Allerdale Borough Council

2/2009/0705

Reference No: 2/2009/0705 Received: 14 September 2009 Proposed Outline application for removal of bridge abutment, regrading Development: former railway embankment and use of land for the erection of two dwellings. Drawing Numbers: SITE/LR1 - Site Plan THOMP/0001/0027 - Existing/Proposed Levels and Sections THOMP/0001/0028 - Proposed Site Layout, Levels and Sections Location: Former Railway Station Baggrow Wigton Applicant: Ian & Kathryn Thompson

Constraints: Allerdale Flood Zone 1 British Coal Area

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations, June 2006 (Saved) HS4 HS15 HS8 HS9

North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 RDF2 L5 DP1 DP5

Representations: Parish Council – Recommend approval of the proposal subject to the concerns of local residents being addressed, particularly flooding and sewerage.

Cumbria Highways – Refusal recommended, concerns with proposal summarised as follows:

Visibility splays are substandard and refusal is recommended on this basis. Whilst the speed limit through the village remains at the national speed limit at present, the County Council has undertaken a traffic survey in the vicinity of the site, which indicates that the 85 percentile speeds were 30mph in both directions. However, the visibility required for 30mph cannot be achieved to the south and can only be achieved to the north by complete removal of the bridge abutment which is not proposed as part of this application.

Whilst sketch plans show there is some potential to slightly improve the relationship with the other private access to The ‘Keld’ and ‘Gaydon’, this is not significant and the lack of visibility would remain.

United Utilities - Raise no objections. Surface water should be directed to a soakaway, watercourse or surface water sewer and not to the foul sewer. If surface water is allowed to discharge to the public surface water sewerage system, it may require attenuation.

Northern Gas Network – No comments have been received to date. Any comments received will be reported to Members of the Planning Committee by way of additional information.

Environment Agency – No objection subject to conditions relating to contamination. With regard to flood risk, the Environment Agency offer standing advice for this proposal which gives guidance on the use of sustainable urban drainage systems.

Environmental Health – No objections in principle; condition requested relating to contamination.

Fire Officer – No comments received. Any comments received will be reported to Members of the Planning Committee by way of additional information.

Housing Officer – Has provided information on the Housing Market Assessment for the Allhallows Parish which indicates that there is no identified need. The Housing Officer also confirms that people that do not currently live in the parish where they would like to live are still able to complete the housing questionnaires, which is a response to a claim by the agent that the applicants could not complete the housing questionnaire because they do not currently live in the Parish.

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

Twenty letters of objection have been received, 13 letters of support and 2 letters of comment.

The grounds of objection are summarised as follows:

• The site is within a group of properties unrelated to any substantial settlement, without services and community. harmful to the character and appearance of the locality. • Lack of local amenities means extra travelling. • The proposal is not essential development to meet the needs of agriculture, horticulture or forestry and is contrary to housing policy of the Local Plan. • Contamination from previous uses with no site investigation. • Unstable land, potential for air shafts and combustible material with no site investigation. • Increased risk of localised flooding. • Local infrastructure is insufficient for the increased volume of traffic. • Conflict between two private accesses. • Visibility is poor in both directions, removal of the bridge abutment would not improve this. • Problems with refuse collection along the lane which is poorly maintained. • If the applicants’ children wish to return to the village, why do the applicants’ children not occupy the property already owned and rented out by the landowner on Railway Terrace? • The application states that the landowners children are living in rented accommodation elsewhere, objector was led to believe that Ian Thompson, the landowners son, actually owns the property he lives in, in Aspatria. • Set precedent for the development of a larger area in the future. • Loading capacity of sewerage, water and energy. • The demand for properties in the area is slight with property take up slow. Properties have been and continue to come available for purchase and rent at far less cost than it will be to develop and build on this tricky site. • Many houses nearby are second or holiday homes which are vacant for long spells. • Railway embankment and bridge are attractive and a part of Baggrow history and should remain unaltered. • Loss of privacy. • Adverse effect on outlook/loss of light. • Disruption and noise. • Understood that the site is greenfield not brownfield and is a haven for flaura and fauna. • Baggrow and Blennerhasset belong to two different parishes and there is no post office. • The bus service is limited, operating Tuesdays and Fridays. • It cannot necessarily be known that the occupiers of the new dwellings will benefit existing services. • Questions if there is an identified need for affordable housing. • Density is below minimum of Policy HS8. • Effect on rights of way. • Widening of the existing access may result in the bank adjacent to ‘The Keld’, becoming unstable. Who is responsible for damage or disruption to infrastructure. • Proposal will encroach on land of Railway Terrace, the legal ownership of which has always been disputed. • Nearest bus stop is a two mile walk away. • Loss of wildlife. • A lot more amenities in Carlisle and Aspatria than Baggrow or Blennerhasset.

The letters of comment reiterate a number of points summarised above and add the following: • Appreciate that new dwellings will be located at a point that is relatively unobstrusive to No. 6 Railway Terrace. • There are issues relating to parking at Railway Terrace and as the landowner owns much of the land surrounding this terrace, could this issue also be resolved as part of this application? • Sympathise with the need for local housing but would question this given the housing market and take up of housing in the area.

The grounds of support are summarised as follows: • Support for housing for local people, especially young people with families. • Support for low cost housing. • Development will enhance the surrounding area. • Land is unused at present. • May help to support local services. • No particular increase in traffic. • Drainage infrastructure will not be stretched by two extra dwellings.

Report Site description

The application site is part of the former railway embankment at Baggrow. Fronting the public highway is a retaining wall forming the old bridge abutment, with the sloping embankment to the rear. Immediately to the rear of the bridge abutment, the land levels of the embankment rise steeply from south to north by between 3.0m and 5.0m (approx) for the length of the application site, to a flatter section along the top. The embankment gradually becomes less steep to the east. An access from the highway is located to the south of the embankment, which splits and provides two private accesses. The first is included within the application site and currently serves six dwellings. The second provides access to two dwellings to the south of the application site, ‘The Keld’ and ‘Gaydon’.

The embankment itself is fully grown over with vegetation.

The site is centrally located within the small settlement of Baggrow, within open countryside. To the immediate locality is housing, those located to the north are at a similar level to the embankment, whilst houses to the south are at a lower level. The neighbouring village of Blennerhasset is to the south.

Proposal description

The proposal seeks outline approval for the lowering of the bridge abutment, re-grading of the former railway embankment and use of the land for 2 No. dwellings, with the access and layout to be considered at the outline stage.

The plans show that the embankment will be lowered by approx 1.8m in height. The height of the bridge abutment is also to be reduced by the same level. Access to the individual units would be taken from the existing private road which extends through the site adjacent to the southern boundary. The Design and Access Statement indicates that this private road will be widened to the front of Plot 1 to 4.8m, and to the front of Plot 2 to 4.1m. It is also proposed that this track will be surfaced and drained but it will not be for adoption.

A site layout plan has been provided indicating the positioning of the proposed housing, individual access and garden area. An illustrative plan of the two dwellings is included indicating split level housing, with garages set within the embankment.

A unilateral undertaking has also been provided with the application restricting the initial and future occupiers to an inhabitant within the locality. The ‘locality’ is defined within the legal agreement as ‘the service centre of Aspatria or an appropriate group of Parishes which relates well to the service centre’.

Assessment

Principle of Development Baggrow is designated a restricted development village within the Local Plan and does not have a defined settlement boundary. Under Policy HS4 of the Allerdale Local Plan (as amended) and Policy SH2 of the Interim Housing Policy, new housing will only be acceptable at this location where it meets an essential need (i.e. agriculture, forestry/horticultural worker’s dwelling). The application does not provide for ‘essential’ need housing and therefore is contrary to Policy HS4 of the Local Plan as amended and Policy SH2 of the Interim Housing Policy.

Policy HS15 of the Allerdale Local Plan (as amended) allows for exceptional housing which meets an identified local need for affordable housing outside the defined settlement limits of Local Service Centres, Limited Growth Villages and Infill Villages but not Restricted Development Villages. The Interim Housing Policy further restricts this exceptions policy to Key and Local Service Centres under Policy SH1. As a Restricted Development Village, Baggrow is not a settlement where Policy HS15 of the Local Plan (as amended) or Policy SH1 of the Interim Housing Policy would make provision for ‘exception’ rural housing.

As such, policies within the Local Plan and Interim Housing Policy relating to the location of housing are not supportive of new housing at this location. Further, the Housing Needs Survey for the Allhallows Parish indicates that for the period 2008-2013 there is no identified local need for affordable housing within this Parish.

Access With reference to the access, the Inspector noted in the appeal decision relating to the previous outline application for four dwellings that, ‘Poor access tells against further development on this constrained site close to junctions in the middle of the hamlet … … although removing the embankment and realigning the access point onto the highway would be marginally better than now, the combination of coping with another four dwellings on that drive, with the continued use of the existing accesses to the small group of houses immediately to the south, and the physical limitations up the hill at the narrow junction with Railway Terrace, would present in combination an additional and unnecessary road safety hazard’.

The current application proposes to widen the access to the front of Plot 1 to 4.8m, and to the front of Plot 2 to 4.1m. It is also proposed that this track will be surfaced and drained but it will not be for adoption. This offers some potential improvement, namely by allowing cars to pull off the highway as they turn into the site, without being restricted by cars exiting the access serving the application site and the further six dwellings to the east. Illustrative sketch plans have also been provided to the Highways Authority which indicate possible alterations to the layout of the two private accesses serving the site and ‘Gaydon’/’The Keld’, which the Highways Authority indicates may result in a slight improvement in this relationship.

The appellant also refers to the reduction in dwellings proposed as further mitigation and the ‘imminent’ introduction of a 30mph speed limit through the village. The reduction of the speed limit to 30mph will need to be undertaken through a traffic order and the advice from the Highways Authority is that this has not happened yet, it may go forward in the near future, but this is not definite.

The County Council Highways Authority, however, has undertaken a speed survey within the vicinity of the site which indicates 85 percentile speeds in both directions at 30mph. On this basis, the Highways Authority note that the necessary visibility could be achieved to the north if the bridge abutment was removed, but the current proposal only reduces the abutment, it does not propose its full removal. To the south, existing housing completely blocks visibility in this direction. As such, any improvements to the access arrangements are not considered to outweigh the harm resulting from an intensified use of an access with insufficient visibility and refusal is recommended by the Highways Authority on highway safety grounds.

Taking this into account, concerns remain in respect to an intensified use of this access in relation to:

• Visibility splays, in particular to the south. • Potential conflict between the two private access points (the access serving the application site and the properties beyond), as well as other junctions within close proximity. • The physical limitations up the hill at the narrow junction with Railway Terrace.

For these reasons, the proposal is considered to be unacceptable on road safety grounds, contrary to saved Policy H9 of the Local Plan (as amended).

Density The proposal seeks the approval of the layout of the scheme. The site area is approx. 0.16ha and the outline application seeks the approval of two dwellings. This equates to a density of only 12.5 dwellings per hectare (dph), which is significantly below the 30dph required by Policy HS8 of the Local Plan (as amended). The Design and Access Statement states that due to the physical nature of the site and the rural location, the site is not capable of accommodating more than two dwellings.

The access to the proposal is accepted as a physical constraint and has been discussed above.

Other physical characteristics of the site are noted (principally the topography), but it is not accepted that it has been fully demonstrated that the site layout could not be amended to accommodate a higher density of development. Where a smaller scale of development is sought due to this being a rural location, the site area could correspondingly be reduced to reflect this and to ensure the land resource is used efficiently.

As such, were it possible to overcome the other concerns with the proposal relating to the location of housing and access concerns, the density of the development would be below the minimum set by saved Policy HS8 of the Local Plan (as amended) without sufficiently demonstrating justification for this.

Drainage Infrastructure The site is not within the indicative flood plain as defined by the Environment Agency. However, there have been localised flooding issues to the south of the site associated with the River Ellen and surface water run-off from the proposal has the potential to exacerbate this. The application form indicates that a sustainable urban drainage scheme would be incorporated but no details of this have been provided to demonstrate feasibility at this location.

United Utilities has raised no objections to the discharge of surface water to the public surface water sewerage system, although the flow may require attenuation to a maximum discharge rate determined by United Utilities. On the basis that this alternative method of disposing of surface water is available, a refusal of the application on insufficient information relating to the detail of the SUDs is not considered appropriate in this instance.

The application indicates that foul drainage will connect to the foul sewer. United Utilities has raised no objections to this.

As such, the proposal is considered to be acceptable with regard to Policy HS9 in terms of drainage disposal, although additional details of the means of surface water disposal would need to be conditioned if the application were supported.

Contamination/Stability The previous uses of the site may have left it potentially contaminated and the site is also within a coal activity area. The Council is provided with standing advice from the Coal Mining Authority and this would be made available to the applicant. With regard to previous uses, both the Environment Agency and the Environmental Health Section consider that this issue can be dealt with appropriately by condition.

The presence of contamination may have implications for the use of SUDs to deal with surface water, as the suitability of certain drainage techniques such as soakaways will depend on the remediation measures taken and the potential for soakaways to result in pollution of the water environment. However, the Environment Agency has confirmed verbally that other SUDs techniques rather than those that allow water to soak into the ground, could potentially be used, such as attenuation tanks, although these may have cost implications for the applicant.

On this advice, therefore, it is considered that any contamination issues can be dealt with by condition and that the proposal is acceptable with regard to saved Policy EN9 of the Local Plan (as amended).

Residential Amenity The layout indicated for the proposed two houses does not raise any significant concerns with regard to the loss of amenity to neighbouring properties by way of overlooking/ overshadowing/oppressiveness. The area to the north of the application site is used at present as detached outdoor amenity space connected to the Railway Terrace properties. This amenity space is relatively open given its location. Whilst the proposal has the potential to result in some overlooking to this area, this could be addressed by a sensitive design of the new dwellings, in particular with regard to any windows in the rear elevation.

With regard to properties to the south, ‘The Keld’ and ‘Gaydon’, the separation distance shown is in excess of 20m. Whilst the proposed dwellings would be elevated, the separation distance is considered sufficient to ensure that there is no significant level of overlooking to these properties. Existing mature planting along the boundary would also provide additional screening to some extent.

As such, the layout indicated does not raise specific concerns with regard to the impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties, although a more detailed assessment of this would be taken at the detailed stage, if the application were supported.

Argument put forward by the applicant Given that residential development at this location has previously been refused on appeal, and at the local level, existing policy does not support open market or exceptional (local affordable) housing, a number of arguments have been put forward by the applicant’s agent to support the proposal. These are summarised as follows:

• There is a need for housing for local people and a Unilateral Undertaking has been provided with the application restricting the initial and future occupiers to an inhabitant within the locality. The ‘locality’ is defined within the legal agreement as ‘the service centre of Aspatria or an appropriate group of parishes which relates well to the service centre’. • The settlements of Baggrow and Blennerhasset should be considered in conjunction given their proximity and social links. Combined, they create a sustainable location for new housing based on the level of services available and, in turn, new residential development would support these local services. • The proposal provides for the redevelopment of previously developed land, to which significant weight is given by government for new housing in appropriate locations. • Current local policy has been superseded at the national and regional level, with significant support for family housing in sustainable rural locations.

The final argument put forward relates to the access improvements which have been considered in the section above.

The additional arguments put forward with the application are considered as follows:

1. Local need The supporting information submitted with the application indicates that the two proposed houses are intended for the applicants themselves, who are the children of the landowner. It is stated that the applicants have historical links with Baggrow as they were brought up here and family remain living in the area. They wish to return to Baggrow (one lives in Aspatria and the other in Carlisle at present) but it is stated that there are no affordable or suitable properties on the market. Some information has been provided on houses for sale within the area, but no information has been provided on the financial circumstances of the applicants to demonstrate that open market housing is not affordable for them.

The unilateral undertaking would restrict occupiers of the new houses to those that met the definition of ‘local’ contained within the Unilateral Undertaking. One of the applicants is noted as currently residing at Aspatria, within the ‘locality’ as defined by the legal agreement put forward, which undermines the need expressed for local housing to some extent. Further, despite the application being made on the grounds that existing properties for sale within Baggrow are too expensive or unsuitable for the applicants, the unilateral undertaking does not propose to maintain the housing as ‘affordable’ in perpetuity.

The Design and Access Statement indicates that the houses will be affordable to the applicants as the family owns the land, however, this reasoning is not considered to be sufficient in terms of justifying the proposal as ‘exception’ rural housing because the dwellings would not be kept ‘affordable’ in perpetuity and the benefit of affordability would be immediately lost. Effectively, on completion, the housing would become open market housing, albeit with a locality clause that restricted future occupiers to being ‘local’.

The circumstances put forward in the application therefore would not meet the requirements of the rural ‘exceptions’ policy, even if this were a location at which such housing was supported and would undermine the approach to rural ‘exception’ housing at the national and local level.

Further, the Allhallows Housing Market Assessment covering the period from 2008-13 states that there is no established local need for affordable housing units at this location. The Design and Access Statement prepared by the applicants’ agent states that as the applicants currently reside outside the Parish, they were unable to complete the questionnaire. Housing Services has confirmed that the questionnaires can be completed by anyone and you do not have to be resident in a parish to express a housing need.

2. Support for local services / sustainable location for development The argument for considering Blennerhasset and Baggrow together in terms of sustaining a rural community were put before the Inspector as part of the previous appeal. Whilst he accepted that there was some merit in considering Baggrow and Blennerhasset in looking at sustaining a rural community, this was not considered sufficient to overcome local housing policy, which clearly determined that additional housing was not needed here, including not making an exception for affordable housing. There has been no change to this policy at the local level and it is reiterated that the current Housing Needs Survey for this parish shows no need for affordable units. It is also considered unlikely that two further dwellings at this location would add a significant level of support to local services.

In terms of a sustainable location for housing, Baggrow has the public house and there is a school and village hall at Blennerhasset, as well as some sporting associations. The post office at Blennerhasset has closed but, theoretically, it could re-open. The bus service through Baggrow and Blennerhasset operates only on a Tuesday and Friday, with only one pick up per day and drop offs by request. Combined, it is accepted that Baggrow and Blennerhasset do offer some level of services and facilities for a rural community, although future occupiers of any housing at this location would be heavily dependent on the private car for employment, higher education and any retail or health requirements, contrary to Regional Spatial Strategy Policy DP5 which states that all new development should be genuinely accessible by public transport and priority will be given to locations where such access is already available.

However, in terms of the sustainable location of development, the nearby service centre of Aspatria, within approx 2 miles of Baggrow, offers a wider range of services and facilities, in particular, access to regular public transport. Within the Unilateral Undertaking submitted with the application, the ‘locality’ is defined within the legal agreement as ‘the service centre of Aspatria or an appropriate group of parishes which relates well to the service centre’. Therefore, Aspatria is defined as the ‘locality’ and, as such, the local need expressed could equally be met within Aspatria, which is a more sustainable location for new housing.

On this basis, the argument put forward regarding the level of sustainability of Baggrow and Blennerhasset combined is not considered to be sufficient to outweigh the other concerns arising from the proposal and it is considered that the ‘locality’ offers the potential for more sustainable locations for new housing, other than at this location.

3. Development of a brownfield site The application site has had a previous use as the railway and embankment. From the information provided with the application, this use ceased over 50 years ago. PPS3 states that sites where the remains of the permanent structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably be considered as part of the natural surroundings) will no longer be considered to be previously developed.

Within the previous appeal, the Inspector made no comment as to the greenfield or brownfield status of the site, although he did state that reclaiming the embankment at this location was not a priority over the policy objections, especially since local evidence on its natural regeneration and, from the site visit, the embankment was not considered to be an eyesore.

The wall forming the bridge abutment remains and the shape of the land continues to reflect the railway embankment. The potential contamination of the site is also telling of the previous uses. However, 50 years is a considerable time lapse and there is an argument that, other than the abutment, the site generally blends into the landscape. A number of objectors to the proposal refer to the potential loss of the embankment as an attractive and historic part of Baggrow. However, the suitability of land, whether previously developed or not, relates to its location/sustainability, and it is concluded above that the level of sustainability of this location is not considered sufficient to outweigh concerns arising from conflict with other policies of the Local Plan.

4. Local policy has been superseded The applicants’ agent also puts forward the argument that the Local Plan policies are out of date and have been superseded nationally. Whilst PPS3 has been updated and the Regional Spatial Strategy has been introduced, the Local Plan policies referred to in this assessment have been re-considered by the Government Office and ‘saved’ for the transitional period until adoption of the Local Development Framework, on the basis that they are in general conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy.

With particular regard to rural ‘exception’ housing, both PPS3 and the Regional Spatial Strategy refer to the need for such housing to be affordable in perpetuity.

Letters of Objection/Support The grounds for objection and support are noted and it is considered that most of the issues raised have been considered as part of the above assessment. The additional points raised are considered as follows:

1. Refuse collection – the application proposes some upgrade to the existing private access track which would potentially improve access for refuse vehicles. 2. Precedent for the development of a larger area in future – each application is determined on its own merits and further applications for development would be considered on that basis. 3. Railway abutment and embankment is attractive and part of Baggrow’s history – this was not a previous ground for refusal of development at this location and no significant weight was attached to it by the Inspector, although he did note that the site was not an eyesore. 4. The site is a haven for flaura and fauna - this was not a previous ground for refusal of development at this location and no significant weight was attached to it by the Inspector. It is not considered that there has been any change with the site in this regard that would warrant a different approach. 5. Loss of private view – this is a matter that in planning terms can be warranted only little weight and is not considered to be an issue in this instance. 6. Disruption and noise – construction works often result in some noise and disturbance but this would not warrant refusal of the proposal in this instance. 7. Rights of way – planning permission would not override the need to retain public or private rights of way. 8. Parking issues on Railway Terrace – the application must be considered as submitted and it does not propose any parking related space for residents on Railway Terrace. s

Recommendation: Refused

Conditions/ 1. The proposed development would be contrary to Reasons: Policy HS4 the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations, June 2006 (Saved) and Policy SH2 of the Interim Housing Policy, which state that residential development outside of defined rural settlements will not normally be permitted unless it can be shown that it is essential to the needs of agriculture, horticulture or forestry.

2. The proposal does not provide for/meet a proven local need for affordable housing in a location where such housing is identified as being suitable within the Local Plan. Nor would the proposal provide ‘affordable’ housing in perpetuity to meet a proven local need within this settlement. As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy HS15 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations, June 2006 (Saved) Policy SH1 of the Interim Housing Policy, Policy L5 of North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 and the guidance within PPS3 Housing.

3. The site is within the settlement of Baggrow, which in itself does not have the public services or facilities to support a sustainable community. In conjunction with the adjoining settlement of Blennerhasset, service provision would remain restricted by the lack of access to regular public transport. It has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the ‘local’ need expressed could not be met within the locality at the more sustainable settlement of Aspatria. The proposal therefore is considered to be contrary to Policies DP1, DP2 and DP5 of the North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 and advice within PPS3 Housing.

5. The proposed development would result in an intensification of an access that is substandard in terms of visibility, is constrained by its proximity to other junctions within the immediate vicinity in particular the access serving neighbouring properties immediately to the south, and the physical limitations up the hill at the narrow junction with Railway Terrace. In combination, these constraints would result in development that would be prejudicial to highway safety, contrary to Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations, June 2006 (Saved).

2/2009/0705