts associated with this scheme we would suggest that it poses further risk to the visitor economy of the county which is worth 2.2bn per annum and sustains 32,805 FTE jobs. In our view this is a risk too far.

Ramblers Association: We object on the following grounds:- • Scale and impact on locality. They will dominate the local landscape, alter the skyline of a wild area and be clearly visible for miles. They will add to the effect of the other turbines in the area including huge offshore facility off Walney Island. People visit the area because of its wild landscape which would be irrevocably changed by these massive, alien installations. • Noise and flicker. The sound of the blades is extremely loud and very intrusive, audible from a long distance away from these structures and overpowering close to. • Damage to the moor and wildlife. Parts of the moor are Sites of Special Scientific importance and are Common Land. There will be new tracks, huge concrete bases, hard standings and a large new substation. Wildlife and habitats are bound to be affected and the wildness and sense of open space will be severely damaged. • Limited contribution to sustainable energy and carbon savings (?) taking into account the materials required, the energy for construction off, and the fact that the turbines are likely to be manufactured abroad. There is also the question of the need for backup conventional power sources when the wind doesn’t blow / blows too much, or the grid is full (wind energy cannot be stored). • Consumers pay (through their energy bills) the subsidies paid to the wind farm companies and the landowners and for the damage to their local environment. Therefore, monies offered to community funds is the consumers own money! We sincerely hope that you will take these important considerations into account when decisions are made about this planning application. Our members, walk and have walked in this area for many, many years, know it intimately and are sure of the negative effect that these turbines will have. We love this area for the very qualities that this windfarm will ruin.

Lake District Area Ramblers: Object. The erection of new turbines and access tracks will destroy heather moorland, a SSSI and adversely affect the walking environment from public rights of way crossing the moor. The Turbines will dominate the ridge, be on the skyline and highly visible from adjacent fells of the Lake District National Park.

Open Spaces Society: Objects most strongly to this application. The existing turbines are a severe intrusion in this wild landscape, highly visible from many directions and in particular from the Lake District National Park. The replacement development will be a terrible eyesore in this splendid and grand landscape. The turbines also occupy a significant area of registered Common Land. This is a unique land type for the public benefits it provides not only for those who exercise rights of grazing there but also for people who have rights to walk over the area, enjoying its peace, tranquillity and extensive views, its history, archaeology, culture and wildlife. We note that the applicants propose to offer land on the edge of the common in exchange for the land to be taken. This is not a fair exchange. The turbines and associated development will ravage the heart of the common. The moor is also criss-crossed with public rights of way, and users will be severely inconvenienced and their experience ruined by the presence of this noisy and banausic urban development.

Federation of Small Businesses: A large proportion of businesses in the area rely on tourism in terms of visitors and their spending, and there is no doubt that these plans would result in significant negative change to our famed and cherished landscape and therefore have a significant negative impact on these businesses.

Neighbours / Others FELLS (Friends of Eden, Lakeland and Lunesdale Scenery): Object to the application. The principal grounds are:- • risk of future extension - and the long-term vulnerability of the site; • breach of the original condition which permitted operation for 25 years; • changes in government policy which bring into question the need for this scheme; • landscape and visual impacts which are understated by the applicant and fail to give sufficient weight to the fact that over 300 turbines are now operational or in construction /planning in the study area; and • cumulative impact which is now a serious threat to South Cumbria and NW Lancashire, and especially to the National Park and its bid for World Heritage Status. Noise risk In addition, FELLS requests that should the Council deem to grant consent, provision is made for the inclusion of a condition relating to Amplitude Modulation (or Excess AM) which has proved such a problem at Armistead.

FORCE (Friends of Rural Cumbria’s Environment): Friends of Rural Cumbria’s Environment have carefully considered this proposal to repower, we now wish to formally OBJECT to the application for the following reasons:- • Unacceptable change to landscape character, impacting on views towards and from the Lake District National Park and surrounding countryside; • The scheme, if it were to go ahead, would have an unacceptable cumulative impact with other wind energy developments in the area; • Loss of visual amenity for walkers and road users; • Loss of visual and residential amenity for neighbouring properties; and • The application does not specify the make and model of turbine proposed therefore any predicted noise levels are unreliable.

Westnewton Action Group: Object to this proposal for the following reasons:- • The existence of a windfarm on a moor such as this with SSSI designation and adjacent to Britain’s premier National Park is anomalous. The Secretary of State granted consent originally as an experimental research project aimed at examining wind power as a possible source of future energy security. Having achieved its goal this wind form has reached the end of its allotted time span. • The proposed turbines will completely dominate the area for miles in every direction. Due to the proximity to the National Park, they would clearly intrude visually on views from within as well as towards the National Park. • Exaggerated performance figures - the annual estimate of installed capacity would mean the wind farm functioning at up to 40.9% respectively and questions the amount of Carbon Dioxide that the wind farm could displace. • The proposal is not ‘repowering’ an existing site, it is a completely new development. • Further damage to the SSSI. • Cumulative impacts with adjacent windfarms. • Noise impacts. • Shadow flicker impacts. • Concerns regarding canvassing by the applicant to gain pro forma letters of support which focus on an inappropriate slant on the benefits of wind energy in general. The full 13 page report and supplement is available to view on the Council’s website.

High Furness and Kirkby Moor Commoners Association: Support the Kirkby Moor Wind farm development.

South Lakes Action on Climate Change: This is a development which is well conceived and important in terms of producing renewable energy. Fully support the application.

Radiation Free Lakeland: Fully support genuine renewable energy and in this case there is already a precedent for wind energy here on Kirkby Moor. The reduction of turbines will mean less visual intrusion but repowering will mean that the area continues to make an important contribution to reducing CO2 emissions. The local community and the local economy will benefit from inward investment.

Duddon and Furness Mountain Rescue Team: Support the application. We have used the existing met mast at Gunson Height since 2013 to host our radio equipment allowing communication between our base and search parties out on the hill. We have come to rely heavily on its use and it is now our primary means of communication. It would severely impact on the team’s ability to operate if we lost this valuable resource.

Broughton Community Plan Steering Group: In Spring 2015, as part of a community-wide consultation to inform the development of the Broughton Community Plan, questionnaires were distributed and made available online to those living or working within Duddon Parish. 329 questionnaires were completed – more than a third of the parish’s adult population, as measured by the last census. Containing over 40 questions, opinions were sought on a range of topics such as transport, housing, local services and the local area. The response to the question “ How important are the following aspects of your local area to you?” is relevant to the above planning application. 96.35% of respondents rated the landscape as either very important (80.85%) or fairly important (15.5%). In addition, 91.18% also said that wildlife was either very important (69.3%) or fairly important (21.88%). It is clear from these statistics that residents of Duddon Parish cherish the outstanding beauty and unique ecology of their environment. As such, with the visual impact the proposed much taller wind turbines would have on the local area and the likely negative effect the construction, maintenance and operation of the wind-farm is likely to have on wildlife, it is unlikely that our parishioners would wish this re- development to go ahead. As RWE did not undertake a consultation with our adjoining parish despite the effect the proposed wind-farm would have on our residents, it is important that South Lakeland District Councillors give due weight to these results from Broughton’s Community Plan questionnaire.

The Wainwright Society: When Alfred Wainwright was exploring the Coniston Fells and, later, the Southern Outlying Fells of Lakeland he extolled the virtues of the views from the summits of the greater and lesser heights and, in particular, he noted the exquisite beauty of the seascapes and estuaries that could be enjoyed from these tops. In his chapter on Coniston Old Man he wrote: ’A vast seascape makes a glorious sweep across the southern horizon, ranging from the Pennines to Black Combe, and further west, to the Isle of Man. A rare beauty is added to the scene by the silver waters of the Kent, Leven and Duddon estuaries.’ Of lowly Burney, he wrote: ‘Considering the modest altitude and ease of access, a most rewarding panorama is revealed from Burney. The Duddon estuary is a special feature.’ So it is with dismay that the Society has read the proposal to erect six huge wind turbines on the ridge of Kirkby Moor. This ridge, a designated SSSI and a noted area of heather moorland extends NNE to the Blawith Fells and leading the eye into the heart of Lakeland. There is little doubt that these turbines would have a damaging visual impact both of views from the high Coniston fells but also of views from outside the Park into Lakeland where the turbines would be an unwelcome man-made intrusion into the landscape set against the backdrop of the magnificent vista of fells lying to the north. The Society considers that when the current permission for the present wind farm expires in 2018 the land should revert to its former state, not only having positive environmental benefits, but also going a long way to restoring the views of the Duddon estuary so loved by Wainwright from the southern fells of Lakeland.

Neighbour and individual responses: Objections A total of 532 individual letters of objection to the proposal have been received at the time of writing, of which 288 have been received from the local community in the immediate parishes adjacent to the site, 130 from the wider Furness area, 27 from elsewhere in the District and 87 from elsewhere or at unknown addresses. Their main concerns are:- • Adverse visual impact. The turbines will be disproportionally large and dominate the area, be visible for miles around, greatly detract from the high amenity value of the surrounding landscape and enjoyment of this area by locals and visitors. The new turbines will be two and a half times larger than the current turbines with a vastly greater visual intrusion. The height of the six turbines will be a massive visual intrusion on some of the UK’s best loved landscapes. • The existing turbines were only meant to be in place for 25 years. They should be removed in accordance with the condition attached to the original consent and the land restored to its natural state. The decommissioning does not require further consent. It is essential that the concrete bases should be completely removed. • The construction of new tracks, concrete bases, hardstandings, and a large new substation would cause significant damage to an area which are designated SSSI and common land. • The turbines would impact on views from many popular locations from within the National Park which is currently seeking World Heritage status and would have a serious detrimental effect on views experienced by visitors in an area heavily dependent on the local tourism economy. The proposal represents a further industrialisation of what was once beautiful heather moorland. • The Lake District National Park, is already surrounded by a dominating ring of existing and planned onshore turbine sites the proposal would create an adverse cumulative impact. • Wind turbines are an inefficient form of energy generation at around 20 - 25%, they have a costly carbon footprint during manufacturing. They would make a limited contribution to sustainable energy. The amount of electricity generated by the turbines does not justify the harmful impacts on the landscape, the disruption during construction and the loss of flora and fauna. • National targets for onshore wind energy have already been exceeded there is no justification for imposing the proposed structures on the environment other than for financial gain. The turbines would be built with substantial subsidies paid for by the consumers and tax payers. • The few people who would benefit from this development are far outweighed by the many who would be affected by the proposal. • The proposal would have unacceptable impacts on local residents in terms of noise impacts, the ‘whoosh’ sound of the blades, and shadow flicker. The quality of life would be harmed. The existing turbines already cause noise nuisance issues. Research suggests that increasing numbers of residents living within 10 km of wind turbines have suffered adverse health impacts. • The proposed turbines would be unpleasantly overwhelming and have an unavoidable presence which would have a significant impact on residential amenity. • The noise predictions are based on criteria which is dated and has been the subject of much debate – it is not suited to characterising noise subject to a significant degree of amplitude modulation. The measured noise level results are likely to be unreliable and understated. They have failed to consider the cumulative impacts of noise from other turbines. • There have been many advances in the production of wind energy and offshore turbines have proved more efficient and have less adverse impacts on local communities and sensitive landscapes. There are better alternatives such as tidal power or solar energy. The money would be better spent on developing improvements to the efficiency of electrical devices and thermal insulation. • The proposals would result in greater encroachment onto the Kirkby Moor SSSI resulting in the damage / loss of habitat and wildlife especially moorland birds and bats. It will adversely affect the mires and heather moorland, where a rare variety of mountain bumble bee is present. The concrete needed for each of these turbines and ground work entailed on such a large scale will cause long term devastation and it would take years for the carbon footprint incurred to be offset by the limited amount of power produced. • The SSSI and its integrity will be damaged not only by the intrusion of traffic during construction and maintenance but also by air turbulence and continuous vibrations transmitted from the towers into the surrounding ecological infrastructure. There is no consideration of the potential long term changes in the micro-climate within the SSSI that are likely to result from the construction of large turbines on the moor and which may disrupt the ecological balance. • It will affect the archaeology of the area which contains rare and important ancient Bronze Age sites. The construction work will destroy the history of the land. • The application is not compliant with the NPPF or saved Policy C26 because not only would the development have a significantly adverse impact on the nationally important landscape of the Lake District but it would have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area because of the cumulative impacts. The benefits of this renewable energy proposal do not outweigh the harmful impacts. • The development could impact on local private water supplies and surface water drainage. There have been instances of flooding during torrential rain events and where watercourses on the fellside have been blocked / disturbed. • The proposal development is on Common Land and would affect the rights of commoners. • Distortion of television reception. • Danger from ice and blade throw, particularly in view of the proximity of public footpaths which cross the site. • The motion of the blades may distract drivers on the 5092 and B5281 causing danger to road users. • The local roads into and out of the area are not suitable for heavy construction traffic. • The warning lights will be intrusive at night and during the day - distracting and industrial in nature. • The turbines would have a detrimental impact on the setting of St John’s church, Osmotherley, a Grade II listed building. Support A total of 141 individual letters of support for the proposal have been received including pre-printed letters of which, 11 have been received from the local community in the immediate parishes adjacent to the site, eight from the wider Furness area, 80 from elsewhere in the district and 42 outside the District. Their representations are:- • The wind farm would have an acceptable visual effect on the landscape. • Ecological mitigation provided as part of the wind farm proposal will provide a net ecological benefit for the site there is no evidence that they disturb wildlife. • The windfarm will make an important contribution to reducing CO2 emissions it will provide nearly four times as much electricity with fewer machines. Alternative energy generation should be available for the good of the country. • The wind farm would generate inward economic investment in the Cumbria area, creating real contract opportunities for local businesses. • Kirkby Moor repowering Community investment Fund would be an excellent source of long term funding that could help deliver key community projects and help fund local causes. • Wind turbines are far more attractive than electricity pylons. • Fossil free, nuclear free energy. • The economy of Cumbria cannot rely on tourism alone. • In the event of an earthquake, any damage of the turbines would not result in serious impacts on the environment, unlike nuclear sites. The site can be cleared and returned to agriculture without having to spend billions of pounds on the decommissioning process. • Independent sources of electricity are vital to the strategic safety of the community. Additionally a petition in support of the proposal in the form of pre-printed cards which set out the issues as stated above, obtained by the applicant and forwarded to the Council has been received. A total of 755 cards have been received, of which 55 have been signed by local residents, 216 signed by residents of the wider Furness area, 443 signed by residents from elsewhere in the district and further afield and 41 have no address details.

POLICY ISSUES The Development Plan: Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning applications be determined in accordance with the provisions of the statutory development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan comprises the South Lakeland Local Plan Core Strategy and the saved policies of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

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 relates to the protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character. The policy states that development proposals should be informed by and sympathetic to the distinctive character of landscape types set out in identified guidance documents. It states that proposals should demonstrate that “their location, scale, design and material will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance” the special qualities of nationally designated areas including the National Parks, the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area, distinctive settlement character, the function of ecological features, and “the setting of, and views into and from” (of relevance) “...the National Parks, conservation areas and individual built / manmade features that contribute to landscape and settlement character.” 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. Policy CS8.6 Historic Environment supports the safeguarding and, where possible, enhancing of historic environment assets, including their characteristic settings and any attributes that contribute to a sense of local distinctiveness. Such assets include listed buildings and features, conservation areas, scheduled ancient monuments and registered parks and gardens. Policy CS8.8 Flood Risk relates to development and flood risk and states that most new development should be located within flood risk zone 1 and that all new development will only be permitted where is can be demonstrated that it would not have a significant impact on the capacity of the area to store floodwater, measures required to manage any flood risk can be implemented and surface water is managed in a sustainable way. Policy CS10.2 Transport Impact of New Development States that the expected nature and volume of traffic generated by the proposal could be accommodated by the existing road network without detriment to the amenity or character of the surrounding area, local air quality or highway safety.

Saved Policies of the South Lakeland Local Plan: Saved Policy C26 relates to Wind Energy and states that “The acceptability of wind energy developments will be judged according to whether the number, size and design of proposals can be shown to satisfy the following criteria:- a) The proposal’s energy contribution and other benefits outweigh any significant adverse impact on: 1. The character and appearance of the landscape, nature conservation, archaeological or geographical interests; 2. The amenity of residential properties by reason of visual impact, noise, shadow flicker or reflected light. b) The proposal would not have any significant adverse impact on nationally important landscape designation, including their visual amenity and setting. c) The proposal would not cause significant damage to a site of international or national nature conservation importance. d) Effective measures are available to overcome any significant electromagnetic interference to transmitting or receiving equipment. e) The power lines are placed underground or do not appear prominent in the landscape. f) Adequate access for construction traffic is available or could be provided without harm to highway safety, visual amenity or nature conservation interests. g) The cumulative effect of the proposal with existing, permitted or other proposed wind energy schemes, should not have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. h) Realistic proposals are in place for the removal of redundant wind turbines and the restoration of the site. In assessing the proposals against the requirements of this policy, full account will be taken of the proposed mitigating measures. Saved Policy C31 relates to cumulative impacts of renewable energy projects and states that assessments shall take account of these impacts where similar developments have been permitted in the same area.

Saved Policy C7 states that development proposals within SSSI will be the subject of special scrutiny. Developments which have a significant adverse impact either directly or indirectly on interests of nature conservation importance will not be permitted unless the reasons for the development clearly outweigh the value of those interests. Saved Policy L10 states that existing and proposed rights of way will be maintained and protected from any development that would 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 and secured in advance of planning consent.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): Within the framework there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and support for the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy if their impacts are (or can be made) acceptable (paragraphs 14, 17, 93, and 98). Consequently, Local Planning Authorities are expected to recognise the responsibility imposed on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources (paragraph 97). 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: Para 115; Refers to ‘the need to give ‘great weight’ to the conservation of the landscape and the scenic beauty in National Parks which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty’. Para. 118 States that development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest should not normally be permitted. Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts. Section 12 Conserving and enhancing the Historic Environment. Policy 132 states that “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification”. Policy 134 of the NPPF guides that “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.”

Overarching National Policy Statement (NPS) for Energy (EN-1): Whilst primarily intended as the Policy Document for the National Infrastructure Division, Paragraph 1.2.1 states; “….In England and Wales this NPS is likely to be a material consideration in decision making on applications that fall under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).” The energy NPSs should speed up the transition to a low carbon economy and thus help to realise UK climate change commitments sooner than continuation under the current planning system. Part 5 of this document sets out generic impacts such as ecology.

National Planning Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3): This document is also a material planning consideration for all Renewable Energy planning applications determined under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Again this document provides policy guidance for the National Infrastructure Division and lists impacts that may need to be considered.

Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy: This government guidance document sets out the planning considerations relating to specific renewable energy technologies. In respect of wind turbine proposals the guidance states that the following issues should be considered:- • Whether the proposal has local community backing. • Noise impacts. • Safety issues including proximity to buildings and power lines, air traffic and MOD requirements, radar and strategic road networks. • Interference with electromagnetic transmissions. • Ecological impacts. • Impacts on designated heritage assets. • Shadow flicker and reflected light. • Energy outputs. • Cumulative landscape and visual impacts. • Decommissioning works.

OTHER MATERIAL AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (WESPD): 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 landscape type for this location is intermediate moorland and is judged to have an overall sensitivity of low / moderate with a moderate / high capacity to accommodate turbine development. The capacity statement sets out that small to large groups of turbines responding to the shape and scale of individual hills would be appropriate in Furness. The most notable limiting factor is the potential for turbines to erode a sense of remoteness and wildness and cause visual clutter and confusion with existing turbines and masts. It also states that there is potential for turbines on the open edges of the high plateaus or ridge to be overbearing or intrusive in relation to settlements, visitor routes and prospects from neighbouring landscapes of high sensitivity.

Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit: This document was prepared by Cumbria County Council in conjunction with the district authorities in March 2011. The application site lies within character sub-type 9d, Ridges (Furness), within the broader landscape character type of Intermediate Moorland and Plateau. The key characteristics of this landscape sub-type are distinct ridges; extensive areas of true heathland moorland; improved pasture with distinctive stone walls; and woodland and small belts of trees forming prominent features. The guidance sets out that the open and distinct ridges, heather moorland and wide and expansive uninterrupted views to sea and the Lakeland Fells and Duddon Estuary and Morecambe Bay provide drama and reinforce the sense of wildness that are sensitive to changes in land management and significant infrastructure development. It recommends that the impact of development is minimised by careful siting and design and environmental gains sought such as heather and moorland restoration. It also states that the siting of large scale wind energy should be avoided where it could degrade the open and expansive character. The County Council have recently published work, produced in partnership with a number of other planning authorities, which considers the Cumulative Impact of Vertical Infrastructure (CIVI) upon the landscape character and visual amenity of the county. This is designed to be used as evidence base to support the implementation of local planning policy, including the WESPD.

Ministerial Statement 18 th June 2015: When determining planning applications for wind energy development involving one or more wind turbines, local planning authorities should only grant planning permission if:- • the development site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan; and • following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing. In applying these new considerations, suitable areas for wind energy development will need to have been allocated clearly in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan. Maps showing the wind resource as favourable to wind turbines, or similar, will not be sufficient. Whether a proposal has the backing of the affected local community is a planning judgement for the local planning authority. The Statement includes a transitional provision where a planning application for wind energy development had already been submitted at the date on which the Statement was made, as is the case with this application. In such instances, as is the case with this application, and where the development plan does not identify suitable sites, local planning authorities can find the proposal acceptable if, following consultation, they are satisfied it has addressed the planning impacts identified by affected local communities and therefore has their backing.

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990: Under section 66 of the Act, the Local Planning Authority has to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building and its setting. Under section 72 of the Act, special attention must be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949: The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as amended by the Environment Act 1949 requires ‘all relevant authorities to take the National Park statutory purposes into account when they make their decisions. If there is a conflict between those purposes; greater weight shall be attached to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage’.

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).

APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIONS These are summarised as follows:- The need for increasing sources of renewable energy is urgent and this proposal will make a substantial contribution towards meeting that need, attracting the support of national planning and energy legislation and policy as material considerations which, taken as a whole, weigh heavily in favour of this scheme. Regarding the principle of development, it is found that the scheme either positively accords with, or does not conflict with, all relevant development plan policies. The support of Core Strategy Policy CS7.7 is conditional on ensuring the protection of the environment and designated areas, which is demonstrated later in the assessment. The scheme responds to the key issues set out at paragraph 1.35 of the Core Strategy and delivers against the aims of Policy CS1.1. The Cumbria Joint Wind Energy SPD is a material consideration on matters of principle which indicates that the application site falls within a landscape with medium / high capacity for wind farm development. Regarding the landscape and visual effects of the development, it is found with reference to the accompanying Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment that the scheme will result in significant localised landscape and visual effects, decreasing to less than significant effects at greater distances. It is concluded that no residential properties or public rights of way will experience unacceptable harm, nor will the scheme unacceptably harm the special qualities of the Lake District National Park. Relevant development plan policies require that development proposals protect the environment (including landscape character) and the special qualities of the National Park. Saved Policy C26 of the 2006 Local Plan is specific to the type of development proposed and therefore dominant - it requires that the benefits of wind energy proposals are shown to outweigh their impacts on the landscape and that any significant adverse impacts on national designations and through cumulative effects are avoided. The scheme is shown to meet the requirements of this key policy. Nonetheless, a degree of tension with development plan landscape policies is considered to remain as a result of the landscape impacts of the development, but not such that the proposal is unacceptable when read against the development plan as a whole. Material considerations relating to landscape and visual impacts include National Policy Statement EN-3 which acknowledges the necessity of significant landscape and visual effects when securing wind energy developments essential to meeting identified need. In relation to ecological effects including effects on ornithology, it is concluded with reference to the accompanying Environmental Statement that with the implementation of the proposed Habitat Management Plan the scheme will result in a net beneficial effect upon the Kirkby Moor SSSI. No unacceptable effects on other habitats or species are anticipated. The scheme is therefore concluded to accord with relevant development plan policies. Material considerations, including the NPPF which encourages positive impacts on biodiversity, indicate in favour of the proposals. Regarding cultural heritage effects it is concluded with reference to the Environmental Statement that the development will result overall in less than substantial harm to affected heritage assets in the terms of the NPPF. Having regard to the identified significance of those assets, the degree of effect anticipated, and the duty set out at Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990, it is concluded that cultural heritage impacts are, on the application of the planning balance, acceptable. The scheme accords with the development in this respect, specifically in relation to saved Policy C26 of the 2006 Local Plan which requires a balance of benefits and harm to be struck. Regarding other material effects of the proposed development including those relating to transport, flood risk and drainage, aviation, telecommunications and tourism, it is concluded that the effects of the proposed development will be acceptable. The scheme is therefore shown to accord with the relevant policies of the development plan. No material considerations are identified which indicate against the scheme in relation to these matters.

ASSESSMENT The key planning issues raised by this proposal relate to:- 1. Impacts on landscape and visual amenity, including cumulative effects and impacts upon the setting of the Lake District National Park. 2. The impact of the development upon residential amenity. 3. The ecological impacts of the development, particularly in relation to the SSSI. 4. The impacts upon tourism, recreation and the local economy. 5. Impacts upon the setting of designated Historic Assets and archaeological interests. 6. Impacts upon aviation and telecommunications. 7. Energy Contribution and the environmental benefits of the development.

1. Landscape and Visual Impacts The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and accompanying visualisations have been reviewed by an independent landscape consultant engaged by the Local Planning Authority. The consultant has confirmed that the prepared visualisations meet the Visual Representation of Windfarms Good Practice Guidance and the photomontage material exceeds best practice guidance established by Scottish Natural Heritage. The LVIA assessments undertaken by Lake District National Park and Cumbria County Council have also been taken into account. In view of the fact that the current turbines will need to be removed in 2018, the baseline against which the landscape, visual and cumulative effects of this proposal must be considered is judged to be a site which has no turbines (as opposed to the net impact of the proposal when compared to the existing windfarm). Distance Guidance on the effects of distance on perception of wind energy developments in the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (CWESPD) considers that turbines 95 -120 m to blade tip will be visible as follows:- • Dominant as a key focus in close range views up to 2.4 km. • Prominent as a key element in close range views of the landscape between 2 - 4.6 km. • Conspicuous as a noticeable feature in mid to long range views of the wider landscape with blade movement perceptible between 6 - 12 km. • Apparent as a visible feature in long range views of a wide landscape, turbines being perceived as a group rather than individual entities and blade movement. • Only perceptible in clear weather conditions between 12 - 18 km. • Inconspicuous as a minor feature in distant views of a broad landscape only seen in very clear visibility between 18 - 30 km. The above assumes an open landscape. Other factors can affect likely appearance such as weather conditions, season, direction of view and familiarity and expectations of the viewer. Landscape impacts The site lies within character sub-type 9d – Ridges as identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCGT). This area has a moderate to high landscape value and has been assessed in the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (WESPD) as having low / moderate sensitivity. This is largely attributable to the large scale, simple nature of the landscape. The application site is within a landscape character that also flows into and is indistinguishable to the adjacent National Park. The boundary of the Lake District National Park is located approximately 1 km to the north of the nearest turbine. The general landscape type is deemed to have a moderate / high capacity to accommodate “up to a large group” which is 6 - 9 turbines and exceptionally up to a medium wind farm (16 to 25 turbines). However, the WESPD indicates that there are sensitivities relating to other landscape characteristics, which limit this capacity, notably the setting of the National Park and prospects from neighbouring landscapes of high sensitivity. Guidance in the CLCGT highlights the key views towards the sea and Lakeland fells, and sense of wildness which are characteristic of this landscape type, which are sensitive to infrastructure development. In order to assist with the assessment of the potential landscape and visual impacts of the proposal, a series of photographic visualisations and photomontages have been submitted from a total of 28 viewpoints surrounding the site. The viewpoints were selected on the basis of the ZTV analysis, field observations and include specific views of recognised importance such as the Sir John Barrow Monument at Hoad Hill, Birkrigg Common and the summit of Coniston Old Man. The closest viewpoints are within 2 km of the site and most are located within 10 km of the site where the impacts potentially range from conspicuous to dominant. For each viewpoint, an assessment of its sensitivity, the magnitude of change and the level of significance of the impact has been recorded. The level of impact of the proposed development from eight of these viewpoints, all but one of which have a high or very high level of sensitivity, is judged to be major and therefore significant. These include views from Grizebeck, Broughton Beck, Harlock, Kirkby in Furness, Lowick Bridge, Hoad Hill, Woodlands and Great Burney. Three of these viewpoints are within the National Park. The landscape consultant who has reviewed the submitted LVIA on behalf of the local authority, has advised that whilst he concurs with the assessment of these viewpoints, he considers, contrary to the applicants assessment, that there are three additional viewpoints where the impact of the development would also be significant. These viewpoints are within the National Park at Hawthwaite (A593) and adjacent to Coniston Water at the Steam Gondola jetty and Parkmoor jetty. Cumbria County Council and Lake District National Park officers also consider that the impacts from these sensitive viewpoints would be significant. The applicant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment concludes that there would be some significant effects on landscape character during the operational phase of the development but that these effects will be relatively localised to the site. The Assessment states that there would be a significant effect on landscape character across some but not all of the landscape within a distance of up to 5 km from the proposed turbines. It contends that the proposed turbines would not prevent an appreciation of the distant views which can be enjoyed from various locations across Kirkby Moor towards the Lakeland Fells and the estuarine landscapes surrounding the moor. It also states that the turbines would be compatible with the underlying landscape and the character type would be able to accommodate the turbines. The landscape surrounding the site exhibits many examples of human interaction with the land including most notably the Kirkby Slate Quarry which has a strong influence on the perception of the moor. The Kirkby Moor site also has a historical and well established association with commercial wind farm development. It is acknowledged that the visibility of the turbines within the landscape would vary, due to the undulating topography of the area and as such the turbines will be screened from view in certain areas. However, from the many viewpoints where the turbines are visible the effects will be significant because of their scale and elevation. The most significant effects upon the local landscape will arise when the turbines are seen in views towards the Lake District National Park from the Open Access land on the higher points on Bank House Moor to the south of the site, as illustrated by the viewpoint from the minor road near Harlock, from the lower land to the east around Broughton Beck, and from the Sir John Barrow monument on Hoad Hill to the south west. From other points closer to the site where only the upper parts of the blades will be visible, the impacts would cause an unpredictable and awkward intrusive relationship with the landscape. The turbines would also be visible from the viewpoints adjacent to the Duddon estuary, a landscape which affords panoramic view with the fells framing the intertidal areas. Whilst the panoramic nature of the views of the site would serve to reduce the relative impact of the turbines from some aspects, they would detract from the smooth ridgeline which runs from Torver to Bankhouse and contribute to the cumulative effects of the existing and consented turbines at the Askham and Furness windfarms. The High Lakeland peaks such as Coniston Old Man are highly sensitive to change and they will have a view of the development. The turbines would be particularly visible from the other peaks and outlying fells closer to the site including Thwaites Fell and Black Combe. Whilst the LVIA has concluded that the development would have a moderate effect on these viewpoints which is not deemed to be significant, the turbines would clearly be visible and more prominent in the landscape from these areas of high sensitivity. The applicant refers to the current impact of the Kirkby Moor Slate Quarry upon the existing landscape. Whilst the quarry lends an industrial character to the landscape, this is focused upon a localised area around the site. From the higher undeveloped parts to the south in particular, the quarry is not seen and the sense of wildness described by the CLCGT, derived from a general lack of development, would be adversely affected by the proposed turbines. Kirkby Moor forms part of a range of low fells, stretching from Torver Common in the north, to Bank House Moor in the south. Although the application site is located outside the National Park boundary, there is a strong linkage between landscape type 9d within which the development would be located and the adjacent identified landscape character type, within the National Park. This is a transitional landscape of rolling hills and rugged fells where there is a relative scarcity of built features. There are strong character flows across the boundary, and as such is considered to be equally as sensitive to change. It is considered that the turbines will form a prominent skyline feature within this landscape, eroding the undeveloped character of the area, and adversely affecting the setting of the Lake District National Park. Visual Impacts The site is located within an area where there are large expanses of Open Access land, an extensive public footpath, bridleways, trunk and local road network, as well as numerous residential properties, including isolated farms, and hamlets, as well as larger villages and towns. The applicant has assessed the visual effects of the proposed turbines upon predicted receptors, falling into these categories. The settlements of Gawthwaite, Netherhouses, Broughton Beck, Beanthwaite, Grizebeck, Chapels, Kirkby in Furness, Beckside, Soutergate, Lowick Bridge and Lowick Green, which are located within 5 km of the site, have been assessed. Of these, Chapels, Beanthwaite and Lowick Green are predicted to experience little visibility. However, significant effects are predicted in parts of the remaining settlements where the turbines are visible. In regard to the effect upon recognised recreational trails and routes, significant effects are predicted by the applicant upon some sections of the Cumbria Way and Cumbria Coastal Ways, the Furness Way, National Cycle Network 70 and Regional Cycle Route 37. Public Rights of Way, minor roads and Open Access land within 3 km are predicted to experience significant effects. Beyond this, up to 5 km from the site, visibility of the turbines becomes more intermittent. From where they are visible within this zone however, significant effects are again predicted. Between 5 - 10 km of the site, the applicant concludes that the impacts would not be significant, due to distance. The major roads within 10 km of the site include the A593, A595, A5093, A5092, A590, A5084 and A5087. The applicant’s assessment indicates that there would be intermittent visibility of the turbines upon certain sections of these roads. Moderate effects upon the views experienced are predicted along some stretches of road. Although these are not viewed as significant, given that some of these roads lie within, or directly adjacent to the Lake District National Park, recreational users can be considered to have a greater focus upon the landscape generally. It is considered that this higher sensitivity would generate a more significant effect than that predicted by the applicant in some areas. There are a number of the selected viewpoint locations within the National Park Boundary where significant visual effects would occur as a result of the proposal. These include viewpoints at Lowick Bridge, Hawthwaite (A593), Woodlands, Great Burney and at Coniston Water. With regard to the two Coniston Water viewpoints and for users of boats on the lake, including the Steam Gondola passenger ferry, the introduction of industrial elements and rotating movement associated with the turbines will detract from the ‘Opportunities for quiet enjoyment’, which is one of the identified ‘Special Qualities’ of the National Park. The turbines will introduce a change in this iconic view that is clearly notable and forms an easily identifiable component in the view. The turbines would be prominent as a skyline feature appearing as over dominant and visually intrusive. With regard to the other viewpoints within the National Park where significant visual effects have been identified, whilst these locations may be less frequented and as such will be viewed by fewer people, they are still significant visual effects and as such great weight should be attached to the protection of the scenic beauty of this landscape which is given the highest level of protection. Cumulative Impacts The wind farms of particular relevance to the cumulative assessment of this scheme are Harlock Hill (5 turbines 53.5 m to blade tip), 3.5 km to the south and Far Old Park Farm at Askham (7 turbines 63.5 m to blade tip), 6 km to the southwest. The Harlock Hill site has consent to be repowered (now known as the ‘Furness’ wind farm, 5 turbines, 99.5 m to blade tip). The applicant has considered the Furness wind farm to form part of the baseline, rather than the existing, smaller, Harlock Hill scheme. The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment acknowledges the cumulative effects with the Furness windfarm and also to a lesser extent the Askham site is within the Landscape. The Kirkby Moor site and the consented Furness site will be perceived simultaneously from 12 of the 28 viewpoints, including those with a high sensitivity such as Birkrigg Common, Coniston Old Man, Sandscale Hawes and great Burney. It is noted that from most of these, not all of the 11 turbines will be visible at once, and that they will, due to distance be seen as separate developments. From viewpoints on Coniston Old Man and Great Burney the two sites will be seen in combination as one development. It is considered that the proposed turbines will exacerbate the already significant cumulative effects upon the high ground which forms the core of landscape type 9d. This high ground is prominent in views from the adjacent landscape types noted above, and forms part of the setting of the Lake District National Park. Conclusion The proposed wind farm development will be clearly visible from the surrounding area and due to the scale and elevation of the structures will result in significant adverse landscape and visual impacts from a number of areas both within and outside the National Park, which cannot be mitigated for. There are a number of sensitive viewpoints where the proposal will be seen alongside other wind turbine sites and as such the development would result in adverse cumulative impacts. Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy and saved Policy C26 of the Local Plan which seeks to protect the special qualities of the National Parks, including their setting. There is also a duty under the National Park & Access to the Countryside Act for the Local Planning Authority to take the National Park Purposes into account when making decisions. Paragraph 115 of the NPPF also states that great weight should be given to conserving the landscape and scenic beauty of National Parks which have the highest level of protection. It is considered that the proposal conflicts with these policies through the introduction of significant adverse impacts to the visual amenity on parts of the Lake District National Park, which do not currently exist under the baseline condition for the site. The proposal will not protect, conserve or enhance the special qualities of the environment associated with this nationally important landscape designation.

2. Impacts on residential amenity The submitted Environmental Statement considers the potential amenity impacts on the nearest residential dwellings including noise, visual impacts and visual effects arising from shadow flicker. Noise The applicant’s assessment has been carried out according to the recommendations of ETSU-R-97, The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms. Baseline noise levels were measured at eight residential properties closest to the site. Using the criteria outlined in the appropriate British Standard for such noise levels (BS5228:Part 1 2009+A1:2014). The predicted noise levels during the decommissioning of the existing wind farm and, construction and subsequent decommissioning of the repowered wind farm would not result in any significant effects. The predicted operational noise levels and measured background noise levels indicate that for dwellings neighbouring the proposed development, wind turbine noise would be in accordance with guideline levels and would not result in any significant effects. However at some locations, under some wind conditions and for a certain proportion of the time wind farm noise may be audible. The applicants contend that it would be at an acceptable level in relation to recognised guidelines. The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer has confirmed that the predicted noise levels are within acceptable limits based upon current approved guidelines. He has however recommended a comprehensive set of conditions to protect neighbouring residents from unacceptable levels of operational noise nuisance, including excessive amplitude modulation, should permission be granted. Visual Impact The applicants have undertaken a Residential Visual Amenity Study for all properties within 1 km of the application site. This is used to determine whether the proposed development would have an overbearing, overwhelming or oppressive effect on residential amenity, such that a property would become widely regarded to be an unattractive place in which to live. Of the 22 residential properties within the 1 km study area it was considered that four properties would experience a significant visual effect on the view from some part of their house and garden. These are the four properties at Moor House Farm located between 931 and 955 metres to the south east of the site, which are occupied by tenants of an interested party in the application. The main focus of views from all of these properties is eastwards and away from the application site. These views would remain unaltered by the proposed development. These properties would also continue to have other views available that are not affected by the proposed Kirkby Moor turbines. The study advises that the residents of these properties would not experience such an overbearing or overwhelming effect on their visual amenity that their properties would become unattractive places in which to live. The study concludes of the other properties assessed the visual effects range from moderate / minor at four of the properties and minor / no effect at the remaining properties. None would experience such an overbearing effect on visual amenity that it would become an unattractive place to live. Shadow Flicker Shadow flicker is the effect of the sun shining behind the rotating turbine blades and creating an intermittent shadow. It only occurs inside buildings where there is a narrow window opening and where certain meteorological, seasonal and geographical conditions prevail. The sun must be low in the sky and the wind turbine and property must be in line with the sun. The resultant effect is that moving shadows are cast through a window opening which appear to flick on and off as the blades rotate and can be detrimental to the amenity of residents. It has been shown to only occur within a distance equivalent to ten rotor diameters of a turbine, in this case, 925 metres, and the distance between the turbine and a residential property affects the intensity of the shadows cast by the blades. The zone of influence within which properties could be significantly affected by shadow flicker, covers a distance of 10 rotor diameters from each turbine and lies 130 degrees either side of north (relative to each turbine). In the case of the Kirkby Moor Wind Farm, this zone would extend to 925 m from each turbine. The nearest properties at Moor House Farm, Groffa Cragg and Croglin Farm lie just outside this distance and therefore it has been assessed that there would be no significant shadow flicker effects. However, should Members be minded to grant consent for the scheme, it is recommended that precautionary conditions should be attached to any consent which would require the turbines to temporarily shut down (through the installation of automatic turbine shut-down timers) should a shadow flicker effect occur.

3. Ecology The majority of the site is located within the Kirkby Moor SSSI, recognised for its upland heath habitats, particularly heather moorland and one of only three upland SSSI’s in south Cumbria. The submitted Environmental Statement considers the effects on the ecology associated with the proposed development and includes studies to identify the main ecological species within the site and its surroundings, including protected species surveys for otters, water voles, badgers, bats and great crested newts. It concludes that there would be no significant effects on any protected species or habitats present within the site boundary. The likely ornithological impacts arising from the proposed development have also been considered which concludes there would be no significant effects on birds due to the habitat taken up by the construction of turbine bases, access tracks and infrastructure. It was also found that there would be no significant effects caused by disturbance to breeding birds, wintering birds or through bird collision with the wind turbines or birds being unable to use the areas around the turbines. The overall footprint of the proposed development would result in the total loss of 7.5 ha of habitat within the SSSI of which 6 ha are considered to be designating habitats. This represents 0.97% of the total area of the SSSI. This figure also includes 2.86 ha of temporary loss of habitat within the construction corridors. Policy CS8.4 states that development proposals that would have a direct adverse effect on nationally designated sites should not be permitted unless they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less harm, the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of the site and prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are provided. A Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and a Decommissioning and Construction Method Statement (DCMS) forms part of the Environmental Statement submission. These documents set out the proposed mitigation measures which have been designed to achieve a no net loss of habitats within the SSSI. These measures include the restoration and re-establishment of habitats on the existing turbine bases and restoration of the land temporarily affected by the construction corridors. This would reduce the total permanent loss of habitat to 4.3 ha, of which 3.2 ha are designating habitats of the SSSI. It would also propose to restore and manage a total of 26 ha of habitat within the SSSI through the control of bracken, restoration of heath habitat and restoration of mire habitats at Blades Moss. The Environmental Statement concludes that over the life time of the repowering scheme, the successful implementation of the habitat restoration works detailed in the draft HMP, will result in the loss of habitat being offset by the restoration of degraded or poor quality habitat within the SSSI at present. The ecological enhancements are likely to result in a beneficial effect of at least moderate significance. Natural England have confirmed that they generally concur with the overall assessment of impacts on the SSSI although they require more information to demonstrate that the HMP can be fully implemented as it relies on the agreement of third parties including Holker Estates, the Commons graziers and adjacent landowner. If it is not delivered in full then Natural England advises that the scheme would result in unmitigated damage to a nationally important site. The response received from Natural England has been forwarded to the applicants and at the time of writing no further information has been provided. Members will note that the Cumbria Wildlife Trust and the RSPB disagree with Natural England and do not consider that the proposed mitigation measures set out in the Habitat Management Plan adequately compensate for the permanent loss of SSSI habitat. They state that the restoration and enhancement measures relate to existing land within the SSSI for which existing conservation objectives are already identified and cannot be considered as ‘over and above’ those measures necessary for SSSI management. In response to these concerns raised Natural England has further clarified its position, and has stated that they are confident that the developer has sought to avoid damage to designated features of the SSSI by careful design of the turbines next to existing tracks and largely away from more sensitive mire habitats. They state that whilst the proposed mitigation measures set out in the HMP only cover some of disturbance impacts on the designated features, they consider the habitat creation and restoration proposals, including 13.5 ha of dwarf-shrub heath creation / restoration and 12.5 ha of mire restoration offer sufficient compensation for the potential damage.

4. Tourism, Recreation and the Local Economy The submitted Environmental Statement considers the effects of the proposed development on the local and wider economy, the local tourism industry and recreational activities in the area surrounding the Kirkby Moor Wind Farm site. The assessment acknowledges that the benefits to the local economy as a result of the development would not be significant. The development would create a total of 62 jobs during the construction phase of which four are estimated to be local. A total of three jobs would be created for the operational stage. With regard to the potential impacts on tourism in the area, the applicants consider that based upon published literature and data available during the operation of the existing windfarm there would be no significant effects on tourism in the area. However, it could be argued that the much larger scale of the proposed turbines will exert a more significant visual impact on a much wider area, and therefore could potentially have a more harmful impact upon the tourism economy. The scale of the turbines at 115 m means they will be visible as a skyline element when viewed from the two viewpoints adjacent to Coniston and also from boats on Coniston Water itself, which is a popular tourist attraction. The turbines would appear above the woodland and open fell backdrop to the south and it is considered that this would constitute a significant effect which will detract from the ‘special qualities’ of the National Park in particular the ‘opportunities for quiet enjoyment’. Other viewpoints within the National Park at Great Burney, Woodlands, Lowick Bridge and Hawthwaite would be the subject of significant visual impacts. Whilst these areas are not specifically noted for a concentration of tourism attractions, the introduction of these industrial elements may be perceived to disrupt the peace and tranquillity of receptors in the area of these viewpoints. The Lake District National Park Authority, Cumbria Tourism and the Federation of Small Businesses have all raised concerns about the potential impact of the proposed development upon the tourism economy. Recreational Impacts and Public Rights of Way As referred to earlier in the report, there are numerous recreational cycle and walking routes in the area, both within, and in areas surrounding the site, which contribute to the tourism attraction of the area, and which are likely to be affected by the proposed development. These include the Cumbria Way, Cumbria Coastal Way, Cistercian Way, The Furness Way, Haematite Trail, and Regional Cycle Route 37, National Cycle Route 70. The applicants acknowledge that whilst there would be some significant visual effects upon users of the public rights of way within the site, they contend that the existing routes would continue to be enjoyed by these users and the turbines would not deter people from using the moor for recreation. The Ramblers Association contend that the turbines would adversely affect the walking environment from public rights of way crossing the moor because of their scale and dominance in the landscape as well as the intrusive noise levels.

5. Impacts upon the setting of designated Historic Assets and archaeological interests. The Environmental Statement identifies 22 listed building heritage assets that fall within 5 km of the proposal site, with 14 of these falling within South Lakeland outside the National Park. Ulverston Conservation Area and Sir John Barrow Monument on Hoad Hill in Ulverston, located 5.2 km from the application site have also formed part of the formal assessment. Four heritage viewpoints in the form of photomontages have been submitted to enable the assessment of some of these impacts. It is considered that the proposed development would have a significant effect on the setting of Kirkby Hall, St Cuthbert’s Church, Beckside; St John’s Church, Netherhouses; and St Lukes Church in Lowick. Kirkby Hall, a Grade I listed building is located 1.4 km to the closest turbine. The supplied Heritage Viewpoint 2 suggests that due to the nature of the dramatically raised topography immediately behind the house, and the relatively close proximity of the turbines, visible parts of the turbine would have a heightened prominence because they would have longer blades than the existing turbines and they would appear more clearly above the ridge where they would break the skyline. It is considered that the harm would be less than substantial. St Cuthbert’s Church in Beckside is Grade II* listed and is located approximately 2 km to the southwest of the nearest turbine. It is considered that the proposal would have a very discordant and distracting presence in the views of the listed building from the south west. The scale and position of the church with its tall tower make it a notable feature in the landscape which means its setting would have a high sensitivity to change. The proposal would result in substantial features being added to the buildings setting, and the revolving nature of the wind turbines combined with their appreciable height would unfavourably contrast with and challenge the church, and compete with it for dominance over the surrounding land. On this basis and because of its high grading status it is considered that the proposal would have a more than moderately adverse impact on the significance of this heritage asset. St John’s Church, Netherhouses is a Grade II listed building located in open countryside, approximately 2 km to the south east of the site. Its setting is characterised by physical isolation; an unspoilt landscape and by reasonably long outward views over this landscape in most directions, which are only constrained by the hills to the west and east and by the distant peaks of the Lake District to the north. The substantially increased scale of the development means that it would have a significant presence and a transformative effect on views that include the listed building from the south east, from part of the B5281 road and from much of the raised Mansriggs area. In these views, three of the turbines (No.s 4, 5 and 6) would be fully visible at a distance of approximately 2.5 - 3 km, elevated above the church on the 320 m high ridge beyond. In these views the revolving blade tips would be a moving and distracting element that clearly breaks the skyline. The proposed development would lessen the heritage significance of the listed building’s broad rural setting. In addition, because there are no trees or any other vertical elements to be found in such views, nor any other significant modern intrusions, this means that the turbines would not sit close to, or integrate with anything of a comparable scale or form within the landscape. The proposed introduction of these 115 m high vertical features into such a broad and open view, three of them being in relatively close proximity to the asset and, moreover, inserted prominently onto the skyline, would therefore have a visually damaging and overbearing effect on the setting of this Grade II listed heritage asset. St Luke’s Church in Lowick is a Grade II listed building located within the National Park, some 3.5 km to the north east of the proposed turbines. This is a prominent and attractive country church set in unspoilt open countryside which is viewed against the backdrop of the higher moorland ridges. The proposed turbines will have a significant presence in this view and as such will have a harmful impact on the setting of this heritage asset. The Sir John Barrow Monument on Hoad Hill is also listed Grade II *, and is located approximately 5.1 km to the south east of the proposed development. The visualisations show that the proposed turbines would be clearly visible from this panoramic viewpoint. Whilst the current wind farm is visible from this important view, the proposed development would compound such damage to the pristine landscape setting to the north west of the listed building by being much taller and more visually prominent than the existing scheme. It would erode the significance of the views out from the memorial and so undermine an important part of its heritage asset significance. It is considered that the proposal would not result in a harmful impact on the setting of the nearest conservation areas in Broughton in Furness or Ulverston. Under Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Local Planning Authorities have a duty to give special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of listed buildings and their settings and conservation areas. If any harm will be caused as a result of the proposed development, this should be given considerable importance and weight and creates a presumption against the granting of permission. Overall therefore, the proposed development would have a moderately harmful impact on the combined significance of the heritage assets identified above; but in all cases that impact would be less than substantial. In applying the statutory tests of the 1990 Act the proposal would fail to preserve the special architectural or historic interest of these listed buildings. Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against public benefits of the proposal, The Planning Practice Guidance defines public benefits as ‘anything that delivers economic, social and environmental progress’ In this case it is considered that the identified harm to the setting of five designated assets is not outweighed by acknowledged environmental and economic public benefits of the proposed development. Archaeological interests The Environmental Statement acknowledges the close proximity of the proposed development to two designated Scheduled Monuments comprising Bronze Age cairns. Given that there is a high potential for possibly nationally important remains to be completely removed within the areas of construction ground works, the impact of the development could be significant. The Historic Environment Officer states that further information should be provided by the applicant, in the form of geophysical survey data to demonstrate how the significance of any archaeological assets that may survive within the site would be impacted upon by the development. This information should be supplied prior to the determination of the application. This additional information has been requested from the applicant who has contended that a geophysical survey would be unreliable because of interference from existing operational infrastructure. However, because the ES states there is the potential for nationally important remains to be disturbed by the construction of the development, the Historic Environment Officer advises that we should be upholding best practice to comply with the NPPF. At the time of writing this issue remains unresolved.

6. Aviation and Telecommunications Members will note that objections to the proposal have been received from the Ministry of Defence and the Joint Radio Company on behalf of Electricity North West due to concerns regarding interference with their respective communications network. In the case of the MOD concerns, they have stated that the proposed turbines will cause unacceptable interference to the Air Traffic Control radar at Warton. The applicants are aware of these objections and at the time of writing no further correspondence has been received on the matter. The objections therefore still stand.

7. Energy Contribution National policy strongly encourages the use of renewable energy sources to help offset greenhouse gas emissions and the increasing reliance on imported energy supplies. They form part of a mix of energy resources being supported by Government. The Climate Change Act requires a 26% cut in carbon emissions by 2020, rising to 80% by 2050 (based on 1990 levels). The Renewable Energy Strategy, 2009 seeks to deliver European-set targets that will increase renewable energy generation to cover 15% of the UK’s energy needs. To achieve the 10 fold increase, substantial additional renewable electricity production will be required. The Government sees an expansion of wind energy capacity, both on and off shore, as key to meeting these targets. Strategic planning policies support the development of renewable energy projects. As noted above, the National Planning Policy Framework encourages local authorities to support low carbon energy proposals that do not cause unacceptable harm to the local environment, and the Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy states that developments will be reviewed in relation to their contribution towards climate change. The applicant calculates that the proposed wind farm would produce approximately 43,000 to 56,700 MWh (mega watt hours) of energy per year, which could meet the electricity needs of around 9,600 to 12,600 households each year, and is expected to offset at least 16,800 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. In assessing this scheme, this contribution towards energy supply needs to be considered alongside the local impacts of the development, in accord with strategic planning guidance.

Other issues: Access and Highways In terms of traffic impact, the development will generate the greatest volume of traffic during the three months in the peak construction period, depending on whether aggregate is sourced on or off site. There would be an average of 100 vehicles per day accessing the site during this period. The Highways Officer has raised no objection in principle, but has asked for clarification as to the size of the vehicles to be used to transport the abnormal loads. This is important in respect of identifying the adequacy of the existing road network to accommodate the abnormally large delivery vehicles. Drainage and flood risk The County Council have objected to the proposed development on the basis of insufficient information regarding surface water drainage which is relevant because of the known flooding issues in the surrounding area arising on the lower slopes of the moor. Any further information submitted by the applicant in this respect will be reported at the meeting. Support from the Affected Local Community In applying the transitional provisions set out in the Written Ministerial Statement of 18 June 2015, it is clear that a substantial number of representations received from the local community, including 13 parish councils, do not support the proposed development. The representations received identify a number of potential adverse impacts which are likely to arise from the proposed development including harm to the landscape, visual amenity, residential amenity, ecology and the setting of heritage assets. It is considered that these planning impacts, identified by the affected communities have not been fully addressed and so the proposed development would not meet these transitional arrangements.

Planning Balance and Conclusions: In relation to determining proposals for renewable and low carbon energy, the NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities should approve an application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. It is recognised that this renewable energy development would have wider environmental, economic and energy benefits. Development Plan policies also support in principle appropriately located renewable energy schemes. However, in this case, great weight must be attached to the identified harmful impacts of the proposed development in respect of the Lake District National Park and designated heritage assets which are subject to the highest levels of protection. It is considered that the harmful visual impact of the proposed turbines within the landscape, including the setting of the National Park is not outweighed by the potential benefits of the development. Additionally, it is considered that the public benefits of the renewable energy generated, would not offset the harm that would occur to the setting of designated heritage assets. Although the proposal will make a tangible contribution to targets for renewable energy generation, this does not outweigh the harmful landscape, visual and cumulative impacts of the proposed development including the adverse impacts upon the setting of the Lake District National Park; and harmful impacts upon the setting of designated heritage assets. There are also a number of unresolved issues relating to impacts upon the archaeological interests, impacts upon Ministry of Defence and other communications networks, and highways and drainage.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reasons below:- Reason (1) The proposed turbines would appear as a series of large prominent vertical structures which would be dominant and incongruous in a landscape that lies adjacent to and is contiguous with the protected landscape of the Lake District National Park. As a consequence, the turbines will have a significant harmful effect on the character and appearance of the landscape and the setting of the National Park including harm to the visual amenity. The proposal would also result in unacceptable cumulative impacts with existing and consented turbines in the vicinity of the site. The harm to the landscape would not be outweighed by the acknowledged environmental benefits. The development is of such a size, scale and form that it would not be possible to adequately mitigate the harm caused by means of design, siting or landscaping. It is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of Policies CS7.7 and CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy, saved Policy C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan, Sections 10 and 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Cumbria Joint Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document and Written Ministerial Statement dated 18 th June 2015.

(2) The turbines would be in close proximity to a number of designated heritage assets. The proposed development would introduce large vertical features inserted prominently onto the skyline, which would have a visually damaging effect on the setting of Kirkby Hall a Grade I listed building; Sir John Barrow Monument, and St Cuthberts Church Beckside, Grade II * listed buildings; and St John’s Church Netherhouses and St Luke’s Church Lowick, Grade II listed buildings. It would cause harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset due to the great visual distraction caused in views from the assets, and also in views towards the assets. The public benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm that would occur to the cultural heritage asset and its setting. It is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of Policies CS7.7, CS8.2 and CS8.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy, and saved Policies C15, and C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(3) The proposed turbines will cause unacceptable interference to the Air Traffic Control radar at Warton to the detriment of MOD operations. (4) Insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon the identified archaeological interests associated with the site, contrary to Policy CS8.6 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.

(5) Insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the mitigation measures and long term management proposals as identified in the Draft Habitat Management Plan and which involve the agreement of third parties, can be fully implemented. The proposal therefore may result in unmitigated damage to the SSSI, contrary to Policy CS8.4 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

P & P The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in Statement 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(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

SCHEDULE SL/2015/0924 (b)

GRANGE OVER SANDS: Church Buildings, Main Street, GRANGE over SANDS LA11 6BA

PROPOSAL: Change of use to hot food takeaway Website Link to Application Mr Kaya Huyuk

E340707 N477858 26/11/2015

SUMMARY The application seeks planning permission for the change of use of the lower ground floor of a building in Grange over Sands town centre from retail (A1) to a hot food takeaway (A5). The application presents an amended scheme to one previously refused due to the impact of the ventilation equipment on the character of the Conservation Area. The main areas for consideration are whether the proposal accords with planning policy and is therefore acceptable in principle, and detailed considerations, such as; the impact on neighbouring and residential amenity, traffic and highway safety and the impact on the Grange over Sands Conservation Area within which the site is located.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL Site description The site relates to the ground floor of a building located on the junction of Main Street and Hampsfell Road, in the centre of Grange over Sands. The site is located within the Grange over Sands Conservation Area which is a designated heritage asset; while the adopted Conservation Area Character Appraisal confirms that the building contributes positively to the special character and appearance of the area. There are two Listed Buildings within 30 metres of the site; St Paul’s Church and The Clock Tower. The post office and its service yard adjoin the site to the north, and there are a number of other commercial uses along Main Street including a public house, hot food takeaways and a butcher’s shop. There are residential properties nearby, noticeably those opposite at Crown Hill. The building itself is arranged over two levels due to the topography. The application relates to the lower ground floor which fronts on to Main Street and is divided in to two retail units which are currently unused; having last been occupied by a butchers shop and a printing business. The ground floor fronts on to Hampsfell Road and is currently operating as a hairdresser’s. Planning history The application presents a resubmission of a previously refused application made earlier this year (ref SL/2015/0474). The reason for refusal was given as: “The extraction and ventilation equipment associated with the proposed change of use is of a scale, positon and appearance that create a discordant and unsightly addition to a visually conspicuous part of the building, which would have an adverse impact on the special interest of the conservation area and on the architectural significance of adjacent heritage assets. The proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS8.6 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy R9 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.” The proposal has been amended by altering the extraction and ventilation equipment and removing the stainless steel flue.

Proposal Planning permission is sought for the change of use of the lower ground floor of the building from retail to a hot food takeaway (Use Class A5), and the associated works. The proposal involves the creation of an internal doorway to create one premise which would include a food storage and preparation area, a cooking and serving area and a waste collection area; and the installation of internal ventilation and filtration equipment with an external extraction grill to the ground floor side (north) elevation. The applicant has been informed that a separate application for advertisement consent would be required for any illuminated signage.

CONSULTATIONS Grange Town Council: To be reported following their meeting on 10 November 2015.

Environmental Health: I would have concerns about situating this type of business in this particular location. To sufficiently disperse smoke and odours, high level discharge of the extraction system would usually be expected for this type of cooking and I would recommend it in this location. The application specifies Plasma Clean ozone units, which are designed to deal with odour. Further control measures are required to deal with the grease and smoke expected to be emitted by charcoal cooking. There may also be issues with the unit itself causing problems with the smell of ozone when venting into a yard area. In addition, I would have concerns about cooking odours transferring internally to the business above. I would ask that the following conditions be attached to any permission granted to control odour:- • Full details of how cooking odours will be prevented from entering the premises above shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to the business starting to operate. • Prior to installation, full details of the measures to be installed to control grease, smoke and odour from cooking shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. This shall include a plan showing the layout of the system and the location of fans and control equipment and evidence that the proposed system is suitably sized to deal with smoke and odour and the proposed air flow. • Refuse shall be stored bagged, in closed, lidded bins within the proposed refuse store and bins regularly emptied and cleansed.

It is unclear from the noise data submitted what noise levels are actually predicted. In order to ensure that noise from the extract system does not cause nuisance at neighbouring properties, I would ask that the following condition is attached to any permission granted:- • Prior to installation, a full noise assessment in accordance with BS4142:2014 shall be submitted and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, relating to the design, installation and use of the new extraction system. This shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant, showing the impact of the operation of the equipment on nearby properties. This shall identify representative current noise levels, as well as anticipated noise levels during operation of the equipment. Details of how noise will be mitigated should the assessment indicate levels will impact on neighbouring premises shall also be included. Full details of how the transfer of noise between properties will be controlled shall be specified.

Hours of operation should be restricted to those proposed in the application. I would also request the following condition regarding a grease trap: • To protect sewers and reduce vermin risk a grease trap shall be installed for kitchen sink waste.

Conservation Officer: To be reported .

Economic Development: To be reported.

Highways: No objection to the proposed development as it is considered not to have any significant adverse effects on the existing highway conditions.

Others: 37 responses have been received objecting to the proposal. The main reasons for objection are listed below: Principle • Not appropriate within a residential area. • Detrimental to commercial diversity and competition - high number of existing takeaways and an additional one is not needed. Traffic and highway safety • No parking. • Increased congestion. • Illegal or unauthorised parking. Neighbouring / residential amenity • Potential for anti-social behaviour. • Noise. • Litter. • Odour. • Impact on health and wellbeing. • Harm to existing businesses. • Harm to amenity of business above. Visual amenity / Conservation Area • Harm to conservation area.

POLICY ISSUES National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): Section 12 - Paragraphs 132 to 134 deal with the impact of development on designated heritage assets. Paragraph 23 - Local Plans should promote competitive town centres that provide customer choice, a diverse retail offer and reflect the individuality of town centres. The NPPF defines main town centre uses as retail development, leisure, entertainment facilities, and the more intensive sport and recreation uses (including hot food takeaways). The protection of residential amenity in one or more of its various aspects is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. The protection of the residential amenity of neighbouring residents is one of the Core Planning Principles of the NPPF (paragraph 17) and is one of the criteria listed under Policy CS7.4 of the Core Strategy.

Saved Policies of the South Lakeland Local Plan: Saved Policy S2 - South Lakeland Design Code. Saved Policy S2 of the Local Plan requires that all development should take account of the design code. Saved Policy R9 - Non-retail uses in minor shopping areas. Saved Policy R9 of the Local Plan supports ground floor non-retail uses providing they cause no disturbance or nuisance; cause no adverse impact on the character of the shopping street or Conservation Area; and do not affect the area’s retailing performance. Saved Policy R11 - Hot Food Takeaways in Secondary Shopping Areas. Saved Policy R11 of the Local Plan requires that within town centres (outside Kendal and Ulverston), proposals for hot food takeaways will be favourably considered where there is no adverse impact on traffic flows and highway safety on adjacent residential property, schools, churches, hospitals and other sensitive land uses, or on the character of the shopping street, and where the adjacent property is not occupied by another hot food takeaway or non-retail use.

South Lakeland Core Strategy: Policy CS1.1 - Sustainable Development Principles. Policy CS8.6 - Historic environment. Policy CS8.6 of the Core Strategy seeks to safeguard and enhance historic environment assets and their setting. Policy CS8.10 - Design. Policy CS8.10 of the Core Strategy requires that development should be of a character that maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape and be in keeping with the local vernacular tradition. CS7.5 - Town Centre and Retail Strategy. Policy CS7.5 of the Core Strategy supports the diversity of town centre uses to enhance the continued vitality and viability with regard to retail, business, cultural and leisure services. CS10.2 - Transport impact of new development. Policy CS10.2 of the Core Strategy states that development should be designed to reduce the need to travel, and the expected nature and volume of traffic generated by the proposal could be accommodated by the existing road network.

Other Considerations: Government strategy- ‘Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives: a Cross Government Strategy for England’ 2008.

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 key issues to consider in determining this application are whether the proposal is acceptable in principle in this location and whether the detailed criteria set out in Policies R9 and R11 are satisfied. These relate to:- • The impact on neighbouring and residential amenity:

a) Smell and noise disturbance b) Noise and disturbance and public disorder

c) Litter

d) The impact on health and wellbeing.

• Traffic and highways safety.

• Visual amenity and impact on the Conservation Area.

Principle, planning policy and whether this location is a suitable location for a hot food takeaway Grange over Sands is defined as a key service centre, as set out in the South Lakeland Core Strategy. The application site is within Grange town centre; it is within the primary shopping area and the Main Street frontage is defined as a primary retail frontage by the South Lakeland Land Allocations document. The retention of retail uses within areas defined as primary shopping areas and with a primary retail frontage is encouraged, however it is considered that the principle of the change of use is not contrary to planning policy, as discussed below. Policy CS7.5 of the Core Strategy supports the diversity of town centre uses to enhance the continued vitality and viability with regard to retail, business, cultural and leisure services. Saved Policy R11 of the Local Plan supports proposals for hot food takeaways in town centre locations where there is no adverse impact on traffic flows and highway safety on adjacent residential property, schools, churches, hospitals and other sensitive land uses, or on the character of the shopping street, and where the adjacent property is not occupied by another hot food takeaway or non-retail use. The proposal is not considered to have an adverse impact on the highway, as discussed in detail below, and the adjacent property is the post office which falls within Use Class A1 (shops). To what extent the change of use would alter the character of the shopping street is questionable - the visual impact and effect on the Conservation Area is discussed below, but in terms of the functioning of the shopping street, it is not felt that the proposal would reduce the daytime footfall within the area or have a significant detrimental impact on the shopping offer within the town. The Economic Development department have not raised any objection to the proposal, and it is not considered that the change of use would be detrimental to the vitality or viability of the town centre. The site is located within a town centre where there are a variety of commercial uses in the immediate vicinity; including hot food takeaways, public houses, shops and restaurants. The principle of an A5 use in this location is considered acceptable, subject to the detail. Saved Policy R9 of the Local Plan indicates that ground floor non-retail uses in Grange over Sands will be favourably considered providing they cause no disturbance or nuisance; cause no adverse impact on the character of the shopping street or Conservation Area and; do not affect the area’s retailing performance. The issues of disturbance / nuisance and the impact on the Conservation Area are discussed below. Furthermore, the units that are proposed to be subject to the change of use are currently unoccupied, and so it could be considered that the reoccupation of a vacant unit would have a positive effect on the vitality and viability of the town centre.

Need A number of objections have been raised citing that there is no need for an additional hot food takeaway facility in the town. Interference with commercial competition and an assertion that there are too many takeaway food establishments in one area is not a material planning consideration, unless it is framed in a policy context where it has an effect on a street or the town centre as a whole. The cumulative impact of the takeaways in the area has been assessed and it is concluded that there is a wide variety of such businesses within Grange which seek to provide for the local community and visitor economy. It is felt that an additional takeaway will add to the mix and will not constitute proliferation which would harm the character of the town centre or its vitality or viability.

Neighbouring and residential amenity Smell and noise from cooking Concerns have been raised about the impact that both the extraction system and general use of the building will have on the business premises above in terms of noise and particularly odour, and more generally on the surrounding residential properties. The extraction and ventilation system has been designed to be contained mainly within the property, with the extraction fan exhausting within the west elevation towards the Post Office sorting yard. The business premise above does not have any openings in this elevation and the nearest residential properties are within Crown Hill apartments on the opposite side of Main Street. Environmental Health has indicated that the installation of a high level discharge extraction system would be preferred. The possibility of installing a flue was explored through the last application, which was not considered acceptable. The applicant does not have full control over the chimney to install the discharge equipment within it. Environmental Health has concluded that, with the installation of a suitable system and the application of conditions in order to control noise and odour, nuisance will not be caused by a low level vent. It is considered that the location of the extraction fan is acceptable as there is a significant separation distance between it and any openings or residential properties in order for odour and noise emissions to not cause harm, as long as adequately controlled, as requested by the pre-commencement conditions. In terms of the general disturbance that the use would cause to the business premises above, it is again considered that subject to the installation of adequate filtration and extraction technology there should be no impact to the premises from noise or food odour. Furthermore, there are powers under environmental regulations that can be exercised to control such. It is essential that secure and adequate waste storage is provided in order to reduce the harm to visual amenity and serious risk to public health. As such, commercial bin stores should be contained within the curtilage of the property, which the proposal provides. The works to adequately convert the building in terms of sound and odour insulation, fire regulations etc will be controlled through pre-commencement conditions, the Building Regulations legislation; and they will be enforced in perpetuity by Environmental Protection legislation. Litter The concern over an increase in litter from users of the takeaway has been noted. Whilst there is other legislation (sec 87 of Environmental Protection Act 1990) to control the dropping of litter, it can still constitute a material consideration when determining a planning application. As such a condition is proposed that requires the installation of a rubbish bin to encourage the disposal of litter. Whilst we cannot control where the produce that is purchased from the premises is consumed, it is likely that the majority will be taken away from the area and consumed elsewhere (private homes for example). Noise disturbance and public order As discussed above, the principle of the hot food takeaway in the town centre location is acceptable, and similar uses are commonplace in the vicinity. There is an existing night time economy on Main Street with the public house and other hot food takeaways / restaurants, and the town centre location is considered to be amongst the most appropriate locations within the town for such uses. The opening hours of the hot food takeaway are proposed to be 12:00 - 23:00, which is in line with other businesses in the area. The concerns over anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance from users are noted but can be controlled by other regulations and policing. A condition will be attached to any permission that restricts the opening hours, and any desire to vary this will require a further planning application and a premises licence, which is unlikely to be supported. Health and wellbeing Whilst there is no local planning policy relating to the location of hot food takeaways in relation to health impacts, the Government has called for local authorities to combat the proliferation of fast food outlets close to schools and parks, and so it can be on specific occasions a valid material consideration. The site is not located within close proximity to a school or a park, and whilst there are a number of hot food takeaways in the town, it is not considered that the addition of one will have a negative impact on the overall health and wellbeing of local residents. In response to the original application, Environmental Protection colleagues recommended a condition restricting the opening hours to avoid school children in the area being able to use the takeaway, with particular reference to the bus stop adjacent the premises. However, given that the site is not located within close proximity to a school, or to a park; it is considered that any such condition would be unreasonable and not justified on planning grounds.

Traffic and highway safety The Highways Authority did not object to the original proposal and at the time of writing their comments are awaited specific to this application. It is not considered that a hot food takeaway will result in the generation of substantially more traffic than the existing use could generate. There is concern locally that the change of use will increase illegal and unauthorised parking in particular within the private car park opposite serving Crown Hill. However, as the site is located within the town centre where there is an abundance of car parking within the vicinity, and so there is no requirement for the provision of car parking. There is no indication that the change of use will result in parking problems, and so it is not considered that any potential unauthorised car parking, which can be controlled / enforced by civil proceedings, could form a material consideration to warrant refusal of the application.

Visual Amenity and impact on the Conservation Area The alterations to allow for the change of use are largely internal; any alterations that change the character of the shop front or include illuminated signage will require a subsequent application for planning permission / advertisement consent, due to the conservation area location. The applicant has chosen not to deal with these issues at this stage. The application proposes the installation of a new extract ventilation system within the building which will exhaust via a small outlet grill that would emerge from the building just below first floor level on the west gable end. The fan is 3 metres above the ground level of the neighbouring yard. Externally it would measure 500 mm x 500 mm and be coloured to match the stonework. The extraction and ventilation system represents an amendment to the original application which proposed the installation of a stainless steel flue. The application was refused due to the impact of such on the special interest of the Grange over Sands Conservation Area and on the architectural significance of the adjacent heritage assets. The new extraction system itself is relatively unobtrusive and it would not affect the visual amenity of the building, nor have an impact on the designated heritage assets. As discussed above, the general principle of a hot food takeaway in this town centre location is acceptable, and the specifics in terms of shop frontage can be controlled through future applications. There has been concern raised over the appropriateness of this type of takeaway facility in the conservation area location, and its overall impact on the character of the area. It is a statutory obligation to consider the effect of all development proposals within a conservation area on the character and appearance of that area, however it is felt that the proposal, which is located within an existing premises that already benefits from a shop front, would at least preserve, if not enhance, the character and appearance of the town centre conservation area; a key characteristic of which is the lively mix of uses. It is considered, as detailed above, that the potential litter and smells that would cause harm to the pleasant ambience of a historic area will be controlled either by condition or other relevant legislation. At the time of the writing the comments of the Conservation officer are awaited, and will be reported to the Planning Committee.

CONCLUSION The site is within Grange town centre and is part of the Primary Shopping Frontage. The principle of the change of use is acceptable as the proposal is considered to be in conformity with national and local planning policies, which direct A5 Hot Food Takeaways to town centre locations. With regard to the detailed considerations relevant to the case, whilst the concerns raised by local residents are noted, it is considered that any potential negative impacts can be mitigated against by adequate pre-commencement conditions and the enforcement of other legislation. The previous application was refused due to the potential harm caused to the conservation area as a result of the extraction and ventilation system; as this element has been amended to a suitable alternative (subject to the fulfilment of the pre- commencement conditions) it is considered that there are no justifiable reasons to refuse the application.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that delegated authority be given to the Director (People and Places) to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions relating to the following: (1) Standard time limit. (2) Plans - as submitted. (3) Prior to installation, full details of the measures to be installed to control grease, smoke and odour from cooking shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. This shall include a plan showing the layout of the system and the location of fans and control equipment and evidence that the proposed system is suitably sized to deal with smoke and odour and the proposed air flow. The equipment shall be retained thereafter. (4) Prior to the commencement of the development full details of how cooking odours will be prevented from entering the premises above shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. (5) Prior to installation, a full noise assessment in accordance with BS4142:2014 shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, relating to the design, installation and use of the new extraction system. This shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant, showing the impact of the operation of the equipment on nearby properties. This shall identify representative current noise levels, as well as anticipated noise levels during operation of the equipment. Details of how noise will be mitigated should the assessment indicate levels will impact on neighbouring premises shall also be included. Full details of how the transfer of noise between properties will be controlled shall be specified. (6) At all time the use is open to customers a litter bin shall be provided for customers. The design and siting of the bin shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before the use commences. (7) The refuse and recycling details as set out in the approved plans shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved and shall remain in place thereafter. (8) The opening hours shall be restricted to the following hours:- 12:00 - 23:00 Monday – Sunday.

Informative - signage / shop front alterations require planning permission.

SCHEDULE SL/2015/0823 (c)

URSWICK: Land at Wellwood, Bardsea ULVERSTON LA12 9RD

PROPOSAL: Dwelling

Mr Michael Mackenzie Website Link to Application

E329723 N474103 26/11/2015

SUMMARY The application seeks planning permission for the demolition of a stable building and the erection of a single storey dwelling in its place within the domestic curtilage of a large residence known as Wellwood, to the south of Bardsea. The dwelling would provide disabled living accommodation for the owner of Wellwood. The application follows the withdrawal of a similar application for a dwelling on the same site. The main issues to consider in the determination of this application are whether the Local Planning Authority’s policies can be considered up to date, and if so whether the principle of development in this location is in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 in relation to infilling and rounding off; and whether there are any relevant detailed planning considerations, such as; the impact on visual / landscape character and personal circumstances. The application has been called in for consideration at Planning Committee by Cllr James Airey.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL Site description The site is located on the edge of the small hamlet of Well House, to the south west of the village of Bardsea. The hamlet consists of approximately 10 dwellings clustered within a relatively contained area. The site forms part of the grounds in the ownership of Wellwood; a large residence and estate located to the south west. The application site is laid to grass with a wooden stable block located on the north west corner. The site is accessed from the west via the private driveway serving Wellwood.

Planning history Pre-application advice was sought in 2014. The response indicated that Well House was considered to be a hamlet and that, although the site is located on the edge of the hamlet, it is relatively well related to the neighbouring properties and could be considered an acceptable location for residential development subject to the detail of siting and design, the effect on visual and residential amenity of the surrounding area, and on highway safety. It was stated that the advice may be subject to revision following further examination or consultation, or where additional information comes to light, and is therefore not binding on any future recommendation which may be made.

Planning permission was then sought under application ref SL/2015/0199 for the development. On assessing the application it was considered that the proposal did not meet the criteria as set out in Core Strategy Policy CS1.2, and therefore did not constitute infilling or rounding off. The applicant was advised that the proposal would not be supported and subsequently chose to withdraw the application.

Proposal The application represents a resubmission of the previously withdrawn application, with very minor revisions. Planning permission is sought for demolition of the stable building and the erection of a single storey dwelling on the site, positioned towards the north west corner of the plot. The proposed dwelling is of a simple design with a pitched roof arrangement and a central forward facing gable to the front elevation. The property is accessed by a doorway to the front and in both of the side elevations; to allow disabled access with ease. The property has rendered walls and a slate roof, with quoin detailing around the timber windows and stone sills. The overall height of the dwelling is 2.5 m to the eaves and 4.9 m to the ridge, with a footprint of 138 m². The curtilage of the new dwelling extends to the east of the property to provide a garden and to the north to provide vehicular parking which is accessed from the existing driveway. The trees on and surrounding the site are to be retained, and the ranch style timber fence along the east and south of the site is to be retained. A septic tank is to be installed to serve the proposed dwelling.

CONSULTATIONS Urswick, Bardsea and Stainton Parish Councils: No objection.

Cumbria County Council Highways: No objection.

Other: No further responses have been received.

POLICY ISSUES National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): Paragraph 49: Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites. Paragraph 53: Local planning authorities should consider the case for setting policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area. Paragraph 55: Local planning authorities should avoid isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as… “where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting.” Residential Amenity: The protection of residential amenity in one or more of its various aspects is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. The protection of the residential amenity of neighbouring residents is one of the Core Planning Principles of the NPPF (paragraph 17) and is one of the criteria listed under Policy CS7.4 of the Core Strategy. Annex 2 (Glossary): Previously Developed Land - land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures; land in built-up areas such as private residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time.

South Lakeland Core Strategy and Allocation of Land Development Plan Document (DPD): Policy CS1.1 Sustainable Development Principles notes that development should accord with a sequential approach, first using existing buildings and previously developed land within settlements ahead of other suitable infill opportunities within settlements and only then development of other land that is well located in relation to housing, jobs, other services and infrastructure. It also notes that development should minimise the need to travel and provide a choice of sustainable transport modes. Policy CS1.2 The Development Strategy states outside of the development boundary of Key / Local Service Centres new development will only be permitted where it has an essential requirement for a rural location, is needed to sustain an existing business, provides affordable housing, is an appropriate extension of an existing building or involves the appropriate change is use of an existing building. Development outside of development boundaries is permitted where it would constitute small scale infilling or rounding off. The explanatory text to Policy CS1.2 expands the definition of infilling and rounding off as:- • Infilling – building taking place on a vacant plot in an otherwise built- up street frontage. • Rounding off – 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: o Change or distort the character or tradition of the group or the settlement in any undesirable way; o Establish or give rise to the consolidation of ribbon development; o 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; o Cause undesirable back land development unrelated to a proper street layout; and o 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 that time. Policy CS6.4 Rural exceptions policy states that housing development where it does not constitute infilling and rounding off in the smaller villages and hamlets will only be considered where they are to provide 100% affordable housing under the exception site criteria. Policy CS8.2 Landscape and settlement character states that development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve, and where possible, enhance:- - The special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area; - Distinctive settlement character; - The pattern of distinctive features such as hedges, walls, traditional buildings, woodlands, hay meadows, wetlands, valleys, fells and rivers, and their function as ecological corridors for wildlife. Policy CS8.10 Design states that the design, scale and materials of all development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with local vernacular tradition. Policy CS10.2 Transport Impact of New Development requires that development be designed to reduce the need to travel and to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport. Development proposals should provide for safe and convenient access and foot, cycle, public and private transport, be served by safe access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the locality, the expected nature and volume of traffic generated by the proposal can be accommodated by the existing road network without detriment to the amenity or character of the surrounding area, local air quality or highway safety.

Saved Policies of the South Lakeland Local Plan: Saved Policy S2 sets out the South Lakeland Design Code and requires development to take proper account of its principles.

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 key issues to consider in determining this application are:- 1. The principle of the development. 2. Visual and landscape settlement character. 3. Personal circumstances. 4. Other considerations.

The principle of development and the location of the residential dwelling The applicant has questioned the Council’s position in respect of a 5 year housing land supply and consider the site to be previously developed land. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The Council’s latest assessment of the 5 year land supply as at 31 March 2015 (published in September 2015) demonstrates a 5.9 year housing land to meet the housing target set out in the Core Strategy. Our 5 year land supply is calculated in accordance with the ‘Liverpool’ method; an approach which was endorsed by the Inspector at the land allocations hearings. Therefore our adopted policies for the supply of housing can be considered to be up to date. It is the officer’s view that the application site is within the domestic curtilage (the gardens) of the dwelling of Wellwood. The existence of the stable building on the plot does not itself classify the land as previously developed, as the stables are for domestic purposes and so the lawful use of the land remains domestic and a part of the domestic curtilage. Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 identifies a hierarchy of settlements; with development to be concentrated within Kendal and Ulverston, then the Key Service Centres, followed by a number of Local Service Centres, smaller villages and hamlets and finally the open countryside. Development boundaries have been identified for all but the smaller villages, hamlets and open countryside. The Strategy states that approximately 11% of new housing and employment development will be in the network of smaller villages and hamlets, and that exceptionally development in the open countryside will be allowed where it has an essential requirement for a rural location. Although small recent decisions have established Well House as a historical settlement (hamlet), and as such, the proposal has been assessed as to whether it constitutes appropriate infilling or rounding off as defined within the guidance supporting Policy CS1.2 of the Core strategy. The site is on the edge of the hamlet and so the proposal clearly does not constitute infilling, which is defined in the policy guidance 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.’ The commentary also states that any rounding off should not change or distort the character or tradition of the group or the settlement in an undesirable way or 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. The site is located on the edge of the hamlet of Well House and it is not particularly well related to the neighbouring properties. The site forms part of the grounds of Wellwood and it is served by the driveway to Wellwood and not from Well House. From outside the site, and particularly when viewed form the prominent vistas to the south, the site appears detached from the hamlet of Well House. There is a stone wall between the hamlet and the site which defines the extent of the hamlet and provides an established boundary of the development envelope; as such, the development would not complete an incomplete group of dwellings or finish off the settlement pattern. It is a site on the edge of the hamlet that would extend the settlement pattern and potentially open up further land for future development and set an undesirable precedent. Furthermore, the proposal site forms part of the open landscaped grounds afforded to Wellwood; when viewed within this context, a housing development would appear alien in the landscape which cannot be adequately mitigated. It is accepted in the planning statement accompanying the application that the proposed development site falls outside of the built-up area. The site is therefore categorised by Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 as within the open countryside. The Policy states that new development in the open countryside is exceptional circumstances, and will only be permitted where it has an essential requirement for the rural location; is needed to sustain an existing business; provides for exceptional needs for affordable housing or is an appropriate extension or conversion of an existing building. Core Strategy Policy CS6.4 ‘Rural Exception Policy’ sets out that housing development proposals in the open countryside will only be considered where they provide 100% affordable housing and meet the exception criteria. The proposal is not considered to be in compliance with the rural exceptions policy as, principally, it is not to provide affordable housing. The personal circumstances of the applicant are not a material consideration when assessing the application, as discussed below. To summarise, the proposal is considered contrary to local planning policy.

Impact on visual and landscape settlement character The existing properties within the hamlet of Well House are predominantly individual in style and organically arranged; as such, they do not comprise a formal set street scene. They are of a varied mix of style, type and design; with most being of a relatively traditional period design with well-defined boundaries. As a result, from most vistas the proposed dwelling will be viewed in isolation and not as part of a street scene. The dwelling known as Wellwood is a large detached residence with expansive landscaped grounds. It has detailed traditional mock-Victorian architecture. The proposed dwelling is of a small scale and a simple design; it has been designed to serve a purpose for the occupant with disabled needs. It has a pitched roof arrangement with central gable to the principle elevation. The house is to be finished in render with a slate roof to match Wellwood, with the inclusion of architectural detail such as traditional quoins and sills. The elevations have been kept simple. The inclusion of the front facing gable breaks up an otherwise flat frontage and the materials have been chosen to compliment both Wellwood and the houses within the hamlet of Wellhouse. The limestone boundary wall proposed in the original application has been omitted in favour of retaining the existing ranch style timber fence. However, the retention of the existing trees on and surrounding the site and the planting of additional hedges will provide further screening. The design of the house itself is relatively simple and inoffensive. The omission of the boundary wall and retention of the fence will create a feeling of the dwelling being part of the Wellwood estate rather than the hamlet. Because of this and the blandness of the design, there is concern that the property will appear alien within the open landscaped gardens and against the context of the backdrop of Wellwood’s vernacular. The stables that are currently on the site are well maintained and the domestic equestrian use appears ancillary to the estate in this context. Although the dwelling would replace the stables, it is a larger scale and includes a curtilage where associated residential paraphernalia could have an added impact on the character of the open landscape.

Personal circumstances The planning statement accompanying the application states that the disabled needs of the applicant should be given weight when assessing the application as the NPPF calls for disabled needs housing to be planned for. Through the local plan and the land allocations document the Council has assessed the disabled needs requirement across the district and has planned for houses to meet the need in sustainable locations. All planning decisions are based on the development plan whilst taking account of any other material planning considerations. Personal circumstances can only rarely be taken into account in the determination of a planning application. However, the more general planning considerations, such as consistency with relevant adopted planning policy are the principal considerations. When a development is contrary to the adopted policies; as in this case; it will only exceptionally be justified on the grounds of personal circumstances when there is a clear justification presented by the applicant. Whilst it is not disputed that the applicant has a requirement for disabled needs living accommodation, no justification has been provided as to why there is an exceptional need for the development in this location, which is contrary to adopted planning policy. It is considered that an extension or annexe to the main dwelling could provide the specially adapted living space that is required, which could be tied by a condition to ensure that the overall property remains a single planning unit. Other Considerations Drainage Through the original application Environmental Protection confirmed that they are satisfied that there is enough land for a septic tank and have advised that Building Regulations will be enforced during construction. Therefore, the drainage arrangements as submitted are considered adequate. Residential Amenity The dwelling is positioned within the site in order to have very little impact on the neighbouring properties; which are well screened by existing boundary treatments. It will not overbear or overshadow any neighbouring properties and the windows look onto the property’s own land and do not cause any issues of overlooking. The site is served by an adequate existing driveway and the additional traffic generated by one unit will not impact on highway safety. The proposed development would not result in any significant unneighbourly impacts. Highways There are no issues relating to the access and parking arrangements, and the Highways Authority has no objections to the proposal.

CONCLUSION It is considered that the Council has a 5.9 year supply of housing land, which was endorsed by the Inspector at independent examination. As set out in NPPF para 49, the adopted planning policy for the delivery of housing is therefore considered up to date and should be used in the determination of the planning application. The proposal does not accord with the Development Strategy as set out in Core Strategy Policy CS1.2, hence, the site is in a location that is not considered acceptable for residential development as it does not constitute infilling or rounding off of a settlement; and there is no exceptional requirement for the development in the open countryside. It is considered that the proposal does not improve the visual amenity of the area as the existing stables appear ancillary to the main dwelling, whilst the proposed property would appear divorced from the hamlet of Well House and alien within the grounds of Wellwood in terms of siting and design. The personal circumstances of the applicant are noted, however, it is considered that no justification has been presented as to the need for a dwelling in this unsuitable location. Overall, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to policy and that there are no material considerations with adequate weight to justify granting planning permission.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below:- The site does not constitute infilling or rounding off and the proposal would result in the development of garden land in an open countryside location, which

would adversely affect the open and distinctive character of the site and settlement; and open up further land to development pressure contrary to Policies CS1.1, CS1.2 and CS8.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and the sustainability aims of the National Planning Policy Guidance.

SCHEDULE SL/2015/0854 (d)

GRANGE OVER SANDS: Lingwood Park, Cartmel Road, GRANGE over SANDS LA11 7QA

PROPOSAL: Siting of 5 caravans for holiday use, new landscaping and Website Link to Application ground works, installation of package treatment works and soakaway and temporary permission for the use of a caravan for site E339544 N477394 26/11/2015 warden (retrospective)

Mr and Mrs B, J & H Saunders

SUMMARY Retrospective permission is sought for the creation of five caravan pitches and associated hardstanding areas; access tracks and other works to regrade and level the cleared area of woodland and the installation of foul drainage and electrical hook up points. It is proposed to site an additional five static caravans with one unit proposed to be used as temporary accommodation for the applicants’ son whilst works to convert an agricultural building to residential use are carried out. Councillor Harvey has requested that the application be determined at Planning Committee. Officers also consider that Members should be aware of the extent of unauthorised works at the site and its impacts, as part of the assessment of this retrospective application. The key issues relate to the principle of extending a caravan site at this location; a detailed assessment of landscape, trees and visual impacts; highway and access; infrastructure and sewage treatment. Detailed consideration needs to be given to the erection of a temporary dual caravan. This retrospective application for the retention of works to provide five fully serviced caravan sites is recommended for refusal based on the adverse landscape impact of the development and that it is not possible to adequately mitigate for the loss of screen woodland. DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL Site Description The site is located to the east of Cartmel Road, Grange over Sands. The site is separated from Cartmel Road by a strip of woodland to the east. Access is via an established entrance onto Cartmel Road that already serves the caravan site. The application site originally formed part of a wooded area at a point where the landform slopes up from Cartmel Road and up towards the existing established caravan site. The applicant has undertaken additional engineering works to this recently clear felled area to regrade and facilitate the creation of the pitches, access tracks etc. The main part of the existing caravan site is to the east and north east of the application site and currently accommodates 40 static caravans.

Introduction By means of explanation, this application came about by the applicant seeking to regularise certain unauthorised activities that had occurred or were occurring on the site. The site had been cleared of trees and regraded to form the bases for five additional caravan pitches, all provided with electrical hook-ups, water and sewage connections. Other issues are being investigated on the wider caravan site that relate to changes in the location and positioning of other units not in accordance with the approved layout. The Forestry Commission are currently pursuing the breach of the Felling Licence.

Proposal Retrospective permission is sought for the creation of five caravan pitches and associated hardstanding areas, access tracks and other works to regrade and level the cleared area of woodland and the installation of foul drainage and electrical hook- up points. It is proposed to site an additional five static caravans with one unit proposed to be used as temporary accommodation for the applicants’ son whilst works to convert an agricultural building to residential use are carried out.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND UNAUTHORISED WORKS Lingwood Caravan Park was established in 2002, since when under various permanent applications a total of 40 static caravans have been granted permission. A planning application was submitted for change of use of two fields for the siting of 32 static caravans and 10 touring caravans in January 2002. Members of the Planning Committee visited the site prior to considering the application. The Committee considered that the eastern field was overly visible and development would adversely affect the character and appearance of the site and surroundings. However, the western field was sufficiently screened and planning permission was granted for the siting of 17 static caravans and five touring caravans, and installation of a sewage treatment plant. In 2003 planning permission was granted to extend the opening season of the site. An application for the change of use of the eastern field for the siting of 12 static caravans was submitted in 2004. Planning permission was refused under delegated powers due to lack of screening at the site. A planning application was submitted in February 2006 for an additional 16 static caravan pitches on the eastern field. A report was included on the Planning Committee Agenda for March 2006. The report concluded that the additional caravans would be located in a prominent location and would adversely affect the character and appearance of the surrounding Landscape of County Importance. The Highway Authority also recommended refusal stating that the road serving the site is inadequate by reason of insufficient width and layout to accommodate a likely increase in traffic. The application was withdrawn prior to Members considering it. The Planning Committee considered a further application for eight additional static caravans in the northern part of the field in October 2006 (SL/2006/0935). It was concluded that the top part of the field was adequately screened and the Highway Authority did not object to the scheme. Planning permission was granted for the scheme. The latest application, SL/2014/0456 was for a further four units to be sited on an area of land close to the existing site and contained within a larger area of woodland within the applicants control. An application was submitted in 2014 to remove the seasonal occupancy condition; this was approved under delegated powers. On the 18 th June 2015 officers were made aware that works beyond the terms associated with the 2014 permission had been carried out. Officers made a further visit to the site when it was observed that an area of the screening woodland outwith the site area associated with the 2014 application had been clear felled in contravention of the Felling Licence. The Felling Licence authorised a 40% thin of woodland, NOT a 40% clearance. In addition to the clear felling and removal of the stumps of the trees, the area had been extensively regraded and remodelled to form what appeared to be five sites for caravans. All five sites had electricity boxes, water connections and foul drainage connections installed and buried underground. There had also been the use of crushed stone and road planings to form an access track. This track followed the route of an original track through the woodland, but had been extended and altered so as to serve each of the five caravan sites. In addition, one of the sites’ had been provided with a concrete slab. Following that visit, officers received an email from the agent explaining the background of the breach of planning control from the perspective of the landowner. However, following further visits that fully revealed the extent of the tree felling and the permanent and continuing nature of the unauthorised works, it was considered expedient to serve a temporary stop notice. This action was based on the extent and nature of the works carried out, and to prevent any further works being carried out on site in the absence of planning permission. Following further correspondence with the agent this application to regularise the situation was submitted.

CONSULTATIONS Grange Town Council: Comments to be reported as late representations. However it should be noted that Grange Town Council objected to SL/2014/0456 for an additional four units.

Cumbria Highways: Comments to be reported as late representations.

SLDC Environmental Protection Officer: No objections to the proposed additional treatment plant discharge consent from the Environment Agency.

SLDC Arboricultural Officer: Objects - given the complexity of the issues raised the Arboricultural Officer’s comments are listed in full:- Prior to the submission of this retrospective application, a large area of trees forming the application site was felled. The design and access statement dated October 2015 states on page nine that “ Trees were felled as part of a woodland management plan, for which a felling licence was obtained from the forestry commission. ” The Felling Licence to which the agent refers was granted by the Forestry Commission on the 30 th July 2012 and posted to the forestry agent on the 9th August 2012 under reference number 010/41/12-13 Middle Fell Wood Cpt 2, 3 & 4. The planning application site is within Cpt 2. A copy of the Felling Licence was submitted to South Lakeland District Council with the planning application SL/2014/0456 ‘siting of four additional static caravans within existing site.’ Page 3 of 3, of the Felling Licence lists the operations approved by the Felling Licence. The type of operation shown for compartment 2 is ‘T’ which denotes a Thinning operation. Explanation of the types of operation are listed below - the description of trees to be felled in a key. The Key reads as follows: T = thinning; SF = selective felling; F= clear felling (to include group clear felling); FC = cutting coppice; FO = felling other; (e.g. hedge-row trees / single isolated trees) . No SF = selective felling or F = clear felling was permitted by the Felling Licence. Part 3 – Notes clarifies the extent of thinning approved and reads as follows “40% thinning of non-native broadleaves to encourage native natural regeneration. Ensure that standing and fallen deadwood will be created and retained on site.” The removal of the trees within the planning application site SL/2015/0854 does not constitute a thinning of the whole compartment by 40%. In this case approximately 40% of the woodland has been clear felled, removing all the trees within the red hatched area as shown on the applicants Felled Tree Plan. This is a clear breach of the Felling Licence issued by the Forestry Commission, and SLDC were duty bound to refer the matter to the Forestry Commission when it was brought to the attention of the planning department. SLDC understands that enforcement action has been commenced by the Forestry Commission in preparation to serve a restocking notice which will require the landowner to replant the clear felled area with approximately 220 trees, replacing the felled woodland. Felling trees in contravention of the Forestry Act 1967 is an offence which on conviction can result in a fine of up to £2500 or twice the value of the trees whichever is the higher. When the felling and engineering works were brought to the attention of the Council, and due to the extent of the works carried out without planning permission, a temporary stop notice was issued on the owner. This application followed the issue of the stop notice. In relation to the retrospective planning application for the five caravans, infrastructure and temporary site warden occupancy, the remaining section of woodland shown as green hatching in the applicants Felled Tree Plan has little understorey which allows views from the road into the site. I believe that if caravans were sited on the proposed locations they would be visible from Cartmel Road through the trees. New understory planting such as Hazel, Holly, Hawthorn and Blackthorn would, in possibly 5 to 10 years, increase screening between the caravans and Cartmel Road. In the meantime however, the caravans would be visible through the slender stems of the trees. The density of the understorey of the woodland could further be re- enforced through a field hedgerow along the Cartmel Road boundary, although establishment of both the hedgerow and understorey planting would be uncertain due to shading from the closed canopy of the existing woodland. Existing understorey trees are thin with sparse leaf cover which indicates suppression by the larger trees. It is my opinion that adequate screening of the siting of the five caravans could not be reasonably achieved in the short term through supplementary tree and hedgerow planting. The siting of caravans in this clear felled woodland will lead to the loss of a significant proportion of woodland by jeopardising the restocking of the illegally felled woodland. The roadway which has been installed between the felled and retained portions of the woodland would be deemed as permitted development (forestry) for the management of the woodland and could be retained. The areas of land occupied by the caravan bases and landscaping subject to this application are required to obtain the 3 metre spacing planting density for the planting of the 220 trees in the felled area for the re-instatement of the woodland. I am unable to support this application in any form and recommend the Council continue to pursue enforcement action to return the land to its previous function as woodland. The Council should also support the Forestry Commission in their enforcement against the illegal felling of trees in this woodland.

APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIONS That the site is long established The application site is in an area of woodland clear felled as part of a woodland management programme, including thinning in association with the Forestry Commission. That the application benefits are:- • Enhanced and extended landscaping off site. • Enhanced landscaping within the site. • Control over landscaping and remaining woodland by conditions. • Control over colours of caravans. • Reduction of traffic as a result of swapping CL site for static caravans. • Supporting a well-run and popular site. Caravan would be surrounded with decked areas. Site created by cut and fill, with original slope still evident. Five additional pitches are a modest increase of 12%. Additional landscaping within the site will benefit the wider area and afford additional screening from the south. There are limited views of the site from publicly accessible viewpoints. New landscaping is proposed for along the boundaries and between caravans. Remaining woodland could be protected by a condition or with a TPO. Groundworks are not visible and caravans will merge into surroundings. Views of site are fleeting. Other sites in the area are more prominent. Decking can have a dark stain. Access is as existing with good visibility in either direction. Drainage, existing treatment plant at capacity additional proposed for 16 persons. Applicant created five informal pitches and that a Certificated Caravan site does not require planning permission. Permission is sought for the temporary siting of one static unit as accommodation for the applicants son as a site warden and until a barn conversion on nearby land is completed.

POLICY ISSUES South Lakeland Core Strategy: CS1.1 – Sustainable Development - It states that development should:- • accord with a sequential approach, first using existing buildings and previously developed land within settlements ahead of other suitable infill opportunities within settlements; • safeguard the essential character and appearance of conservation areas and encourage the re-use of sites which are causing harm; • ensure high quality, localised, appropriate design to retain distinctive character and sense of place; and • deliver a broad range of housing including more that is affordable to help retain young people in the area. CS1.2 – The Development Strategy - states that 35% of new development in the district will be concentrated in Kendal. The policy provides a sequential approach to development and a hierarchy of settlements. The majority of development will located within development boundaries with only a very small proportion, 11% located in the Open Countryside. CS4 – Cartmel Peninsula – states:- • ensure that effective use is made of the limited amount of commercial land and buildings in Grange; • promote the vitality and viability of Grange over Sands town centre and safeguard its role as a Key Service Centre by promoting sites in the town centre for development / redevelopment for mixed use including new retail space; and • protect and enhance the diverse character and local distinctiveness of the area and promote high quality and locally distinctive design. CS7.4 – Rural economy - Favourable consideration is to be given to suitable employment-related development in rural areas where the proposal:- • is of a scale in keeping with its surroundings; • does not detract from the amenity of residential areas; • is not detrimental to the character or appearance of the landscape or settlement; and • does not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic. CS7.6 – Tourism - particular emphasis is placed on the need to broaden the range of accommodation provided. Development should be of an appropriate scale and be located where the environment and infrastructure can accommodate the visitor impact. CS8.1 – Green Infrastructure - states that proposals should ensure green infrastructure is incorporated into new developments, particularly where it can be used to mitigate the negative impacts of the development. CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character 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. CS8.4 – Biodiversity - 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. CS8.10 – Design - siting, design, scale and materials of all developments should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape. CS10.1 – Transport Impact of New Development - requires that development be designed to reduce the need to travel and to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport.

Saved Policies of the South Lakeland Local Plan: T6 – Tourism - States that extensions to existing caravan sites will only be permitted where there is no impact on the conservation of the landscape, and the capacity of the surrounding road system and protection of wildlife, archaeological and geological features. S18 – Trees - Need to balance the relationship between trees and buildings.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): Para 28 – Rural Economy. Para 109 – Protect and enhance the natural environment.

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 key issues relate to the principle of extending a caravan site at this location; a detailed assessment of landscape, trees and visual impacts; highway and access; infrastructure, and sewage treatment. Detailed consideration needs to be given to the erection of a temporary dual caravan.

Principle The small scale extension of caravan sites is generally supported in terms of Retained Policy T6; however where some rational growth may be acceptable, the cumulative impacts of a number of small incremental extensions to a site may not be acceptable. The support for small scale extensions of caravan sites is countered by the need for the development to be acceptable on landscape / trees and environmental and highway grounds. Although this application is not seeking to regularise the various engineering works as part of running this area of Lingwood Park as a Caravan Club Certificated Site, it is given as a ‘fall back’ position by the applicant. Initially the clear felling of the woodland, the regrading and levelling and formation of five caravan pitches and the installation of fixed services was justified as being for use as a Caravan Club Certificated Site and as not requiring ‘permission.’ As is set out in the letter from the Caravan Club confirming the site Certification, the planning exemptions that CL sites operate under only relate to the change of use and do not confer any rights to carry out engineering works or for the installation of fixed services. The letter also makes it clear that such operational works may possibly need planning permission. Although it appears that the applicant had started the Certification process, some of the unauthorised works were carried out prior to the date of the letter from the Caravan Club. In the applicants Design and Access statement it is considered that the recent closure of the touring site at Low Fellgate Caravan Park (located 500 metres to the south) will create a demand for such sites, and that this will have a consequential traffic impact of caravans accessing via Cartmel Road. It goes further to suggest that because the CL site has limited income potential, then the applicants will not spend additional money on landscaping either within or around the site and that it will remain as grass only. The adversarial nature of this position is noted, nonetheless to regularise the unauthorised engineering works will require permission and inevitably appropriate landscaping conditions would be attached. Nonetheless it is difficult to understand why the applicant undertook such significant and costly works on the land given their previous history of seeking planning permission for development of the site. The local planning authority does not accept in this instance that there is any relevance to the applicants suggestion that the land is capable and likely to be used for touring caravans.

Trees and Landscape Impacts Relevant to the consideration of this application is the clear felling and clearance of the area of woodland that now forms the site under consideration. Under the previous application SL/2014/0456 this area of woodland was identified as outwith the application site area and to be retained as woodland to provide the screening from Cartmel Road of the four additional units and the existing caravan park. It marked the approximate extent of a change in slope profile and created a natural break in the layout of the site. Members should be aware that the four additional static units were considered acceptable only on the basis that their visual impact would be mitigated by the retention of the woodland area and that the depth of the retained area of woodland was crucial in that assessment. It is important for Members to appreciate that the case officer would have likely come to a different decision on application SL/2014/0456, if the screen woodland had been shown as being reduced to the extent that has now occurred. In considering SL/2014/0456, both the case officer and the arboricultural officer had significant concerns regarding the potential impacts of development on the screen woodland and how this could be adequately controlled. Both officers considered the use of a Tree Preservation Order, but on balance determined that there were adequate safeguards provided by the Forestry Commission Felling Licence regime and the assurance given by the applicants proposed planting and landscaping scheme. The intention of the Felling Licence, which was submitted with the application, was to carry out a thin out of 40% of the woodland area in order to reinvigorate and bulk up the understorey of the wooded area to provide more effective screening. The applicant in effect carried out a 40% clearance of trees. In the Design and Access Statement in support of the 2014 application, it is stated that the only trees to be removed are those needed to allow the siting of the caravans and those as permitted under the terms of the Forestry Commission Felling Licence. In retrospect it was a mistake not to serve a Woodland TPO on this part of the site. The reality is that the extent of tree removal goes far in excess of what was envisaged both under the terms of the 2014 permission and what was approved under the terms of the Forestry Commission Felling Licence. The consultation response from the Council’s arboricultural officer sets out in a straightforward manner the concerns that the illegal felling of this area of woodland raises. Notwithstanding the position of the Forestry Commission and their enforcement of the breach of the Felling Licence, the clear felling of the trees has significantly diminished the value of the woodland as a screen to the caravan park. The impact of the clear felling and removal of the woodland is that the effectiveness of the woodland screen is significantly reduced. The case officer concurs with the arboricultural officer that if caravans are sited on the clear felled area they would be visible from Cartmel Road through the trees. In terms of the current application, the remaining section of woodland has little protective or effective understorey. Instead of views through the lower stems and trunks, woodland of a tree covered slope (trees against trees against a dark background), it is now broken up by a large clearing through which the light penetrates in a totally different way and draws attention to the clearing and what is beyond. The four units as approved under the 2014 permission are now visible. It is the fact that the main part of the caravan site is well screened and landscaped, that makes the unexpected glimpses of caravans through what remains of the woodland caravan site significant. Views into the site that were previously unavailable are now clear, and especially so when the leaf cover has gone from the trees. The additional planting proposed by the 2014 landscaping scheme will no longer perform its designed function. Further, any new understorey planting suitably managed and maintained would take time to become established. Over a timescale of 5 to 10 years, such planting could increase screening between the caravans and Cartmel Road. It has been suggested that additional planting to reinforce the screening of the site could be a field hedgerow along the Cartmel Road boundary. In any event establishment of the understorey planting would be uncertain due to shading from the closed canopy of the existing woodland. This is compounded by the fact that the existing understorey trees are thin with sparse leaf cover which indicates suppression by the larger trees. Given the above it is unlikely that adequate screening of the siting of the five caravans can be reasonably achieved in the short term through supplementary tree and hedgerow planting. The siting of the caravans within the clear felled area will restrict the amount of ground available for replanting, and will lead to the loss of a significant proportion of woodland by jeopardising the restocking of the illegally felled woodland. In summarizing, the tree and landscaping impacts a substantial area of woodland, that acted as a screen to the existing caravan park, and has now been clear felled. The retention of this woodland was a determining issue in the acceptability of the 2014 application for a further four units. The engineering works and the siting of five serviced static caravan pitches, subject of this retrospective application, has resulted in a re-profiling and regrading of land levels and a resultant removal of a significant area of woodland. This has a detrimental and adverse visual impact on the character of the surrounding landscape and has opened up views of the existing caravan park. The development is of such a scale and form that it would not be possible to adequately mitigate the harm caused by means of planting and landscaping.

Engineering Works and Installation of Services The unauthorised works within the cleared area of woodland include the removal and ‘grubbing up’ of the tree stumps and significant re-profiling of the land form to provide each caravan site. Other works include the formalisation of an existing track through the woodland, the installation of electricity hook-up, connections to water and a piped foul sewage network. All of these unauthorised works require planning permission and do not benefit from any permitted development rights. Cumulatively the works that have been carried out are not insubstantial and would have required some planning and forethought. It is uncertain why the applicant undertook such significant works to land that was clearly outwith the terms of any existing planning permissions in the absence of any contact with SLDC. It is noted that the applicant has stated that they considered that the works were lawful under the terms of the creation of a Caravan Club Certificated Site (CL) including the provision of the serviced pitches. (This is expanded on within a separate heading). The application refers to the installation of a new package treatment works to serve the five units, this is seen as essential to the scheme as the plant serving the existing site is at capacity. The SLDC Environmental Protection Officer is satisfied with the details submitted. In terms of the electrical hook ups as installed, these are small boxes located on a post that contain a circuit breaker, connection socket and meter. In visual terms such installations in amongst the paraphernalia associated with caravan sites will have a very minimal visual impact.

Highways and Access Access to the site is long established and is via Cartmel Road, which is a relatively narrow and twisting road that lacks adequate inter-visible passing place provision. In the past Cumbria County Council (CCC) Highways have objected to applications to enlarge the site that have involved an increase in numbers of touring caravans in addition to those provided as a Caravan Club certificated site. The applicant subsequently ceased operating the site either for touring vans and /or as a Certificated Site in preference to the siting of static caravans. The applicants Design and Access statement states that a benefit of static units instead of touring caravans is that there will be a consequent reduction in traffic. The applicant has in the past used similar arguments to justify an increase in static units. CCC Highways comments are still outstanding.

The dual caravan unit At the time of the case officer’s initial site visit with the agent in June 2015, it was noted that the southernmost caravan pitch had been provided with a large concrete pad. At the second visit this pitch was occupied by a dual unit caravan that is not dis- similar in appearance to a bungalow. Although at the time of the first site visit the case officer had discussed with the agent the temporary siting of a caravan within the site to provide accommodation, by the applicants’ son. The need for which was stated as for site wardens, and whilst they carry out works to a residential barn conversion on other nearby land within the applicant’s control. Given the other more immediate issues regarding the unauthorised works no further discussions were had regarding the location, nor any other details provided. It was only on the second visit to the site that the case officer was aware that the dual unit had been installed. In terms of the need for this dual unit, it is appreciated that Part 4 Class A allows for the siting of temporary buildings or structures. “The provision on land of buildings, moveable structures, works, plant or machinery required temporarily in connection with and for the duration of operations being or to be carried out on, in, under or over that land or on land adjoining that land.” This provision allows for the siting of a temporary caravan for residential purposes whilst a house is built. The key phrase is ‘on land adjoining’, and is in this instance relevant. The proposed site for the barn conversion is immediately to the north west of the applicants own house and some 100 metres due west of the dual unit that has already been sited. In reality there is sufficient space within the curtilage of the applicants house to satisfactorily locate the dual unit close to where the barn to be converted is located.

CONCLUSION It not denied that Lingwood Park is tidy and was well screened, however what has occurred in terms of the tree clearance and regrading of the land form cannot be simply justified on the basis on the assertion made within the Design and Access Statement that this part of the site was underused, and represented the last area of land into which the site could expand. This statement ignores the fact that a substantial area of woodland that acted as a screen to the existing caravan park has been clear felled. The retention of this woodland was a determining issue in the acceptability of the 2014 application for a further four units. If the analogy of underuse is extended to the rest of the retained woodland then incrementally the site could continue to expand to the detriment of landscape quality and character. The proposed development will extend the caravan site into an area of land that slopes down and away from the existing caravan park and towards the Cartmel Road. The retention of this wooded area with appropriate management would have provided a depth of tree cover and density of tree planting that would act as an effective screen for the caravan park. The removal of this 25 metre deep strip of woodland by clear felling reduces the capacity of the remaining woodland to perform that vital screening function. This is especially so during periods when there is reduced leaf cover. There is a consequential impact that if approved, the planting scheme needed to screen the development will need to be far more comprehensive, dense and properly managed to compensate for the loss in depth of the area available for planting. In planning terms a landscaping scheme that identifies large amounts of compensatory planting is a less satisfactory ‘sticking plaster’ solution rather than the retention and correct management of existing planting and in accordance with a Felling Licence. The works as executed clearly constitute a breach of trust in the understanding of how the caravan park was to be developed following the grant of permission for the four additional units under SL/2014/0456. Any understory would take 5 -10 years to establish and even then there is no certainty that this would provide an effective screen. In conclusion, the engineering works and the siting of five serviced static caravan pitches has resulted in a re-profiling and regrading of land levels and a resultant removal of a significant area of woodland. This has a detrimental and adverse visual impact on the character of the surrounding landscape and has opened up views of the existing caravan park. The development is of such a scale and form that it would not be possible to adequately mitigate the harm caused by means of planting and landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below:- Reason The engineering works involved to create the five serviced static caravan pitches has resulted in a re-profiling and regrading of land levels and a resultant removal of a significant area of woodland. This has opened up views of the existing caravan park. Together with the additional works to be undertaken to create five static caravan sites they will have a detrimental and adverse visual impact on the character of the surrounding landscape. The development is of such a scale and form that it would not be possible to adequately mitigate the harm caused by means of planting and landscaping. This is contrary to Policies CS7.4, CS7.7 and CS8.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy; saved South Lakeland Local Plan Policies T6 and S18; and the material planning considerations contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

P & P The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in Statement determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and determining the application, clearly setting out the reason for refusal. However the retrospective works carried out are of such a nature that it is not possible to remedy the harm by a revision to the proposal.

AUTHORISATION FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTION to remedy the breaches of planning control.

SCHEDULE SL/2015/0741 (e)

PRESTON PATRICK: Agricultural Quarter, Crooklands MILNTHORPE LA7 7FP

PROPOSAL: Remodelling of mounding and landscaping, including new Website Link to Application tree and shrub planting, and extension to penning area of E353694 N482268 26/11/2015 main building

Mrs Katie Black

SUMMARY This application seeks full planning permission for the extension of the existing J36 auction mart building to create a new penning area and associated remodelling and landscaping including extra car parking provision and an area for signage adjacent the Crooklands roundabout. The main issues arising from the application relates to whether the principle of an extension represents an appropriate development in this open countryside location and the visual and landscape impact of the changes on the surrounding area.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL Site Description The site, in the open countryside, is currently used as an Auction Mart which was approved in 2011 (SL/2010/0990) and has numerous associated ancillary and other rural businesses that operate from the site. The site occupies an area of land between the A65 to the north, the A6070 to the west, the Lancaster Canal to the east and agricultural land to the south, in between is Elm Tree Gill which is a tributary to Morecambe Bay SSSI and SAC. A public footpath, the Lancaster-Kendal Canal Long Distance Footpath, is around 200 metres to the east.

Proposal and Relevant Planning History This application is for the full planning permission for the permanent extension of the auction mart on the northern elevation to create an extra penning area measuring 42.5 metres by 22.5 metres. This would replace temporary penning that is used on site during busy sale days. The walls are proposed to be Vertical Yorkshire Boarding whilst the roof would match the existing building. Externally it is proposed to re-sculpture the adjacent embankment to create a new enlarged parking area and enlarged area for planting trees with a new area for signage to the roundabout. Additionally it was proposed to change the landscaping to the A6070 boundary which was approved by virtue of a part discharge of condition 13 to the original permission (SL/2011/0720). A set of amended plans and further details mainly relating to the landscaping have been submitted which includes additional planting adjacent to the business units, next to the A6070. Members will note that revised landscaping has not been submitted to the eastern part of the site. A further approved application (SL/2012/0618) has commenced to the east of the main auction mart site building. This was for the re-grading of the site to provide managed lairage field and integrated constructed wetland (part retrospective), partly required to provide a suitable surface water drainage scheme from the auction mart site. It is intended that the landscaping to this part of the site would be addressed by a future landscaping scheme to take account of the known changes on the site. Amended plans have been sought to enable the control of the lairage field screening when completed and to ensure more planting to the west of the business units enabling an appropriate level of screening; and further detailing of the proposed signage to the roundabout.

CONSULTATIONS A set of amended plans and further details mainly relating to the landscaping have been submitted. These plans have been re-consulted on with the appropriate statutory consultees.

Preston Patrick Parish Council: Welcome the application but would like to see more landscaping development to the northern side and around the business units.

Highways Agency: No objection.

Cumbria County Council Highways: No response at time of writing the report.

Arboricultural Officer: No objection but need details of the future management which can be secured by condition.

Neighbours / Others: A site notice was erected at the entrance to the site and letters were sent to neighbouring properties. There have been two anonymous objection letters to which little weight can be attached. POLICY ISSUES South Lakeland Core Strategy: Policy CS1.1 Sustainable Development Principles notes that development should accord with a sequential approach, first using existing buildings and previously developed land within settlements ahead of other suitable infill opportunities within settlements and only then development of other land that is well located in relation to housing, jobs, other services and infrastructure. It also notes that development should minimise the need to travel and provide a choice of sustainable transport modes. Policy CS1.2 The Development Str ategy states exceptionally new development will be permitted in the open countryside where it has an essential requirement for a rural location, is needed to sustain an existing business and is an appropriate extension of an existing building. Policy CS5 The East states that Council and its partners will aim to:- • Protect and enhance the diverse character and local distinctiveness of the area by promoting high quality design. • Protect the network of green infrastructure and important environmental characteristics and, in partnership with landowners, promote their positive use and management. • Ensure that new development safeguards and enhances the natural environment - notably the AONB, and support habitat creation.

Policy CS7.4 Rural Economy encourages the:- • Expansion of appropriate businesses outside the service centres.

• Supporting sustainable farming and food production.

And favourable consideration will be given to suitable employment related development in rural areas as long as it is of a scale and in keeping with its surroundings and not detrimental to the character or appearance of the landscape. Policy CS8.1 Green Infrastructure states that the core strategy will protect the countryside from inappropriate development whilst supporting its positive use for agriculture, recreation, biodiversity, health, education or tourism. Policy CS8.2 Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character states that development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design, and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area. Policy CS8.10 Design states that the design, scale and materials of all development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with local vernacular tradition.

Saved Policies of the South Lakeland Local Plan: Saved Policy S2 sets out the South Lakeland Design Code and requires development to take proper account of its principles. Saved Policy S10 states that off-street parking will be required based on Cumbria County Council’s guidelines, but will be applied flexibly.

Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit: Identifies the area as Character Type 7b-Drumlin Fields with adjacent sub-types of:- • 3a- Open Farmlands and Pavement;

• 7a- Low Drumlins; and

• 9b- Rolling Farmland and Heath.

The vision for this landscape character type is for the well composed landscape to be conserved and enhanced to retain its distinctive characteristics. The key characteristics are defined as; tracts of high drumlins, rounded tops with steep sides, district landform grain, hedges and stone walls forming strong boundaries, streams / wet hollows are found in the 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, and the drumlins are cut through by the M6 motorway, railways and power lines.

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 Application of Planning Policy: The key issues of this application are:- 1. Whether the proposal is an appropriate extension to the auction mart building. 2. Whether the proposed changes to the re-sculpturing of the embankment and landscaping are appropriate. 3. Signage and related earthworks.

1. Whether this proposal is an appropriate extension to the auction mart building Policies CS1.1 and CS1.2 of the Core Strategy sets out the broad policy principles for the location of development which sets out that development in the open countryside should be allowed in exceptional circumstances. One of those circumstances is for the appropriate expansion of existing businesses. It is considered that this extension is acceptable in principle. This is reinforced by Policy CS7.4 of the Core Strategy which encourages the expansion of appropriate businesses outside the service centres and supports sustainable farming and food production. Favourable consideration will be given to suitable employment related development in rural areas as long as it is of a scale and in keeping with its surroundings and not detrimental to the character or appearance of the landscape. The proposed design of the extension reflects the existing building and it would be seen in the context of the existing building, and is considered to be acceptable.

2. Whether the proposed changes to the re-sculpturing of the embankment and landscaping are appropriate The existing landscape interventions and landscaping have not worked well and have caused landscape harm; an example of where landscaping and screening has been designed solely to screen a building but not to respect the existing landscape grain and character. The finished topography cannot support the landscaping scheme as previously approved. Particularly harmful are the car-parking to the north of the site, the “quarry faced” slopes that are visible from the A65, the unnaturally high bunding on A6070 side and the lack of planting to break up the massing caused between the new business units and Moss End Farm, which is harmful when approaching the site from the south. During the recent roundabout works, that are almost completed, the opportunity was taken to regrade the bunding and move top soil and earth from the lairage field site and swap this with rock that was used in the bunding. This has resulted in a far better profile of the land and ground that is likely to be far more successful in terms of supporting the landscaping that is proposed. Some of the new planting has already taken place to take advantage of the current planting season and following visits from officers, including the Arboriculturalist, it is considered the new planting is likely to take effect in terms of stock selection, species type and existing root treatment and management. The proposed works to remove the high level car-parking would reduce the prominence of the site from the A65 and again allow regrading that respects the character of the land and planting which currently follows the A65, and would allow the parking area to be provided on a level, around the existing site.

3. Signage and related earthworks The proposed works to enable a new sign are considered to be a welcome addition at the roundabout entrance and would replace the adhoc temporary appearance signage that already exists of a large “estate agent” double sided board which due to its elevation and materials of construction cause harm to the landscape around the roundabout, whilst the proposed sign would be seen within the context of the roundabout infrastructure and have a far more limited landscape impact. The continued absence of planting to the eastern part of the site is regrettable but during the consideration of the approved lairage rise in levels, it appears that no consideration has been given to the wider landscape impact and changes on landscaping that would be required, in effect nullifying the ability to impose the existing landscaping scheme and it is considered welcome that the auction mart has committed to submitting a revised more comprehensive landscaping scheme to reflect the amended part of the site, on land between the canal and the auction mart site once those works are completed. This can be secured by condition.

CONCLUSION The proposed extension is acceptable with a design that respects the existing building and would be seen very much within the context of the existing building with very limited landscape harm, which would support the expansion of the successful auction mart business. The amended works to the landscaping would result in a better integrative landscaping scheme than that already approved. It is considered in their totality that the proposed works are acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to the following conditions and subject to amended plans showing increased planting around the business units and further detailing of the proposed signage to the roundabout:- (1) Standard time limit. (2) Development in accordance with the approved and amended plans. (3) Further details in relation to site preparation, aftercare and replacement of dead plants prior to any works of construction of the new extension. (4) Landscaping / engineering works carried out and completed prior to the use of extended building. (5) Within 14 days of the completion of the lairage field authorised by SL/2012/0618 an amended landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority detailing the proposed landscaping to the east of the auction mart buildings. Once approved the landscaping scheme shall be implemented as approved within the next available planting season.

SCHEDULE SL/2015/0905 (f)

KIRKBY LONSDALE: Kirkby Lonsdale Institute, Bective Road, Kirkby Lonsdale CARNFORTH LA6 2BG

PROPOSAL: Installation of illuminated lettering on gable Website Link to Application Lunesdale Hall Management E361023 N478667 26/11/2015 Committee, K L Institute

SUMMARY The site relates to the Kirkby Lonsdale Institute a prominent and distinctive building positioned towards the centre of Kirkby Lonsdale town centre and the associated Conservation Area. The proposal is for advertisement consent and is for the installation of signage in the form of lettering on the lower of the two main gables facing towards New Road, with associated illumination. The main issues relate to the impact of the proposed signage on the visual amenity of the building and streetscape, as well as on the special historic interest of the Kirkby Lonsdale Conservation Area. The recommendation is to REFUSE this application.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL Site Description The Kirkby Lonsdale Institute is not a listed building, but is a prominent and distinctive building positioned towards the centre of Kirkby Lonsdale town centre and the associated Conservation Area. The building includes a number of architectural styles of vernacular and non-vernacular designs. The external materials include limestone, sandstone, timber, Westmorland green slate and associated detailing to the windows and roofs.

Proposal The proposal is for the installation of 0.28m high golden coloured lettering spelling ‘THE LUNESDALE HALL’ at a total width of 3.66m on the lower of the two main gables facing New Road, with associated two 10W uplighters either side of the buttress immediately below. The existing location for the signage has no fixtures. CONSULTATIONS Kirkby Lonsdale Town Council: • No comments to make as the town council are trustees of the building in question. SLDC Conservation Officer: • Objection. • This is one of the most important buildings in the Conservation Area and would definitely qualify for the Council’s emerging List of Buildings of Local Architectural Interest and Historic Importance which is currently being complied. • The building is an important record of a number of architectural styles and is notable for having no modern interventions to any of its principle walls, including the gable in question. • As a building that has been defined as making a positive contribution to the designated area, any decisions affecting its development must thus be considered against National Planning Policies Framework, Policies 132, 137 and 138; the statutory duties identified in the 1990 Planning (LBCA) Act; as well as Policy CS8.6 in the Local Development Plan’s Core Strategy. • The proposed lighting and resulting illumination would create an unbalanced lighting scheme that would detract from the overall architectural appearance of the building after dark. In addition, the buttress would have the potential to create unfortunate cross shadowing. • The proposed lettering would be a bold and conspicuous sign set in a prominent location which would harm the architectural importance of that elevation of the building. • I would recommend that thought be given to removing the proposed sign from the face of the building, and maybe locating it either as a free standing sign or as a low, ground mounted feature nearer to the boundary wall that edges the pavement. We should also question whether any sign needs to be illuminated given the adequate levels of street lighting available in this part of the settlement.

Kirkby Lonsdale and District Civic Society: • Objection. • Full support of the SLDC Conservation Officer’s report as per SL/2015/0347. • Strong objection to the size of the lettering and to illumination. Such signs have never been acceptable within the Conservation Area. • The suggested needs to advertise the building and to provide directions from the car park opposite are unfounded; the building is a prominent site with good street lighting. • A self-supporting sign nearer to the road would be much more visible.

POLICY ISSUES South Lakeland Core Strategy: Policy CS1.1, Sustainable Development Principles: there is a need to grow the local economy in a sustainable way. Policy CS8.6, Historic Environment: the requirement to safeguard or enhance historic assets including any attributes that contribute to a sense of local distinctiveness. Policy CS8.10, Design: the siting, design, scale and materials of all development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.

Saved Policies of the South Lakeland Local Plan: Saved Policy C16 Control of Development Affecting Conservation Areas: priority will be given to the preservation and enhancement of the character and appearance of the special architectural and historic interest of the area. Saved Policy S2, Design Code: planning permission will not be given for development which fails to take proper account of the character, context, detail and decoration of the local area.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): Paragraph 17, Core Principles: the Local Planning Authority should always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Paragraph 23, Vitality of Town Centres: town centres should be recognised as the heart of their communities and the Local Planning Authority should pursue policies to support their viability and vitality. Paragraph 56, Requiring Good Design: good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Paragraph 132, Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment: as heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Paragraph 133, Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment: where proposed development will lead to substantial harm to the significance of a heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent.

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).

HISTORIC CONTEXT Use of site The site is currently used as commercially available premises for hire for meetings and activities. Previous Planning Applications SL/2015/0347 - withdrawn application for similar scheme.

ASSESSMENT The Kirkby Lonsdale Institute is a prominent building within Kirkby Lonsdale town centre and Conservation Area which by virtue of its good quality architecture and the lack of modern interventions on any principle elevation has a significant positive impact on the special historic interest and visual character of the local area. The proposed development would constitute a non-traditional, conspicuous addition to the building which by virtue of the significantly harmful impact that the position, scale and illumination would have on the traditional character of the building. The signage would not coherently fit with the existing form and features of the building. Whilst a wide variety of signage and illumination can be found within Kirkby Lonsdale, these are generally in association with pubs, restaurants, hotels, shops and other business and retail premises, typically within the context of the main retail areas. Where examples can be found that arguably harm the special historic interest of the area, these should not and cannot be used to justify further harm. As part of this application, information has been submitted outlining the importance of community facilities, including venues that provide space and facilities for community services and groups, as well as the need for these venues to adapt to meet the changing demands of users. In addition, the applicant puts forward the argument that the well-preserved nature of the building and therefore the significant positive impact that it has on the historic character of the area results from the ability to financially support this upkeep. The applicant’s justification for the proposal is to better advertise the building in order to improve the ongoing viability and upkeep of the building. Whilst the importance of community assets is recognised and the positive intent behind the application is welcomed, not only would the harm caused be contrary to the relevant material policy considerations, but as per the advice given by Planning Officers and Conservation Officers there are alternatives that could be considered. In particular, a freestanding sign adjacent to the boundary wall would provide the opportunity to advertise the building as well as the added benefit of space to advertise other contact details and information. However, the applicant disagreed with this advice. The argument put forward as part of the application that temporary banners would instead be used to advertise the building which would have a more harmful impact upon the character of the building is spurious; whilst it would have a more harmful impact, such advertising would most likely not be lawful without prior consent. Furthermore, such advertising is typically temporary and used to promote specific events, rather than more generally, a building.

CONCLUSION The proposal seeks to improve the viability of a community asset within Kirkby Lonsdale. However, the proposed development would result in significant harm by virtue of the proposed scale, positioning and illumination of the signage in terms of degradation of the high quality architecture, the visual character and the special historic interest of the building, and the Kirkby Lonsdale Conservation Area. Moreover there are viable alternatives for advertisements at the site which would have a significantly less harmful impact. This application is therefore contrary to South Lakeland Core Strategy Policies CS8.6 Historic Environment and CS10 Design, South Lakeland Local Plan saved Policies C16 Control of Development Affecting Conservation Areas and S2 Design Code and the aims of the National Planning Policies Framework sections 17, 56, 132 and 133. This application is therefore recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below:- Reason The proposed development would result in significant harm by virtue of the proposed scale, positioning and illumination of the signage, in terms of degradation of the high quality architectural quality, visual character and special historic interest of the building and the Kirkby Lonsdale Conservation Area. This application is therefore contrary to South Lakeland Core Strategy Policies CS8.6 Historic Environment and CS10 Design, South Lakeland Local Plan saved Policies C16 Control of Development Affecting Conservation Areas and S2 Design Code, and the aims of the National Planning Policies Framework sections 17, 56, 132 and 133.

SCHEDULE SL/2015/0242 and SL/2015/0257 (g)

LEVENS: Land to south of Wayside Cottage, Cotes, Levens and Land at Sizergh Quarry

PROPOSAL: Erection of 3 dwellings

Mr P Davidson Website Link to Application

E348650 N486850 26/11/2015

SUMMARY This report is in relation to a report on six applications in and around Levens which were approved by Planning Committee in April:- • SL/2015/0257 Land at Sizergh Quarry, to provide eight dwellings; • SL/2015/0242 Land to south of Wayside Cottage, to provide three dwellings; • SL/2015/0260 Allotments to the north of the Hare and Hounds, to provide three dwellings; • SL/2015/0241 Allotments to the south of Quarry Foot to provide four dwellings; • SL/2015/0262 Land north of St. John’s Parish Church, New Village Hall; and • SL/2015/0237 Levens Institute redevelopment to provide three new dwellings. They were submitted together by Levens Parish Council as part of a Levens Village Masterplan in part to help deliver a new village hall, and to provide 21 new houses of which seven would be affordable, all on land that is Parish Council owned. The delivery of the village hall was identified as a priority by the Council as part of South Lakeland Local Plan Land Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) Policy LA2.16: Community Use Site with a site being allocated on land to the north of St John’s Church, for community uses. The recommendation for two of these reports (SL/2015/0257, SL/2015/0242) sought delegated authority to: “subject to any further consultation responses and a S106 agreement (securing the contract of the development of the new village hall); the Director (People and Places) to approve the application, subject to the following conditions.” The issue of the Section 106 agreement was discussed at Planning Committee as Levens Parish Council had asked for there to be no S106 agreement as it would limit their ability to dispose of this land and secure monies upfront to deliver the village hall. Members of Planning Committee agreed that the Section 106 was necessary to secure the village hall was delivered. Unfortunately the Parish Council require the funding from the sale of the land to enable the contract to be entered into. Alternative ways have been looked at by officers that would secure the Section 106 demonstrating the link between all the developments which would ultimately secure either the village hall or funding towards 100% affordable housing which would ordinarily be secured from open countryside locations such as these. Therefore delegated authority is now sought from Members, that, approval be granted subject to a Section 106 agreement securing a payment in lieu of affordable housing to South Lakeland District Council from Levens Parish Council if the village hall is not delivered subject to the conditions outlined below. “The actual wording of the Section 106 agreement would be along the lines of: If within 5 years of Commencement of Development of the earliest of (a) the First Development (land at Sizergh Fell Quarry) ; or (b) the Second Development (land to the south of Wayside Cottage); or (c) the Third Development (the existing Village Institute) ; the Fourth Development (the new village hall ) has not been substantially completed and made available for use and occupation by the community of Levens then the Owner shall pay to the Council the Affordable Housing Contribution”. This would do two things, it would enable the land on the first and second developments, or the two sites outside the settlement boundaries, to be sold by the Parish Council and then the money realised from the sale would enable the development to progress to the development of the new village hall. Additionally it would also ensure that if for any reason after the sale of the land the new village hall is not progressed then money can be secured for the delivery of affordable housing in the District.

SL/2015/0257 Land at Sizergh Quarry, to provide eight dwellings

RECOMMENDATION: subject to a S106 agreement (securing a payment in lieu of affordable housing to South Lakeland District Council from Levens Parish Council if the new village hall is not delivered within five years); the Director (People and Places) to approve the application, subject to the following conditions:- Condition (1) Details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development on site.

Condition (2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority not later than three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Condition (3) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Condition (4) No development shall take place until a scheme of surface water and sewage disposal works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be occupied until the surface water and sewage disposal works have been completed in accordance with the approved scheme. The approved works shall be retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate provision is made for the management of surface water and sewerage disposal in accordance with saved Policy S26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (5) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and those works shall be carried out as approved. The details shall include:- • proposed finished levels or contours; • means of enclosure; • car parking layouts; • other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; • hard surfacing materials; • minor artefacts and structures (eg refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting, etc); • communications cables, pipelines etc indicating lines, manholes, supports); and • retained landscape features such as trees together with details of how they will be protected during construction. Soft landscape works shall include planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers / densities; and an implementation programme. Any trees / shrubs which are removed, die, become severely damaged or diseased within five years of their planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees / shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To safeguard and enhance the character of the area and secure high quality landscaping in accordance with saved Policy S3 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (6) No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme to deal with potential site contamination has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include a site investigation, conceptual model and risk assessment (in accordance with Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination - CLR11) to identify the extent of any contamination and the measures to be taken to avoid the risk to the public / buildings / environment when the site is developed. Development shall not commence until the measures approved in the scheme have been implemented and a Validation report and statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that risks from soil contamination to the future occupants of the development and neighbouring occupiers are minimized, together with those to controlled waters and ecological systems and to ensure that site workers and adjacent residents are not exposed to the unacceptable risk from contamination during construction.

Condition (7) Hours of work on site shall be restricted to between 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday and 10:00 to 13:00 Saturday, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Condition (8) Prior to works commencing on site, the applicant or any successor in title shall agree in writing with the Local Planning Authority a scheme for controlling dust during the mobilisation, rock removal and construction phases which may affect nearby properties. Once agreed the works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers during construction works in accordance with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Condition (9) Prior to works commencing on site, the applicant or any successor in title shall agree in writing with the Local Planning Authority a scheme for controlling noise and vibration during the mobilisation, rock removal and construction phases which may affect nearby properties. The scheme shall include an assessment of predicted noise and vibration levels experienced at the nearest noise sensitive properties. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers during construction works in accordance with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

SL/2015/0242 Land to south of Wayside Cottage, to provide three dwellings

RECOMMENDATION: subject to a S106 agreement (securing a payment in lieu of affordable housing to South Lakeland District Council from Levens Parish Council if the new village hall is not delivered within five years); the Director (People and Places) to approve the application, subject to the following conditions:- Condition (1) Details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development on site.

Condition (2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority not later than three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Condition (3) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Condition (4) No development shall take place until a scheme of surface water and sewage disposal works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be occupied until the surface water and sewage disposal works have been completed in accordance with the approved scheme. The approved works shall be retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate provision is made for the management of surface water and sewerage disposal in accordance with saved Policy S26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (5) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and those works shall be carried out as approved. The details shall include:- • proposed finished levels or contours; • means of enclosure; • car parking layouts; • other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; • hard surfacing materials; • minor artefacts and structures (eg refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting, etc); • communications cables, pipelines etc indicating lines, manholes, supports); and • retained landscape features such as trees together with details of how they will be protected during construction. Soft landscape works shall include planting plans including details of any compensatory on or off site planting; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers / densities; and an implementation programme. Any trees / shrubs which are removed, die, become severely damaged or diseased within five years of their planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees / shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To safeguard and enhance the character of the area and secure high quality landscaping in accordance with saved Policy S3 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (6) Hours of work on site shall be restricted to between 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday and 10:00 to 13:00 Saturday, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Condition (7) Prior to works commencing on site, the applicant or any successor in title shall agree in writing with the Local Planning Authority a scheme for controlling dust during the mobilisation, rock removal and construction phases which may affect nearby properties. Once agreed the works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers during construction works in accordance with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Condition (8) Prior to works commencing on site, the applicant or any successor in title shall agree in writing with the Local Planning Authority a scheme for controlling noise and vibration during the mobilisation, rock removal and construction phases which may affect nearby properties. The scheme shall include and assessment of predicted noise and vibration levels experienced at the nearest noise sensitive properties. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers during construction works in accordance with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Condition (9) The development shall not proceed except in accordance with the mitigation strategy described in the Ecological Appraisal 2303 prepared by Envirotech dated 09/02/2015 and deposited with the local planning authority on 13 March 2015. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to prevent harm to protected species in accordance with Policy CS8.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.

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

South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 NOVEMBER 2015 A REPORT ON MONTHLY ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY BETWEEN 1 SEPTEMBER - 30 SEPTEMBER 2015

PORTFOLIO: Not applicable

REPORT FROM: David Sykes - Director (People and Places) REPORT AUTHOR: Mark Balderson – Planning Enforcement Officer

WARDS: All

KEY DECISION NO: Not applicable

1.0 EXPECTED OUTCOME 1.1 To inform Members about planning enforcement activity between 1 September to the 30 September 2015. This report aims to provide a brief and informative insight into current enforcement cases, action taken, on-going investigations and cases closed.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION 2.1 It is recommended that Members: (1) note the contents of appendix 1 and endorse the actions of officers in closing cases as set out in appendix 2; and

(2) in respect of case reference 15.019:-

(a) authorise the taking of all necessary enforcement action in respect of operational development comprising the material alterations to the roof and demolition of the canopy to the courtyard; (b) authorise the issue of a listed building Enforcement Notice to include the following matters:- (i) Removal of the new Brazilian Slate from the relevant part of the roof, and its replacement with Burlington Blue / grey (or suitably worded alternative) to be laid in random widths and diminishing course lengths.

(ii) Removal of the suspended ceiling, reinstate and making good any damage to underlying architraves.

(iii) Removal of the inserted boxing to doorways and re- insertion of original doors to their original doorways.

(iv) Replacement of glazing bars and insertion of glass to canopy.

(v) Removal of internal partition; and

(c) note that the Solicitor to the Council has power to commence criminal proceedings in respect of the breaches of Listed Building Control as referred to in this report.

3.0 BACKGROUND AND PROPOSALS 3.1 Enforcement Activity: September 2015

Cases on hand at 1 Sep 2015 150 New cases 16 Total cases closed 9 Cases on hand at 30 Sep 2015 157

3.2 Enforcement Cases for which Committee consideration is sought: 3.2.1 15.019 Underley Hall, Kirkby Lonsdale.

Site and Location

This planning enforcement action relates to a building currently used as part of a school known as Underley Hall School. This part of the building has until recently been empty - since May 2012. Unlawful works have been undertaken earlier this year, and to the end of last year, 2014, to bring the building back into use. Underley Hall is a Grade II* Listed Building. The listing describes the building as:-

“ 1825-8 and 1872. By George Webster, altered and enlarged by Paley and Austin. Jacobean. Two storeys with towers. Ashlar, with slate roofs and lead cupolas. Older part was planned as a quadrangle with symmetrically composed facades to south and east. The south (former entrance) facade is of seven bays with canted bays to first and last through both storeys. Plinth, two strings and openwork parapet closed by square turrets at either end with ogee cupolas. Mullioned and transomed windows of two lights except to the canted bays which have five. Two storey porch of coupled columns, Doric below and Ionic above. "1825" in cartouche over door. The east facade is of five bays. End bays, turrets and decorative features as above. Across the central bays is a one-storey Roman Doric tetrastyle porch with elaborate strap- work cresting. On the west side is the service wing with gabled dormers and no parapet, and the present entrance under a three storey tower probably of the later build. The newer part of the house lies to the north and comprises additional rooms and extensive stable and offices. The detail of the original block is continued except for a four-storey tower with clasping, turrets and an openwork parapet of Gothic arches. At its base is a square bay window of six lights on ground and first floors framed by Doric and Ionic pilasters respectively. The stable court has decorated cast iron and glass canopy. The chapel was added in 1965 to the east by Building Design Partnership, connected by a corridor to second build. The chapel is not of special interest.

Interior. Mostly by Paley and Austin. In vestibule plaque with "A.C.N. 1825". Dining room has ceiling of moulded ribs in Tudor style and panelling with Ionic pilasters. Fireplace in keeping. Similar panelling to former entrance hall, and drawing room which also has fireplace of white marble by Webster with coupled Ionic pilasters. The library in the later wing is Palladian with applied Ionic pilasters. The staircase, by Webster, is entirely cased in panelling of cruciform design and has a ceiling pattern of ribs and pendants enclosing Tudor motifs. Wide dogleg stair in two flights. Terrace to south of house with retaining walls in keeping, and similar gatepiers a little to the west on drive to Kearstwick. On terrace to east of house (floor of former conservatory) large square stone vessel with Italian Romanesque decoration resting on four lions, probably C19. Built for Alexander Nowell MP, and extended for the Earl of Bective. One of the first great houses of the Jacobean revival, recognised as such by Henry Shaw. (Details of Elizabethan Architecture, 1839) and the first house of this size to be built in Westmorland since Levens. The work of both periods was executed to a high standard, with surprising scholarship in Webster's case. The house formed the subject of the only drawings he ever sent to the Royal Academy exhibition and it is one of his major surviving works.”

Example of lowering of ceilings and poorly conceived new internal partition to right hand side of photograph

Screenshot of detailing

Example from another part of the building showing original internal door with character panelled door casing.

White painted surround with box infill

Box infill for new fire doors

Glass and glazing bars removed from canopy

Screenshot of canopy prior to removal.

Previous slate detail

New slate detail to roof

Previous slate detail

Unacceptable new slate detail

Breach

Without planning permission and Listed Building Consent within 4 years the carrying out of operational development and causing harm or unpermitted works to a Listed Building.

The significant building works consist of:-

 Re-roofing part of the building, replacing random diminished coursing local blue/grey roof slates with regular cut and size, in non-diminishing courses of green slates not of a type to match existing slate;

 Inserting modern lay in grid, suspended ceilings internally;

 Removal of original solid Oak doors;

 Insertion of box within existing internal door frames; and

 Removal of glass from canopy roof to courtyard.

Background

The Council was contacted in February 2015 querying some works to Underley Hall and asking if any of the works had consent. The Enforcement Officer and Conservation Officer visited the site to assess the harm caused to the building, which affects its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest. Formal interviews under caution were subsequently conducted at South Lakeland House with the roofing contractor, the building contractor, the Estates and Facilities Manager, and a Director of the company that own the building.

It was established that this development was carried out without the owner first obtaining planning permission or Listed Building Consent. Some of the fabric has been removed from site including the roof slates, the canopy roof covering including glazing bars, and some of the doors. There is doubt about possible changes that may be concealed by the suspended ceiling.

Harm and Expediency

As well as being in breach of planning control, the unauthorised development represents an offence under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 under Sections 7 and 9. The Council have the discretion to commence legal proceedings for the offence.

The new slates that have been used in the re-roofing are of a different colour, grain size and surface texture and reflectivity to the original material, and are laid in regular vertical courses and regular horizontal widths. They are a green Brazilian slate as opposed to the original slate (extremely likely to have been sourced from Burlington quarry at Kirkby in Furness), a local blue / grey coloured slate; which was laid in random widths and graduated courses, with each course being deeper in plan as they descend the roof. The visual character of this substantial part of the roof has changed and the building’s special architectural and historic interest has been considerably harmed by these unauthorised works.

False ceilings have been inserted into a suite of rooms and corridors, and a new partition wall has been inserted in one room. The false ceilings are made from a lightweight support framework that is suspended approximately one metre below the original plaster and lath ceilings. The partition wall has resulted in an ill-conceived sub-division. These materials have altered the spatial and visual character of the rooms and corridors - their original high ceilings and consequential room volumes which were an expression of wealth; whilst the original plasterwork ceilings and cornices that are now concealed reflected the original architectural grandeur that the owners wanted to show off. These changes have adversely affected the architectural quality of the spaces to the detriment of the special interest of this house.

The ornate panel doors are part of a remodelling of the interior in 1875. The doors are constructed from red hardwood but the exact design for each door varied according to the precise location within the house. The removal of these doors and their replacement with fire resistant doors set into reduced architraves has adversely affected the special architectural character of the building.

The loss of glazing to the canopy has affected the building’s special character. The proposed replacement with polycarbonate panels is ill-concieved clearly being dictated by cost rather than by any other consideration.

Cumulatively, it is considered that very substantial harm has been made to the building. An argument has been put forward that the changes are required for the proposed future viable use of the building as an environment for dealing with a wide range of social, mental and physical impairments. However the argument that the ill thought-out changes, including roof replacement without a planning application, were needed for urgent works, are with little merit given that the owners originally looked to do the work 2 years ago and did not proceed at that time.

Had the owner built in a long lead-in time and suitable discussion with the Local Planning Authority, solutions could have been sought which seek to limit the harm to the Listed Building. With the removal of the historic fabric, in some instances the opportunity for the Local Planning Auhthority to suggest a less harmful approach has been lost. From the interview with the Estates and Facilities Manager it is clear that the owners were not without experience and knowledge of the law and requirements, and the responsibility afforded to such a building.

Policy Considerations

Core Strategy Policy CS1.1 Sustainable Development principles Paragraph 4 states that there is a need to safeguard the essential character and appearance of those buildings, and sites a positive contribution to the special architectural or historic interest of the area. Policy CS5 The East states that the Council and its partners seek to safeguard and enhance buildings, sites of heritage and cultural importance. Policy CS8.6 Historic Environment states that the Council supports the adaptive reuse of a redundant or functionally obsolete listed building or important buildings, without harming their essential character. The NPPF at section 13, para 132, Conserving and enhancing the Historic environment: stresses the need for careful consideration when dealing with an application for works to a listed building. Local Authorities should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable and limited resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to its significance as a designated asset. Extensive works resulting in substantial harm to heritage assets of the highest significance, namely Grade II* listed buildings, should be entirely exceptional. In this instance the works were not brought to the Local Planning Authority’s attention, and the opportunity to assess the impact or weigh the balance between the significance of the heritage asset against a desirable use, was lost. The building is Grade II* Listed (the second highest category, containing less than 5% of all listed buildings), and is described as “one of the first great houses of the Jacobean revival, recognised as such by Henry Shaw” and one of the finest surviving examples of work by George Webster, an Architect based in this area; makes this a very important building both locally and nationally. The continued use of the building for educational purposes is a worthy reuse, however it is considered that this adaptive reuse should not be done at the cost of harm to the special character of the building. Other works included on the works specification would further augment that harm. The works undertaken have resulted in substantial harm which is contrary to the statutory duty to preserve a building’s setting and features of special architectural or historic interest.

Proposal Issue an Enforcement Notice to include the following matters:

(i) Removal of the Brazilian Slate from the relevant part of the roof and its replacement with Burlington blue / grey (or suitably worded alternative) to be laid in random widths and diminishing course lengths; and

(ii) Replacement of glazing bars and insertion of glass to canopy.

Issue a Listed Building Enforcement Notice to include the following matters:

(i) Removal of the Brazilian Slate from the relevant part of the roof and its replacement with Burlington blue / grey (or suitably worded alternative) to be laid in random widths and diminishing course lengths;

(ii) Removal of the suspended ceilings, reinstate and make good any damage to underlying architraves;

(iii) Removal of the recent modern plain board boxing inserted to doorways and re-insertion of original doors to their original doorways;

(iv) Replacement of glazing bars and insertion of glass to canopy; and

(v) Removal of internal partition.

3.2.2 The Solicitor to the Council has the power to commence criminal proceedings in respect of the breaches of Listed Building Control as referred to in this report. This report is without prejudice to the commencing of legal proceedings.

3.3 An update on enforcement cases involving enforcement action 3.3.1 An update on those cases involving formal enforcement action is attached as Appendix 1. 3.4 Summary of enforcement cases which have been investigated and closed under delegated powers 3.4.1 Officers consider it important that Members are aware of the enforcement cases that have been investigated by officers, and that Members note / endorse that these cases have been closed and no further action taken. These cases are set out in appendix 2.

4.0 CONSULTATION 4.1 Not applicable.

5.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 5.1 Not applicable.

6.0 LINKS TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES 6.1 This report links to the aim of “Enhancing the environment in which we live, and supports the national performance indicators”. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 207 states “planning enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system”. 6.2 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.

7.0 IMPLICATIONS 7.1 Financial and Resources 7.1.1 Cost implications only arise if the matter ultimately requires court or direct action in default. 7.2 Human Resources 7.2.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 7.3 Legal 7.3.1 Section 7 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (referred to as the Listing Building Act 1990”) provides that: “Subject to the following provisions of this Act, no person shall execute or cause to be executed any works for the demolition of a listed building or for its alteration or extension in any manner which would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest, unless the works are authorised [under section 8].” 7.3.2 Section 8 of the Listed Building Act makes provision for the grant of listed building consent for works for the alteration or extension of a listed building. No such consent has been granted in this case. 7.3.3 Section 9(3) of the Listed Building Act sets out a defence as follows: “In proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be a defence to prove the following matters:- (a) that works to the building were urgently necessary in the interests of safety or health or for the preservation of the building; (b) that it was not practicable to secure safety or health or, as the case may be, the preservation of the building by works of repair or works for affording temporary support or shelter; (c) that the works carried out were limited to the minimum measures immediately necessary; and (d) that notice in writing justifying in detail the carrying out of the works was given to the local planning authority as soon as reasonably practicable.” 7.3.4 Whilst it would ultimately be up to a court to determine, it is not considered that those persons who have carried out or authorised the work in this case, could avail themselves of the above defence. 7.3.5 It should be noted that under section 9(4) of the Listed Building Act the offence under this section is punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or an unlimited fine, or both. 7.3.6 It should be noted that the above information is presented to the Committee for information. The decision in relation to any prosecution is a matter for the Solicitor to the Council in accordance with delegated authority given to him under the Council’s scheme of Delegation. 7.3.7 Section 38 of the Listed Buildings Act: (1) Where it appears to the local planning authority:- (a) that any works have been, or are being executed to a listed building in their area; and (b) that the works are such as to involve a contravention of section 9(1) or (2). they may, if they consider it expedient to do so having regard to the effect of - the works on the character of the building as one of special architectural or historic interest, issue a notice under this section (in this Act referred to as a "listed building enforcement notice”.) (2) “A listed building enforcement notice shall specify the alleged contravention and require such steps as may be specified in the notice to be taken:- (a) for restoring the building to its former state; or (b) if the authority consider that such restoration would not be reasonably practicable or would be undesirable, for executing such further works specified in the notice as they consider necessary to alleviate the effect of the works which were carried out without listed building consent; or (c) for bringing the building to the state in which it would have been if the terms and conditions of any listed building consent which has been granted for the works had been complied with.”

7.3.8 Section 66 of the Listed Buildings Act states that in considering granting planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

7.4 Social, Economic and Environmental 7.4.1 This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects. 7.5 Equality and Diversity 7.5.1 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. 7.6 Risk 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 control. District’s historic towns and rural landscape.

CONTACT OFFICERS Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer, Amanda Atkinson, Planning Enforcement Assistant, Tel: 01539 793353 email: [email protected]

APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. 1 A report on enforcement cases where authorisation to take enforcement action has been sought. 2 A report to provide a summary of the cases which have been resolved under delegated authority in this committee month.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Name of Background Where it is available document Various planning files Planning Department website: http://applications.southlakeland.gov.uk/planningap plications/welcome.asp

TRACKING INFORMATION Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the SMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee n/a n/a 9 Nov 2015 n/a n/a Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer n/a 26 Nov 2015 n/a n/a n/a Human Leader Ward Development Resource Councillor(s) Management Services Group Manager Manager n/a n/a n/a 11 Nov 2015

APPENDIX 1 The purpose of this appendix is to provide a brief summary of the on-going action of cases with committee authorisation and delegated authority. REF No. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH / CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS / NEXT STEP 11/168 PENNINGTON Cowran Farm Laying a substantial amount of Enforcement officer has conducted hardcore in agricultural field to a recent site visit and confirms the create hard-standing. enforcement notice has not been complied with. File to commence legal proceedings will be forwarded to legal services. 12/139 PENNINGTON Whinfield Works, The Old None compliance with a Planning Legal services successfully Dairy. Contravention Notice. prosecuted Mr Desmond John English for not complying with the requirement to return the completed Planning Contravention Notice (PCN). He was fined £600 plus £60 victim surcharge, and £765 costs. Further PCNs have been issued. 12/234 OLD HUTTON Land at Cocklea Siting of a static caravan for The inquiry appeal has concluded - residential use, erection of awaiting inspector’s decision. unauthorised buildings and ménage. 15019 KIRKBY LONSDALE Underley Hall Unauthorised works to Listed PACE interviews have been Building. conducted with a view to commence legal proceedings. Investigations and evidence gathering continues. See report on the Agenda.

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

13/139 KIRKBY LONSDALE 34 Main Street Unauthorised works to Listed Officer waiting the return of a Building. Section 16 Notice confirming relevant parties with an interest in the building. Following this, legal services will be instructed to serve a Listed Building Enforcement Notice. 13/257 KENDAL 9 Allhallows Lane Breach of condition relating to Officers have gathered sufficient opening times. evidence to proceed with legal action in the magistrates’ court. Officer preparing court file. 14/198 MILNTHORPE Land north of Highfield Erection of large poly tunnel. No appeal was made to the Enforcement Notice. The poly tunnel remains on site. Officers are in the process of revoking the assurance not to prosecute and will consider legal proceedings. 14/033 KENDAL 26 Derwent Drive Erection of 1.8m fence adjacent to Planning application refused to the highway. retain fence and dismissed on appeal. Enforcement Notice served, awaiting full compliance. 14/060 PENNINGTON Land at Low Greaves, Erection of buildings. Running Enforcement Notice served on the LA12 7SF agricultural business and repair and 22 June 2015 effective on 3 storage of vehicles. August 2015. No Appeal. Officer to carry out site visit to confirm compliance. REF No. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH / CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS / NEXT STEP 14/063 KENDAL 12 Brubeck Close Breach of condition. Failure to carry Enforcement Notice served on the out boundary treatment. 9 October 2015, and takes effect on the 20 November 2015 with a 6 week compliance period. 14/194 LUPTON Low Row Operational development, laying of Following refusal for planning hardcore to create a 120 metre permission to retain the road the road. owners appealed and the appeal was dismissed. Enforcement Notice served, takes effect on the 25 November with 1 to 2 calendar month compliance. 14/262 Preston Patrick 1 Gatebeck Cottages, Erection of 1.8 metre fence adjacent Enforcement team consider it Gatebeck. LA8 0HR the highway. expedient to take enforcement action to remove the fence. Enforcement Notice served which takes effect on the 7 December with 6 week compliance. APPENDIX 2 A report to provide a summary of the cases which have been resolved under delegated authority in this committee month.

Closed Cases Between 01/07/2015 & 31/08/2015 09

Ref No Parish Site Address Allegation of Breach Reason for Closure 13008 LOWER Rogan & Co, (Bluebell House Internal alteration not as per plan No breach ALLITHWAITE Restaurant) Devonshire Square, SL/2012/0208 LBC and 0209 Cartmel, Grange over Sands, LA11 6QD 13287 BEETHAM Overthwaite Farm, Holme, Carnforth, Alterations and extension to New case 15172. alterations LA6 1RL existing Farmhouse and extensions approved see 15172 for further info. 14203 STAINTON Land At Barrows Green, Barrows Breach of condition 3 on Application submitted, issues Green, Kendal, LA8 0AA SL/2011/0395, Breach of condition resolved SL/2015/0551 7 on SL/2003/2341 14247 ULVERSTON 15 Neville Street, Ulverston, LA12 Raised level of ground to rear. Remedial works complete as 0BL Possible breach of planning per MB SV permission SL/2013/0463 15069 BEETHAM Arnold Greenwood Estate Agents, Unauthorised advertisement - for Closed removed Land adjacent entrance to Leighton sale board Drive, Leighton Beck Road, Slackhead 15096 KENDAL Springfield?, Gilthwaiterigg Lane, Running of a business from a Closed no breach Kendal, LA9 6NT dwelling house - Dog sitting / walking. 15129 LOWER Green Cote, Cark In Cartmel, Creation of a new access onto the Close PD ALLITHWAITE Grange over Sands, LA11 7NJ highway Ref No Parish Site Address Allegation of Breach Reason for Closure

15132 KENDAL Land At Burland Grove, Kendal, LA9 Breach of Condition 4 Close no further breach 7LW SL/2014/1108 - working hours 15159 CASTERTON Laitha Lane, Casterton Erection of directional and name PD no breach street signs in / around Casterton

South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 November 2015 APPEALS UPDATE

PORTFOLIO: Not applicable

REPORT FROM: David Sykes - Director People and Places REPORT AUTHOR: Mark Shipman – Development Management Group Manager

WARDS: All not wholly within a National Park

KEY DECISION NO: Not applicable

1.0 EXPECTED OUTCOME 1.1 The report updates Members on performance measures and recent appeals. It is anticipated that targets and objectives will continue to be achieved at the year end.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION 2.1 It is recommended that Members note the report and the contents of the Appendix.

3.0 BACKGROUND AND PROPOSALS 3.1 Recent appeals are shown as set out in Appendix 1. 3.2 Whilst the national performance Best Value Performance Indicator for Planning Appeals has been deleted, on 25 April 2013 the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 became law and sets out the legal mechanism to measure the performance of a Council to determine whether they should be placed in special measures. One of the indicators is whether more than 20% of appeals for major applications were being lost over a two year period. Performance is now measured against this target and we continue to measure against an overall target of 33% allowed appeals to test policy efficiency.

4.0 CONSULTATION 4.1 Not applicable.

5.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 5.1 Not applicable.

6.0 LINKS TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES 6.1 This report links to the aim of “Enhance and protect the district’s high quality environment.” 6.2 Indicator BVPI 204 set 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 2015, is 66% success in defending appeals against refusal (that is 33% allowed and matches the 33% maximum local target). 6.3 The Government measures appeal performance on major applications over a two year period and set the target at 20%. The calculation measures the ratio of major appeals allowed against the number of Major application decisions over the past two years on a rolling basis.

Major Appeals for Major Total Appeals Apps on Major Ratio Decision Majors allowed Hand Refusals 96 13 109 6 1 1%

The Quality of Decision Making performance is 0.91% but this is rounded in the Government figures to 1% and is well below the 20% threshold to trigger the Council being placed in Special Measures applying this criterion.

7.0 IMPLICATIONS 7.1 Financial and Resources 7.1.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any cost implications. 7.2 Human Resources 7.2.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 7.3 Legal 7.3.1 Not applicable. 7.4 Social, Economic and Environmental 7.4.1 This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects. 7.5 Equality and Diversity 7.5.1 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.

7.6 Risk Risk Consequence Controls required Failure to achieve the Ultimately the failure to Target of maximum number of National Performance achieve Government appeals “allowed” - 33% and target of less than 20% targets in relation to Majors at 20%. Ensure that of Major application Major appeals could sufficient resources maintained appeals being allowed result in the Council in Planning so that Major over a 2 year period. being put into Special applications in particular are The likelihood is that Measures and the dealt with within targets thus these targets might powers to determine avoiding non-determination become a performance Major applications appeals. Ensure that indicator in relation to all being lost to Central applications are determined in planning application Government / Planning accordance with policy and that appeals. Inspectorate. there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

CONTACT OFFICERS Mark Shipman, Development Management Group Manager – Tel: 01539 793332.

APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. 1 Appeals table from 1 April 2015, updated to include new appeals and appeal decisions received up until 4 November 2015.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Name of Background Where it is available document Various planning files Planning Department / website:

TRACKING INFORMATION Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the SMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee 5 Nov 2015 n/a 5 Nov 2015 n/a n/a Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer (Corporate Director) n/a 26 Nov 2015 n/a n/a n/a Human Leader Ward Development Resource Councillor(s) Management Services Group Manager Manager n/a n/a n/a 5 Nov 2015 APPENDIX 1

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate

South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

ALDINGHAM: Erection of single wind turbine Refused 2/6/14 APP/M0933/A/14/2221985 DISMISSED Gleaston Park Farm 79.6m high to blade tip, two 22/7/14 1 October 2015 Gleaston associated metering units, access track SL/2014/0302 (Sec of State)

OLD HUTTON: Change of use of agricultural land ENFORCEMENT APP/M0933/C/14/2226309; Awaited NOTICE Cocklea 2226310; 2226311; 2226341 3/10/14 (Enforcement) SL/2014/0979

OLD HUTTON: Change of use of agricultural land Non- APP/M0933/A/14/2226312 Awaited Cocklea determination 20/10/14 (OPA) SL/2014/0252

GRANGE over Erection of bungalow (revised Refused 30/10/14 APP/M0933/W/14/3001390 ALLOWED SANDS: scheme SL/2012/0210) 14/1/15 6 Aug 2015 Garden of 49 Priory SL/2014/0379 Lane

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate

South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

MILNTHORPE: Change of use, extension and Refused 4/11/14 APP/M0933/W/15/3003034 Awaited Beetham Hall alteration to create a crematorium, (Committee) 5/3/15 (Written Reps) Beetham (associated landscaping, car parking, demolitions, new workshop PO Recommend: 18/5/15 (Procedure changed to / garage and associated changes of Grant Hearing) land use) Conditionally SL/2014/0701

KIRKBY LONSDALE: Change of use to brewery and Refused 30/10/14 APP/M0933/W/15/3004427 ALLOWED visitor centre with associated café James Thompson (Committee) 9/3/15 22 July 2015 and bar Auctioneers PO Recommend: SL/2014/0254 New Road Grant Conditionally

MILNTHORPE: Removal or Variation of Condition 4 Grant - conditions APP/M0933/W/15/3005404 DISMISSED 17 Park Road (SL/2011/0507) and Condition 5 12/12/14 24/3/15 27 July 2015 (SL/2013/0888) (Committee) SL/2014/1008 PO Recommend: Grant

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

KENDAL: Retention of boundary fence Refused 29/1/15 APP/M0933/D/15/3004806 DISMISSED 26 Derwent Drive (Committee) 31/3/15 (HOUSEHOLDER) 26 May 2015 PO Recommend: SL/2014/1163 Refuse

GRANGE over Erection of bungalow ENFORCEMENT APP/M0933/C/15/3011893 Awaited SANDS: NOTICE (Enforcement) Garden at 49 Priory 27/4/15 Lane SL/2015/0439

MANSERGH: Dwelling Refused 12/2/15 APP/M0933/W/15/3009773 DISMISSED Green End 5/5/15 5 October 2015 SL/2014/1016

ALDINGHAM: Erection of one 36.6m high Refused 15/1/15 APP/M0933/W/15/3010730 Awaited Sheep Parks (maximum height to blade tip) wind 14/5/15 turbine with control box and all Coast Road SL/2014/1121 Baycliff associated works

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

ULVERSTON: Single detached garage Refused 2/3/15 APP/M0933/W/15/3029726 DISMISSED Land off County Rd, 18/6/15 24 Sept 2015 adj Kirklands SL/2014/1202

BEETHAM: Erection of dwelling (revised Refused 11/2/15 APP/M0933/W/15/3032508 Awaited Garden of Kern Knotts scheme SL/2014/0495) 26/6/15 Keasdale Road SL/2014/1192 Storth

PRESTON RICHARD: Change of use of land from Refused 19/5/15 APP/M0933/W/15/3070017 DISMISSED Land adjacent to agricultural to domestic garden 6/7/15 12 October 2015 3 High Birkrigg Park SL/2015/0321 Stainton

KIRKBY LONSDALE: Formation of driveway and entrance Refused 13/4/15 APP/M0933/D/15/3039132 Awaited Kearstwick Grove 7/7/15 (HOUSEHOLDER) Kearstwick SL/2015/0102

KENDAL: Illuminated and Non-Illuminated Part Approved APP/M0933/W/15/3130318 ALLOWED signs and Part Refused ALDI Foodstore Ltd 18/8/15 (ADVERT) 13 October 2015 20/5/15 Queen Katherines Ave SL/2015/0365 Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

GRANGE over Siting of 6 holiday chalets on stone Refused 28/1/15 APP/M0933/W/15/302572 Awaited SANDS: hard standing, laying of slate drive 21/8/15 and parking, plus installation of Grange over Sands SL/2014/0516 Golf Club wastewater treatment plant and Meathop Road outfall pipe ALLITHWAITE: 18 dwellings, including 6 affordable, Refused 4/3/15 APP/M0933/W/15/3130714 Awaited Jack Hill alterations to road junction and (Committee) 2/9/15 creation of pedestrian crossing PO Recommend: SL/2014/0800 Grant

OLD HUTTON: Material Change of Use ENFORCEMENT APP/M0933/C/15/3038231 Awaited NOTICE Cocklea 9/4/15 (Enforcement) SL/2015/0827

KENDAL: Two storey rear and side extension Refused 12/8/15 APP/M0933/D/15/3134366 Awaited 13 Castle Riggs 11/9/15 (HOUSEHOLDER) SL/2015/0589

KENDAL: Replacement dormer window Refused 30/7/15 APP/M0933/D/15/3133282 Awaited 1 Sunnyside 22/9/15 (HOUSEHOLDER) SL/2015/0549

MILNTHORPE: General purpose agricultural Refused 16/6/15 APP/M0933/W/15/3133742 Awaited Beggarside Hill, building to store hay, machinery and 20/10/15 provide sheep housing. Haverflatts Lane SL/2015/0419 KENDAL: Erection of garage with store above Refused 30/9/15 APP/M0933/D/15/3136590 Awaited Land off Willow Drive 27/10/15 (HOUSEHOLDER) SL/2015/0727 KENDAL: Erection of two new dwellings Refused 9/3/15 APP/M0933/W/15/3133758 Awaited Land at Carus Green 27/10/15 Golf Club SL/2014/1081