REPORTS FOR DEBATE Eden District Council Planning ... › documents › s14779 › ... · PLP2,...

Agenda Index

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Eden District Council

Planning Committee Agenda Committee Date: 14 November 2019

INDEX

Item No

Application Details Officer Recommendation

1 Planning Application No: 19/0426

Residential development of 149 dwellings

Land off Carleton Road, Penrith

Story Homes

Recommended to:

APPROVE Subject to Agreement

under Section 106


Erection of three self-build dwellings with all matters reserved

Somerwood Close, Long Marton

Somerwood Developments

Recommended to:

REFUSE With Reasons


Construction of 3 No. new residential dwellings

Land adjacent to Blencathra Barn, Newton Reigny

Mr and Mrs A Chalmers

Recommended to:

APPROVE Subject to Conditions


Change of use from part paddock to garden, conversion of existing outbuilding to games room, conversion of existing integral barn to form new kitchen, new garage/store (as amended) to front of property, and garden room extension (as amended)

Low Green, Great Musgrave

Mr and Mrs N and P Shackleford

Recommended to:

APPROVE Subject to Conditions

Agenda Index

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Date of Committee: 14 November 2019

Planning Application No: 19/0426 Date Received: 17 June 2019

OS Grid Ref: 353267 529748 Expiry Date: 20 September 2019

(extension of time agreed until 12 December 2019)

Parish: Penrith Ward: Penrith Carleton

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Residential development of 149 dwellings

Location: Land off Carleton Road, Penrith

Applicant: Story Homes

Agent: Mr David Hayward

Case Officer: Mr Ian Irwin

Reason for Referral: The recommendation is contrary to that of the Town Council (which is based upon material planning considerations)

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that delegated power be given to the Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development to grant planning permission subject to an agreement under Section106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) being entered into to the absolute satisfaction of the Director of People and Place and the Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development requiring the provision of:

A contribution of 30% affordable housing;

A primary school contribution of £600,012;

A contribution for the Corney Place reconfiguration of £123,680.48;

A pedestrian facilities at the A592 roundabouts with Cromwell Road and the B5288 Norfolk Road contribution of £28,828.07;

A local highway improvement contribution (Footway widening, improvements to the Toucan Crossing and a Pedestrian Island on Carleton Road) of £47,007.10;

A Travel Plan contribution of £6,600;

and the Council’s reasonable costs being paid in relation to that Section 106 Agreement.

Planning permission is also granted subject to the following conditions:

1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the application form documents and drawings received as valid on the 20 June 2019 and the further information submitted on the 27 September 2019 hereby approved:

Planning Statement;

Site Location Plan 42D-STO-001 rev b;

Detailed Site Layout Plan 42D-STO-100 rev H;

Proposed Elevation Treatments 42D-STO-102 rev H;

Proposed Boundary Treatments 42D-STO-103 rev E;

Parking Layout 42D-STO-104 rev E;

Proposed Acoustic Mitigation 42D-STO-105 rev D;

Management Plan 42D-STO-106 rev D;

Proposed Hard Surfaces Plan 42D-STO-107 rev D;

Affordable Homes – Distribution 42D-STO-108 rev C;

Pictorial Street Scenes – 42D-STO-110 rev b; Boundary details 1800mm High Fence (Open Boarded) drawing number BD-03

rev A, 1800mm Lapped Fence (closed boarded) drawing number BD-06, 1762mm High Brick Wall drawing number BD-15, 1800mm High Palisade fence drawing number BD-56, 450mm Trip Rail drawing number BD-70

Design and Access Statement;

Wider Concept/Indicative Masterplan drawing reference 42D-STO-003; Construction details for combined ENW/GTC GRP unit substation with Schneider

RN2 SW/GR drawing number APT-ED-SS-GRP Rev 02;

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Travel Plan – September 2019; Soft Landscape area 1 of 5 drawing reference UG_11011_L03a rev P04;

Soft Landscape area 2 of 5 drawing reference UG_11011_L03b rev P04;

Soft Landscape area 3 of 5 drawing reference UG_11011_L03c rev P04;

Soft Landscape area 4 of 5 drawing number UG_11011_L03d rev P06;

Soft Landscape area 5 of 5 drawing number UG_11011_L03e rev P06;

Engineering Layout drawing number 6668/SK01 rev K;

Surface Water Catchment Areas drawing number 6668/14 rev B;

Attenuation Basin and Outfall Details drawing number 6668/15;

FRA Addendum Report – 6668FRA_Add September 2019;

FRA and Surface Water Management Strategy 4398/FRA01 - June 2016;

Harper house type booklet;

Spencer house type booklet);

Material Schedule;

Bailey (A), Contents: Planning drawing number BAY-P-CON, Planning Layout 1 drawing number BAY-PLP1, Planning Elevation 1/1 drawing number BAY-PLE1/1, Planning Elevation 1/2 drawing number BAY-PLE1/2;

Beauford (A), Contents: Planning drawing number BUD-P-CON, Planning Layout 1 drawing number BUD-PLP1, Planning Elevation 1/1 drawing number BUD-PLE1/1, Planning Elevation 1/2 drawing number BUD-PLE1/2;

Cranford (A), Contents: Planning drawing number CND-P-CON, Planning Layout 1 drawing number CND-PLP1, Planning Elevation 1/1 drawing number CND-PLE1/1, Planning Elevation 1/2 drawing number CND-PLE1/2, Planning Elevation 1/3 drawing number CND-PLE1/3;

Emmerson (A) Contents : Planning drawing number EMN-P-CON, Planning layout 1 drawing number EMN-PLE1, Planning Elevation 1/1 drawing number EMN-PLE1/1, Planning Elevation 1/2 drawing number EMN-PLE1/2;

Garage Booklet Contents : Planning GB-P-CON, Single Garage 1 Planning drawing 1/1 drawing number GB-PLP1/1, Single Garage 1 planning drawing1/2 drawing number GB-PLP1/2;

Harper (A), Contents: Planning HPR-P-CON, Planning Layout 1 drawing number HPR-PLP1, Planning Elevation 1/1 drawing number HPR-PLE1/1, Planning Elevation 1/2 drawing reference HPR-PLE1/2;

Hewson (A), Contents: Planning HWN-P-CON, Planning Layout 1 drawing number HWN-PLP1, Planning Elevation 1/1 drawing number HWN-PLE 1/1, Planning Elevation 1/2 drawing number HWN-PLE1/2, Planning Elevation 1/3 drawing number HWN-PLE1/3;

Milford (A) Contents: Planning, drawing number MLD-P-CON, Planning Layout 1 drawing number MLD-PLP1, Planning Elevation 1/1 drawing number MLD-PLE1/1, Planning Elevation 1/2 drawing number MLD-PLE1/2;

Pearson (A) contents: Planning drawing number PRN-P-CON, Planning Layout 1 drawing number PRN-PLP1, Planning Elevation 1/1 drawing number PRN-PLE1/1, Planning Elevation 1/2 drawing number PRN-PLE1/2;

Sanderson (A) contents : Planning drawing number SAN-P-CON, Planning Layout 1 drawing number SAN-PLP1, Planning Elevation 1/1 drawing number SAN-PLE1/1, Planning Elevation 1/2 drawing number SAN-PLE1/2 Planning Elevation drawing number SAN-PLE1/3;

Wilson (A) contents : Planning drawing number WLN-P-CON, Planning Layout 1 (Front) WLN-PLP1, Planning Elevation 1/1 (Front) WLN-PLE1/1, Planning

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Elevation ½ (Front) drawing number WLN-PLE1/2, Planning Elevation 1/3 (Front) drawing number WLN-PLE1/3, Planning Layout 2 (Corner) drawing number WLN-PLP2, Planning Elevation 2/1 (corner) drawing number WLN-PLE2/1, Planning Elevation 2/3 (Corner) drawing number WLN-PLE2/3, Planning Elevation 2/4 (Corner) drawing number WLN-PLE2/4;

SUDs Planting Plan drawing reference UG_11011_L04 rev P06;

Informal play equipment drawing reference UG_11011_L06 rev P03;

Landscape Management Plan – May 2019;

Landscape and Visual Appraisal – Rev B. May 2019;

Planting strategy drawing reference UG_11011_LAN_PS_DRW_01 rev P03;

Arboricultural Report – May 2019; Drainage Statement (Coopers) addendum;

Attenuation Basin and outfall details drawing number 6668/15 rev D;

Id GeoEnvironmental - SI Phase 1 – Report number 4398-G-R001;

Coopers Site investigation report Ph2 – March 2017– 6670si; Preliminary GeoEnvironmental Appraisal - 4398-G-R001 September 2015;

Coopers Site Investigation Report 6670si;

Air Quality Assessment REC reference AQ100101-2R1;

REC Ltd – Air Quality Note 29.05.2019;

Wardell Armstrong - Archaeology desk based evaluation – January 2017;

CFA Archaeology – Archaeological Evaluation Report Number Y315/17 – January 2018;

Ecological Assessment – May 2019 – Urban Green;

Noise Assessment Report – July 2019 – RS Acoustic Engineering; Vectos Transport Assessment – VN70752v8 – June 2019;

Site Access and Visibility Sightlines drawing number VN70752-D103 rev 2. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid ambiguity as to what constitutes the planning permission.

Prior to development

3. Prior to the commencement of any development a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This plans shall incorporate a working buffer zone around Carleton Beck of at least 10 metres. The Construction Environment Management Plan should include appropriate pollution prevention guideline measures to include materials and machinery storage, biosecurity, and the control and management of noise, fugitive dust, surface water runoff and waste to protect any surface water drains and the SAC/SSSI from sediment, and pollutants such as fuel and cement including during periods of heavy rainfall. Once approved by the Local Planning Authority the Construction Environment Management Plan shall be adhered to at all times.

Reason: To ensure appropriate protection of the ecology of the area and to prevent pollution of watercourses in the vicinity or downstream of the site.

4. Prior to the commencement of any development, a surface water drainage scheme, based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions (inclusive of how the scheme shall be managed after completion) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

The surface water drainage scheme must be in accordance with the Non- Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards. No surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly.

The drainage scheme submitted for approval shall also be in accordance with the principles set out in the Flood Risk assessment and Surface water Management Strategy dated 2nd June 2016 proposing surface water discharging at 5l/s.

The development shall then be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution.

5. No development shall commence until a construction surface water management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard against flooding to surrounding sites and to safeguard against pollution of receiving surface water systems or watercourses downstream of the site.

6. Clear arrangements must be in place for ongoing maintenance of the drainage system over the lifetime of the development. The drainage system must be designed for ease of maintenance. In this respect further details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. Once approved, those details shall be adhered to at all times.

Reason: To ensure flood risk is not increased within the site or elsewhere.

7. The development shall not commence until visibility splays providing clear visibility of 60metres measured 2.4metres down the centre of the access to plot 1 to the looking North and taken to the nearside channel line of the carriageway edge and Plot 23 looking South and taken to the nearside channel line of the carriageway edge have been provided at the junction of the access road with the county highway. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grown within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded and maintained thereafter for the duration of the permission.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

8. Prior to the commencement of the development, the details of how the carriageway, footways, footpaths, cycleways etc shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to a standard suitable for adoption and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval . These details shall be in accordance with the standards laid down in the current Cumbria Design Guide. Any works then approved shall be constructed before the development is complete.

Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety.

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

9. Development shall not commence until a Construction Phase Traffic Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CTMP shall include details of:

• pre-construction road condition established by a detailed survey for accommodation works within the highways boundary conducted with a Highway Authority representative; with all post repairs carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Highway Authority at the applicants expense;

• Details of proposed crossings of the highway verge;

• retained areas for vehicle parking, manoeuvring, loading and unloading for their specific purpose during the development;

• cleaning of site entrances and the adjacent public highway;

• Details of proposed wheel washing facilities;

• The sheeting of all HGVs taking spoil to/from the site to prevent spillage or deposit of any materials on the highway;

• Construction vehicle routing;

• The management of junctions to and crossings of the public highway and other public rights of way/footway;

• Surface water management details during the construction phase

Reason: The carrying out of this development without the provision of these facilities during the construction work is likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users.

Prior to Occupation

10. No dwellings or buildings or structures shall be occupied until the access roads, as approved, are defined by kerbs and sub base construction.

Reason: To ensure that the access roads are defined and laid out at an early stage.

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

Reason: In the interests of highway safety

12. The private access driveways shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or otherwise bound and shall be constructed and completed before the property is occupied.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

13. Details showing the provision within the site for the parking, turning and loading and unloading of vehicles and for vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward direction associated with construction shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The development shall not be brought into use until any such details have been approved and the parking, loading, unloading and manoeuvring facilities constructed. The approved parking, loading, unloading and manoeuvring areas shall be kept available for those purposes at all times and shall not be used for any other purpose once approval is granted.

Reason: To ensure that all vehicles can be properly and safely accommodated clear of

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

the highway.

Ongoing Conditions

14. An annual report reviewing the effectiveness of the Travel Plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. This report shall be provided within every 12 months from the date of the first property of this hereby approved development being occupied and shall be provided annually for five years after that date and include any necessary amendments or measures to ensure the effectiveness of the Travel Plan. Those amendments shall only be implemented once approved by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To aid in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives.

15. The development shall, at all times, adhere to the recommendations and findings of the Urban Green Arboricultural report ref. 11011 dated 7 June 2016. This includes all tree protection measures.

Reason: To ensure appropriate ecological protection of the area.

16. On completion of plots 1 to 5, 18 to 27 and plots 145 to 149 as shown on the detailed site layout plan (ref. 42D-STO-100 rev H) the final dwelling in each of these plot groups requiring acoustic mitigation (in accordance with Story Homes drawing Proposed Acoustic Mitigation 42D-STO Rev D) and the acoustic mitigation measures in Noise Assessment Report (RSA Acoustic Engineering - July 2019) shall be implemented and for the worst case dwelling in each phase. The results will be validated by a competent person and the validation report submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority within one month of the final dwelling in that plot group being completed.

The scheme shall take account of the need to provide adequate ventilation, which may be by mechanical or passive means and shall be designed to achieve the following criteria with the ventilation operating:

Bedrooms 30 dB LAeq (8 hour) (2300 hrs – 0700 hrs) Living rooms 35 dB LAeq (16 hour) (0700 hrs – 2300 hrs) All Habitable Rooms 45 dB LAmax (not to be exceeded more than 10 times per night).

Garden Areas At least one garden amenity area shall achieve a noise level no greater than 50 dB LAeq (16 hour – 07:00 to 23:00 hrs) Once approved in writing those mitigation measures shall be retained for the duration of the development.

Reason: To ensure amenity is protected for future occupants.

17. No demolition or construction works shall take place outside the hours of:

08:00-18:00 Monday to Friday;

09:00-13:00 Saturday; and

No Activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area.

Informative

1. The watercourse known as Carleton Beck and classed as ‘main’ river. The applicant will need to contact the Environment Agency to determine if an environment permit will

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

be required for the works associated with the outfall.

2. If the applicant intends to offer wastewater assets forward for adoption by United Utilities, the proposed detailed design will be subject to a technical appraisal by an Adoptions Engineer as we need to be sure that the proposal meets the requirements of Sewers for Adoption and United Utilities’ Asset Standards. The detailed layout should be prepared with consideration of what is necessary to secure a development to an adoptable standard. This is important as drainage design can be a key determining factor of site levels and layout. The proposed design should give consideration to long term operability and give United Utilities a cost effective proposal for the life of the assets. Therefore, should this application be approved and the applicant wishes to progress a Section 104 agreement, we strongly recommend that no construction commences until the detailed drainage design, submitted as part of the Section 104 agreement, has been assessed and accepted in writing by United Utilities. Any works carried out prior to the technical assessment being approved is done entirely at the developers own risk and could be subject to change.

3. Our water mains may need extending to serve any development on this site and the applicant may be required to pay a contribution.

4. Our standard conditions document includes details of trees and shrubbery suitable for planting in the vicinity of a water main. The applicant should consult this document to ensure their landscaping proposals meet with the advice provided in the document.

5. We also recommend the use of root barriers to afford additional protection to the water main. It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate the exact relationship between any United Utilities' assets and the proposed development. We recommend the developer contacts United Utilities for advice on identifying the exact location of the water main. If the applicant intends to obtain a water supply from United Utilities for the proposed development, we strongly recommend they engage with us at the earliest opportunity. If reinforcement of the water network is required to meet the demand, this could be a significant project and the design and construction period should be accounted for. To discuss a potential water supply or any of the water comments detailed above, the applicant can contact the team at [email protected].

6. Please note, all internal pipework must comply with current Water Supply (water fittings) Regulations 1999.

Where United Utilities’ assets exist, the level of cover to the water mains and public sewers must not be compromised either during or after construction.

For advice regarding protection of United Utilities assets, the applicant should contact the teams as follows:

Water assets – [email protected]

Wastewater assets – [email protected]

It is the applicant's responsibility to investigate the possibility of any United Utilities’ assets potentially impacted by their proposals and to demonstrate the exact relationship between any United Utilities’ assets and the proposed development.

7. A number of providers offer a paid for mapping service including United Utilities. To

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

find out how to purchase a sewer and water plan from United Utilities, please visit the Property Searches website;

https://www.unitedutilities.com/property-searches/

You can also view the plans for free. To make an appointment to view our sewer records at your local authority please contact them direct, alternatively if you wish to view the water and the sewer records at our Lingley Mere offices based in Warrington please ring 0370 751 0101 to book an appointment.

Due to the public sewer transfer in 2011, not all sewers are currently shown on the statutory sewer records and we do not always show private pipes on our plans. If a sewer is discovered during construction; please contact a Building Control Body to discuss the matter further.

Should this planning application be approved the applicant should contact United Utilities regarding a potential water supply or connection to public sewers. Additional information is available on our

website http://www.unitedutilities.com/builders-developers.aspx

8. This decision notice grants planning permission only. It does not override any existing legal agreement, covenant or ownership arrangement. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure all necessary agreements are in place prior to the commencement of development.

2. Proposal and Site Description

2.1 Proposal

2.1.1 The proposal seeks full planning permission for a residential development at Carleton Road, Penrith. The applicant has confirmed that their proposal would involve the construction of 149 dwellings. Of these 149 dwellings, 44 would be affordable units. The site covers a total of 7.83 hectares. The site is noted to be subject of a ‘fall-back’ position due to the extant planning permission, ref. 17/0408, granted by Planning Committee in August 2017 for 110 dwellings.

2.1.2 The application has been submitted with various documents in support of the proposal. These are namely;

Design and Access Statement

Air Quality Assessment

Arboriculture Report

Archaeology Evaluation

Drainage Statement

Ecological Assessment

Flood Risk Assessment

Landscape Visual Appraisal

Material Schedule

Construction Management Plan

https://www.unitedutilities.com/property-searches/

http://www.unitedutilities.com/builders-developers.aspx

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Noise Assessment

Indicative Masterplan

Affordable Homes Distribution

Boundary Details

Attenuation Pond and Outfall Details

Parking Layout

Renewable Energy Statement

Transport Assessment

Travel Plan

2.1.3 The application details confirm that the composition of the dwellings proposed would be made up of the following –

23 two bedroom homes;

46 three bedroom homes;

54 four bedroom homes;

26 five bedroom homes.

2.1.4 A single access for vehicles is proposed from Carleton Road. However an illustrative masterplan demonstrates how the site would interconnect with allocated housing sites to the north and south which would allow the development to be connected to the A686 to the north and that traffic could flow in and out of the site to the south from the A686/Carleton Avenue. Various pedestrian access points are suggested to allow occupants the ability to migrate through the sites once all have been developed. These include ‘leisure’ footpaths to make use of the amenity, landscaped areas, on the eastern boundary.

2.1.5 Because of the drainage requirements for the site, in the north-east of the site, a SUDs (sustainable urban drainage) system is proposed. This area would hold drainage water as required in the gradual discharge of surface water into Carleton Beck. The SUDs area is noted to utilise an existing depression in the land as previously considered when determining the planning application ref. 17/0408 planning application.

2.1.6 The applicants have sought to ensure compliance with Policy HS5 (entitled Accessible and Adaptable Homes). This policy seeks to ensure that 20% of all dwellings that comprise a major site development are suitable for occupants needs over time. In this instance, the applicants advise that 36 of the entire stock on site, would be complaint with Building Regulations Requirement M4 (2) (Category 2 – Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings). Given the application proposes 149 dwellings in total, 36 that comply with Policy HS5 equates to a 24% contribution – therefore in excess of the requirements of Policy HS5.

2.1.7 The applicant has also provided the Council with a ‘Renewable Energy Statement’ within the Planning Statement submitted in support of the application. This confirms that the applicant seeks to take a ‘fabric first’ approach with the construction of the homes proposed as part of this proposal. It also confirms that the intention is to ensure

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

thermal conductivity is reduced by the use of ‘modern insulation materials to reduce thermal bridging and improve air tightness’.

2.1.8 They also confirm that the houses proposed will be constructed to achieve specific ‘U’ values with appropriate use of insulation in roofs, ground floors, external walls and specific uPVC windows along with composite doors.

2.1.9 The form and design of the proposed dwellings are based on an updated new suite of Story home dwellings. These are, however, based upon utilising materials ranging from stone paving, ranging in colours of natural, burnt ochre and charcoal. Various brick varieties are also proposed. Smooth red, antique brick, Hampton rural blend and Milano blend. Tumbled natural sandstone would also be incorporated into the development proposal. Off-white render is also proposed to be utilised in the finishes of the development. White uPVC windows and patio doors would be used along with uPVC composite doors. Black uPVC gutter and downpipes are proposed and roofs would be finished in natural slate. Lower roofs would be finished in grey pantiles.

2.1.10 In line with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended 2017), it is considered that the development falls within the criteria of Schedule 2 Development (Part 10 Infrastructure Projects (b)) and the application exceeds the threshold criteria, by virtue of being a residential development that exceeds 5 hectares. It was concluded that the proposed development would not have a significant impacts on the environment and therefore an Environmental Statement need not accompany the planning application.

2.1.11 It is noted that the applicant provided updated information during the determination period of the application. This further information endeavoured to respond to queries raised by consultees and interested parties.

2.2 Site Description

2.2.1 The application site is currently agricultural land that adjoins Carleton village to the west, Carleton Road to the South, agricultural land to the east and an agricultural field and the A686 to the north. The site is noted to be 7.83 hectares in size. The site forms part of an extensive, relatively flat plateau but which slopes slightly from west to east. At the eastern boundary the land starts to slope more steeply towards the Frenchfield playing fields and Hunter Hall School. The north eastern corner of the site has been included to provide a sustainable drainage system which is incorporated to utilise the topography of the land.

2.2.2 The site is noted to be allocated within the Eden Local Plan for housing development (referenced ‘E3’). Accordingly, the site has been subject to assessment in order to establish its initial acceptability and the principle of its development. In allocating the site, the Council determined that 261 houses should be constructed upon it. Such allocations do not represent a formal ‘cap’ on the numbers proposed but given these allocations form the housing targets within the plan, over the plan period, it is the aim of the Council to ensure such allocated sites achieve unit numbers in accordance (or very close to) the formal allocations to ensure that the housing targets that comprise the plan are achieved over the plan period.

2.2.3 It should also be noted that the allocated site has been split and this application site does not cover the entire area allocated within the local plan. An area to the north is subject to a separate planning permission (ref. 13/0033 which indicatively suggested 96 dwellings would be constructed upon the site).

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

2.2.4 The site is recognised to be located adjacent to a number of residential properties that are located off the A686 (to the west, south-west and north-west). Further properties are located off Harthwaite Gardens with some adjacent to the site to the west, south-west. A lone property, Carleton Brow is located adjacent to the site on its southern boundary. Hunter Hall School is located to the east, approximately 116 metres from the nearest part of the site boundary. Hunter Hall School is a Grade II Listed Building.

2.2.5 A further Listed Building ‘Candia’ is approximately 77 metres from the south-western boundary with the Crosskeys Inn approximately 76 metres from the same boundary.

2.2.6 The site is noted to be located within a designated Flood Zone 1 which is land assessed as having a less than 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river or sea flooding (<0.1%). To the north of the site, Carleton Beck is located, which is approximately 16 metres from the nearest part of the site boundary subject to housing development and adjacent to the site boundary of the SUDs drainage area in the north-eastern part of the site.

2.2.7 The River Eden and Tributaries (River Eamont) Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is located approximately 190 metres to the south of the site boundary, beyond the A66 trunk road.This is also the River Eden and Tributaries (River Eamont) Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). 800 metres to the North-East is also the Cowraik Quarry Site of Special Scientific Interest is which is also a nature reserve.

2.2.8 There are no other material considerations considered relevant in the determination of this application.

3. Consultees

3.1 Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response

Highway Authority - Cumbria County Council

Responded on the 14 August 2019 and confirmed that a proposed single access was not acceptable for a development of this scale and size and that visibility splays needed to update. A number of design elements were also queried. Contributions in relation to improved pedestrian facilities were confirmed along with contributions to the Corney Place reconfiguration. Updated details in relation to bin store and collection areas were also requested. The initial Highways response was that further information was required in terms of the refuse collection/bin storage areas as well as various aspects of the layout design. Accordingly, the applicant provided updated details.

The Highway Authority subsequently considered this additional information. They responded on the 28 October 2019 and confirmed the following ‘Access visibility splays have been shown on Drawing No VN70752-D103 Rev: 2 indicating sightlines of 70m in both directions from the main access, this would need to be updated to be taken from the southern access Plot 23 and the Northern access of Plot 1. As this is a 60 mph road they should be 2.4m by 215m it is mentioned in the Design and Access statement in section 10.22 on page 36

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response

that the applicant would consider reducing the speed limit on the access road to 30mph in consultation with CCC with a suitably design street lighting scheme which will illuminate Carleton Road between the A686 and the development access point.

Cumbria County Council would support the proposal tor reduced the speed limit on Carleton Road to 30mph and the splays then amended to be 2.4m by 60m in both directions taken from plot No 23 in the southern direction and Plot 1 in a northern direction. The details currently provided is unacceptable however taking into account the statement provided in the Design and Assess statement and that application will incorporate a suitably designed urban street lighting scheme to reduce the speed limit on Carleton Road to 30mph the required visibility should be achievable and CCC would condition the splay information.

Single access for 110 dwellings is not acceptable and as such would not be acceptable for 149 properties. The site should have as a minimum 2 accesses, one of which could be an Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) or a Pedestrian/ cycling access.

There are various design elements which have been flag by the adoption officer for the East area many of which would be addressed in the formal design review by both highways and the lighting teams as the submission progresses to ensure that the County Councils specification and standards are met, Alteration have been made and to elements of the design as detailed on page 11 section 7.2 and 7.3 of the Supporting Planning Statement dated Sept 2019. CCC would condition the need for further detail design at a later stage.

The applicant has removed the information regarding the construction access provided Drawing No SL095.90.9.SL.1CMP which indicates the location of the construction and storage compound and associated facilities, the plan also indicates the phasing of the development which is acceptable, however CCC as highways authority would require more details with regards to the access location. The proposed compound access location is onto the A686 in the 50mph zone and as such we would need to see the required visibility splays of 160m in both directions taken 2.4m back from the carriageway edge at the centre of the access. On a site visit it is noted that there is an existing field access however it is not known if this is the location of the proposed compound access, even if this was the compound would result in a significant intensification and would possibly require widening. CCC would need to see more detail on the proposed compound access and discussion would need to be undertaken with CCC

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response

Streetworks team contact [email protected] to determine if any signage etc. is required and to inform the Construction Phase Traffic Management Plan again CCC would request the attached conditions to any decision notice with a view to see further details at a later stage.

It is accepted that the applicant has stated in 4.4.2 of the Transport Assessment provided by Vectos Transport Planning Specialists and dated June 2019 state that “There are some areas of the development which consist of long ‘cul de sacs’. In order to help refuse

Collections, Bin Stores are proposed to minimise the reversing required. In these locations residents will

Wheel their bins to the bin store to enable collections to be made efficiently”

The location of the bins storage should however show that the collection point is no further than 15m from the turning head (and 30m from a dwelling). It is noted that the guidance cannot be achieved on some of the private section of the development due to design constraints associated with the Public Open spaces, as such the developer should consult with the district councils waste collection team to agree suitable refuse collection locations.

The statement in 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 is welcomed Story Homes shall contribute by means of proportionate commuted sum towards improvements to the nearby road infrastructure, where this is demonstrated to be necessary and proportionate. This is expected to include the Carleton Avenue / Carleton Road junction improvements including new pedestrian crossing island, as outlined in the Penrith Transport Infrastructure Study, Sept 2015

Cumbria County Council would request a contribution of £9,602.16 for the construction of a pedestrian island to help with the crossing of Carleton Road. This will ensure the safety of pedestrians and cyclist seeking to cross Carleton Road near to the junction with the A686 have a pedestrian refuge island at the centre of the wide junction.

CCC would also be looking for the developer to illuminate the access road from the A686 down Carleton Road to the development access point, appropriate street lighting for a 30mph residential area would also negate the need to undertake Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) which CCC previously requested on the Carleton Road between the A686 and the development access location. It is anticipated that the installation of street lighting on section of the footway would reduce the useable width on a footway which is narrow, this

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response

would then lead to requested footway widening works on the section of Carleton Road outside the Cross Keys Inn.

Within section 5.1.3 of the Transport Assessment provided assessment indicates that the site will have local amenities within a 5-minute walking distance of the site, however the footway at the side of the Cross Keys Public house would require widening works to accommodate the potential increase in pedestrian movements which aim to utilise the mentioned local amenities.

The Cross Keys footway on Carleton Road then links to the Toucan crossing point on the A686 and works would be required on the “except for access lane” at the side of the cross Keys Public House, concerns have been raised that the development will be looking to utilise the existing access onto the A686 and that the increased traffic generation from the development would lead to more traffic using the “Except for access” road to gain quick access onto the A686. Cumbria County Council Highways have reviewed the required local highway improvements and the footway at the side of the Cross Keys is below standard and as previously state this route will be the main pedestrian link with Penrith Town Centre, as such CCC highways would request a contribution of £37,404.94 to increase the width of the footway.

Eden District Council are progressing with the development of their Local Plan and have now completed work on their Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). To form part of the IDP the County Council and Eden District Council jointly commissioned a study to assess the implications of the Local Plan proposals on the Highways and Transport networks in Penrith (Penrith Transport Improvement Study). The study has identified improvements to the Highways and Transport networks which are necessary to address the cumulative impact of the development proposals within the Local Plan. Since the completion of the study in 2015 further work has been undertaken and detailed design work has been completed which has resulted in the schemes being updated’.

The response confirmed that ‘Cumbria County Council have no objection in principle to a development at this location, CCC would request the inclusion of the conditions attached above to address the required details to address the full design. CCC would also request that the following contributions in any section 106 agreement to secure the developer funding required for Education and highway improvements associated with the development’.

Local Lead Flood Authority - Responded on the 14 August 2019. They confirmed that they had assessed the Flood Risk assessment and Surface water

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response

Cumbria County Council management strategy submitted in support of the proposal.

It was noted that the intention was to utilise Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDs) techniques on site by way of an attenuation basin to the north-east of the site. Runoff rates were considered to need further clarification in relation to this proposal. It was also confirmed that, ‘The applicant has also provided a site investigation report which indicates that the site is unsuitable for infiltration methods of surface water disposal. Therefore, the applicant has opted for the second method of disposal in the sustainable hierarchy which would be direct to Carleton Beck designated Main River. This is acceptable subject to suitable design’.

It was also confirmed that the 100 year flood event allowance needed to be updated to accommodate a plus 40% premium. In terms of foul and surface water it was confirmed that ‘The Drainage Statement provided indicates that both the surface water and foul water networks will be offered for adoption with United Utilities, however the attenuation basin, Flow control and swale will be maintained by Management Company set up by Story Homes. As such we would welcome information with regards to agreements with United Utilities and a detailed Surface water Management plan which would indicate the maintenance regimes for the surface water drainage assets. CCC would also require details on how the surface water will be managed through the construction phases, any such information should indicate how the site will store surface water and prevent surface water pollution incidents from construction operations and silt migration due to the stripping of the grass etc’. Accordingly, further information was sought in relation to hydraulic calculations, exceedance details, maintenance details, detailed drainage drawings and third party agreements.

The applicant therefore provided an updated suite of information. The Lead Local Flood Authority considered this information and responded on the 28 October 2019 and confirmed that, the ‘Urban Drainage (SUDs) techniques being utilised by the means of an attenuation basin at the north east of the development site with a discharge via a swale to Carleton beck at the North east of the site. The applicant has design the basin to accommodate surface water discharge from the Story development, Greenfield Runoff Rates identified as (Qbar) 4.4l/s. CCC has reviewed the details with regards to the discharge rate and drain down times associated with the attenuation basin and would agree to the proposed Greenfield Runoff rate of 5l/s. This rate is a considerable reduction on the Greenfield runoff rates submitted in the FRA and clarification has been demonstrate with calculations which support the application site of 149 Residential units.

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response

The applicant has also provided a site investigation report which indicates that the site is unsuitable for infiltration methods of surface water disposal. Therefore, the applicant has opted for the second method of disposal in the sustainable hierarchy which would be direct to Carleton Beck designated Main River. This is acceptable subject to suitable design.

The DS provided in the current application indicates that the attenuation basin has been designed for a 100-year flood event plus 30% allowance for climate change, this design has been updated to the current standards of 40% for climate change, the FRA indicates in section 7.8 (Page 12) that designers should assess which of the allowances is appropriate depending on individual site constraints and local flood risk and as there is a potential flood risk downstream CCC would request that the upper threshold is designed too. Drawing No 6668/15 indicates the proposed Attenuation Basin and outfall proposal to Carleton Beck and has been designed based on current design standards of 40% climate change and 10% urban creep.

The Drainage Statement provided indicates that both the surface water and foul water networks will be offered for adoption with United Utilities, however the attenuation basin, Flow control and swale will be maintained by Management Company set up by Story Homes. As such we would welcome information with regards to agreements with United Utilities and a detailed Surface water Management plan which would indicate the maintenance regimes for the surface water drainage assets. CCC would also require details on how the surface water will be managed through the construction phases, any such information should indicate how the site will store surface water and prevent surface water pollution incidents from construction operations and silt migration due to the stripping of the grass etc’.

Consequently, conditions were requested in relation to drainage which have been incorporated into section 1 of this report and the response confirmed no objection in relation to the proposal subject to those conditions and obligations requested in relation to a Section 106 legal agreement (referred to in section 1 of this report).

Environment Agency Responded on the 9 July 2019 and confirmed that the Flood Risk and Surface Water Management Strategy had been reviewed. They further confirmed that they were satisfied that the proposals had demonstrated that the ‘proposed development would not be at an unacceptable risk of flooding or exacerbate flood risk elsewhere’.

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response

United Utilities Responded on the 16 July 2019 and confirmed that were this proposal to be approved, they would request that conditions related to both surface and foul water be attached to any subsequent planning permission.

Environmental Health Responded on the 27 June 2019 and confirmed for some additional information in relation to the information submitted. The applicant did so and this was considered by the Environmental Health Officer (EHO). A further response on the 14 August 2019 was subsequently received. The response confirmed that ‘I have examined the amended noise report, which appears to be satisfactory. My only concern is that they have specified that mechanical ventilation systems are an option for properties that require additional ventilation (i.e. where windows will need to be kept closed to meet the internal noise levels), whereas we would seek the installation of these systems (in preference to trickle vents) to ensure adequate ventilation’. Accordingly, a condition was requested to be attached to any subsequent grant of permission. This condition related to the proposed noise insulation scheme.

The applicant considered this and suggested the imposition of a condition to be included which would require certain phases throughout the development to have the last house tested to ensure mitigation measures are efficient and achieve the standards the EHO seeks to achieve.

The applicant and EHO are agreeable to this and accordingly, such a condition is required as per Section 1 of this report.

County Council Minerals and Waste Planning Team

Responded on the 21 June 2019 and confirmed that Cumbria County Council as minerals planning authority had no objection to the application.

Natural England Responded on the 26 June 2019 and confirmed no objection subject to appropriate mitigation being secured to protect the River Eden Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the River Eden and Tributaries Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This mitigation was recommended to be a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) ensuring appropriate working buffer zones of at least 10 metres around Carleton Beck. A condition requiring such was requested to be included in any subsequent grant of planning permission.

Policy Team No response has been received.

Arboricultural Officer Responded on the 16 August 2019 and confirmed that, ‘The Urban Green tree report supporting this application is an accurate assessment of the trees and includes an appropriate Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response

measures. The scheme will require the removal of a very gappy hedgerow that has little effect upon the landscape and will not impact upon trees on adjacent land provided the tree protection measures contained within the Urban Green report are adhered to in full therefore I recommend that a condition is attached to this effect’.

Cumbria County Council – Education

Responded on the 14 August 2019 and confirmed that in terms of Primary Education, a contribution of £600,012 would be required to assist in providing capacity for 36 primary school children calculated as being generated by this development if implemented. No secondary school contribution was requested. However, it was noted that this was a ‘snapshot in time and there is a possibility that these numbers will change between now and the point at which a planning application may be approved’.

No transport costs in relation to both primary and secondary pupils was requested.

Historic Environment Officer Responded on the 25 June 2019 and confirmed that the site had been subject to an archaeological evaluation (which had been required as part of the previously approved ref. 17/0408 planning permission). The results of the evaluation completed indicate that ‘no significant archaeological assets will be disturbed by the construction of the proposed development and so no further archaeological work is necessary. I therefore confirmed that I have no objections to the application and do not wish to offer any comments or recommendations’’.

Cumbria County Council – Public Rights of Way

Responded on the 14 August 2019 and confirmed that ‘No recorded public rights of way would be affected by the proposed development’.

Housing Officer Responded on the 23 July 2019 and confirmed that the proposal would comply with the requirements of Policy HS1 and deliver 30% affordable housing. However, in terms of layout the Housing Team considered that the distribution of the affordable housing was of ‘serious concern’ and it was felt that the units should be spread more evenly throughout the site as opposed to the concentration of affordable units in one place on site. As such the Housing team requested a holding objection in relation to the proposal.

The applicant considered these comments and subsequently updated certain elements of the proposal to take account of the comments made.

These updated plans were subject of a further consultation and on the 21 October 2019 the Housing Team responded again. They confirmed that the affordable units were now considered

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response

to be ‘satisfactorily dispersed and integrated throughout the majority of the site’. In terms of unit size the Housing team confirmed that ‘It is noted that the applicant has been proactive in contacting RP’s in seeking feedback on unit accessibility/size. On the basis of the feedback received in indicating there is continued demand for the 2 bed ‘Bailey’ house type we are willing to accept the proposed 2 bed house type as being acceptable on this site. We welcome the replacement of the 3 bed ‘Fraser’ house type with the larger 3 bed ‘Harper’ house type and confirm this amendment to be acceptable’.

As such, the holding objection was removed.

4. Parish Council Response

Please Tick as Appropriate

Town Council Object Support No Response No Objection

Penrith Town Council

X

4.1 Responded on the 15 July 2019 and confirmed that they object to the proposal. It isn’t possible to convey word-for-word the Town Council’s comments within this report, but the basis of their concerns are noted as follows;

‘The development is not considered to comply with Policy DEV5 in the Local Plan as the house would not reflect ‘local distinctiveness’. This is exacerbated with an additional 35% of houses being proposes for the same space thereby increasing the density of the development.

The split for affordable rent and intermediate housing should remain at 50:50 as agreed in principle rather than the 43:56 proposed in the supporting planning statement.

The development does not include a suitable mix of houses and bungalows. The Housing Needs Survey for Penrith carried out in 2018 confirmed that the largest requirement was for two and three bedroomed houses and bungalows ie homes for young peoples, the elderly, singles, the disabled and small families.

That there are issues regarding highways safety as the junction is unsuitable for the number of cars that will be generated by both the original application and the number of additional houses proposed by this application as this is a relatively fast and busy main road and tourist route. The speed limit should be reduced to 30 mph on the A686 through Carleton.

As stated in our original objection, the play equipment suggested, although welcome, is not varied enough consisting of various forms of balance beams and pushed to the outside. Penrith Town Council would wish to see a centralised secure play area with varied equipment to promote social inclusion and healthy lifestyles.

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

the style of windows suggested means that they are too small to allow maximum natural light in and thereby reduce energy usage for residents.

Development proposals should be designed to incorporate sustainable development principles and measures. These measures should build in resilience and achieve development that is adaptable to meet the challenges of future climate and socio-economic change.

Development should be designed in such a way that it promotes high quality, environmentally sustainable design. Proposals should be informed by, and respect, the Town’s wider character and the local site context. High quality, contemporary design will be encouraged where it reflects these criteria.

Penrith Town Council also wishes to register its concern that the infrastructure in the Town is not capable of supporting additional development of this scale. During the Neighbourhood Plan process, evidence was gathered in 2018 from the educational establishments, Doctors and Dentists who advised that they had either no capacity or very little capacity to take additional people. It is understood that a primary school was proposed adjacent to Carleton Heights but it is unclear when this development will take place. This does not, however, help the situation with regard to secondary education as one school is selective and only takes pupils who achieve the pass score regardless of where they live’.

5. Representations

5.1 The application was advertised by means of a site notice posted on both the 4 July 2019 and 3 October 2019, a press notice which appeared in the Herald on the 29 Jun2 2019 and the 5 October 2019 and the following neighbour notifications:

No of Neighbours Consulted 25 No of letters of support 1

No of objection letters 10 No of letters of observation 5

5.2 The letter of objection received, raised the following points considered to be material considerations:

The density of the proposal is out of keeping with the area;

No cycle path through the estate to think to Langwathby Road opposite the vets;

The proposed development will add to road congestion;

Local services are already struggling and this development will exacerbate these issues;

The proposed development is out of character with the area;

The boundary treatment isn’t appropriate in various sections of the proposal site ;

The development will lead to overlooking and be overbearing;

The scale of the proposed development is unacceptable;

The development would irreversibly damage a scheduled ancient monument and historic roman road;

The development will have ecological impacts;

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

The proposal does not accord with national planning policy which aims to avoid development in open countryside;

The development will lead to the loss of high quality and versatile agricultural land.

5.3 One letter of support and three letters of observation were also received. In summary, this stated that they ‘fully support the development’.

6. Relevant Planning History

6.1 13/0033 – Outline application for residential development with approval sought for access (land to the north of 17/0408) – permitted.

6.2 17/0408 – Full application for residential development of 110 dwellings – permitted.

7. Policy Context

7.1 Development Plan – Eden Local Plan

Policy LS1: Locational Strategy;

Policy LS2: Housing Targets and Distribution;

Policy PEN1: A Town Plan for Penrith;

Policy DEV1: General Approach to New Development;

Policy DEV2: Water Management and Flood Risk;

Policy DEV3: Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way;

Policy DEV5: Design of New Development;

Policy ENV1: Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Geodiversity;

Policy ENV5: Environmentally Sustainable design;

Policy ENV10: The Historic Environment;

Policy HS1: Affordable Housing;

Policy HS5: Accessible and Adaptable Homes;

Policy COM3: Provision of New Open Space.

7.2 Other Material Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework February 2019:

Chapter 2 - Achieving sustainable development Chapter 4 - Decision-making Chapter 5 - Delivering a sufficient supply of homes

Chapter 11 - Making effective use of land Chapter 12 - Achieving well designed places Chapter 14 - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change

Chapter 15 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Supplementary Planning Documents:

Housing (2010)

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

8. Planning Assessment

8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues

Principle of development

Drainage, Flood and Pollution

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Highway Impacts

Landscape and Design

Residential Amenity

Affordable Housing

Natural Environment

Heritage Impacts

Provision of Open Space

8.2 Principle of development

8.2.1 The application site is noted to be ‘allocated’ within the local plan. Such a designated site has already, therefore, been considered and assessed as part of the Local Plan process. Given it has been ‘allocated’ this presumes its development is acceptable in principle and in addition, it is anticipated to contribute to the housing targets that comprise the Local Plan.

8.2.2 The entire allocated site (known as ‘E3’) was allocated to accommodate 261 dwellings. This is not a formal ‘cap’ on what an allocated site may receive in terms of housing numbers proposed or developed upon it, but it demonstrates the scale of development anticipated for the site, which would contribute to the housing targets for the duration of the plan.

8.2.3 In this case, it is important to note that the application site only relates to a ‘portion’ of the entire ‘E3’ site, allocated within the Local Plan. The site is split (although not equally) between this site (currently subject of a planning permission for 110 dwellings) and a further permission on a portion of land still within the allocated site but separate from that particular red line – that permission has been noted in the site history section of this report (see paragraph 6.1) – under planning permission ref.13/0033. That permission was an outline decision and did not grant a specific number of dwellings – however, it was confirmed within the application details that the site was being proposed for 96 houses. In total, the site would therefore deliver approximately 206 houses. Were this permission granted, it would deliver a total of approximately 245. Bearing in mind that the site is allocated for 261 dwellings, the potential number of dwellings the site would deliver, would still be below the total allocation for the site, albeit of a more appropriate density and layout.

8.2.4 Within the Local Plan, Policy LS1, entitled ‘Locational Strategy’, confirms that the plan seeks to focus new and appropriate development towards key hubs, main towns and Penrith. The intent behind Policy LS1 is to ensure that housing is delivered in sustainable locations. In this case, Penrith is noted to be the Main Town within the district. As the ‘main’ town, it is expected to ‘benefit from sustained development’ which includes large scale housing development.

8.2.5 This scheme would therefore accord with the aims and intentions of the Locational Strategy within Policy LS1 given it is a large scale housing development and located within the Main Town of the entire district.

8.2.6 It is also recognised that the Local Plan acknowledges former shortfalls in housing provision and accordingly the Council is keen to ensure that the rate of up-take for new sites occur in the early years of the plan. Planning applications such as this, for allocated sites such as this, would contribute to fulfilling that intention.

8.2.7 It is noted that some objectors believe the proposal site is contrary to national planning policy as it would involve the development of a site in ‘open countryside’. This is not an accurate reflection of the status of the site, which has been confirmed within this report,

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

is allocated within the Local Plan for housing development as part of Penrith. Such allocations are required in order to be in accordance with the aforementioned, cited, national planning policy framework (the NPPF).

8.2.8 Policy PEN2 entitled ‘Penrith Masterplans’ states, ‘strategic sites in the north and east of Penrith will not be given permission for development until masterplans for those areas have been agreed with the Council. Masterplans will be expected to be in accordance with the objectives and outputs contained in the 2011 masterplan for Penrith’.

8.2.9 The applicant had already proposed a masterplan during the 17/0408 permission which was accepted by the council during the determination of that application. In this case, an updated masterplan has been provided by the applicant. This masterplan seeks to demonstrate how the site would function and connect to the wider area, as required by the PEN2 policy.

8.2.10 This plan also shows how ‘leisure’ footpaths would be on site as well as how areas of the site would be subject to various densities dependent upon where on the site they are located. It also demonstrates how this site could connect into the northern part of the site when it is developed as well as the further allocated site to the south of the site (referred to in the Local Plan as site ‘E4’) and to wider Penrith generally.

8.2.11 The plan is considered to provide the information necessary in order to comply with the policy. The interconnectivity between this site and the remaining ‘E3’ site to the north is appropriate, as is the intent to connect to site ‘E4’ when it is eventually developed also. These allocated sites would then fit into the existing public footpath network into Penrith to enable sustainable access to the Town’s shops, services and existing employment provision. It is noted that the Highway Authority has sought various requirements in order to ensure that the highway network is also improved, to ensure that the site also contributes to the capability of the network once the site is fully occupied.

8.2.12 Accordingly, for the reasons detailed above, it is considered that the proposal can be considered to represent sustainable development in this instance. Furthermore, it is considered that the principle of the development is acceptable, in this particular case for the development of an allocated site with extant planning permission for residential development, subject to further considerations in relation to drainage, highways, landscape, amenity, heritage asset and environmental impacts and that the proposal complies with Policy PEN2 of the Local Plan.

8.3 Drainage, Flooding and Pollution

8.3.1 The application site is located within a Flood Zone 1, being land at lower risk/vulnerability of flooding. In principle, such locations would therefore be considered to represent suitable locations for development proposals such as this in terms of drainage, flooding and pollution. Carleton Beck is noted to run along the northern edge and eastern edge of the site that eventually runs into the River Eamont. Policy DEV2 of the Local Plan, entitled ‘Water Management and Flood Risk’ confirms that ‘new development’ should ‘meet the sequential approach to development in flood risk areas’.

8.3.2 The Policy confirms that ‘new development must incorporate sustainable drainage systems (SUDs), where practicable, to manage surface water run-off. All applications for major development, defined in Appendix 2, will be subject to review by the Lead Local Flood Authority. Surface water should be discharged in the following order of priority:

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

1. To an adequate soakaway or some other form of infiltration system.

2. By an attenuated discharge to a watercourse.

3. By an attenuated discharge to a public surface water sewer.

4. By an attenuated discharge to a public combined sewer.

Applicants will need to submit clear evidence demonstrating why there is no alternative option but to discharge surface water to the public sewerage system and that the additional discharge can be accommodated. The presumption will be against the discharge of surface water to the public sewerage network’.

8.3.3 Chapter 14 of the NPPF entitled ‘Planning for Climate Change’ confirms in paragraph 155 that, ‘Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere’.

8.3.4 Paragraph 158 of the NPPF states that, ‘The aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding. The strategic flood risk assessment will provide the basis for applying this test. The sequential approach should be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding’.

8.3.5 Paragraph 162 states that, ‘Where planning applications come forward on sites allocated in the development plan through the sequential test, applicants need not apply the sequential test again. However, the exception test may need to be reapplied if relevant aspects of the proposal had not been considered when the test was applied at the plan-making stage, or if more recent information about existing or potential flood risk should be taken into account’.

8.3.6 Paragraph 163 states that, ‘When determining any planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere. Where appropriate, applications should be supported by a site-specific flood-risk assessment. Development should only be allowed in areas at risk of flooding where, in the light of this assessment (and the sequential and exception tests, as applicable) it can be demonstrated that:

a) within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location;

b) the development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient;

c) it incorporates sustainable drainage systems, unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate;

d) any residual risk can be safely managed; and

e) safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate, as part of an agreed emergency plan’.

8.3.7 Paragraph 165 states that, ‘Major developments should incorporate sustainable drainage systems unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate. The systems used should:

a) take account of advice from the lead local flood authority;

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

b) have appropriate proposed minimum operational standards;

c) have maintenance arrangements in place to ensure an acceptable standard of operation for the lifetime of the development; and

d) where possible, provide multifunctional benefits’.

8.3.8 In this case, it is noted that the applicants have submitted a full drainage strategy which has been considered by the Lead Local Flood Authority, Environment Agency and United Utilities.

8.3.9 The Lead Local Flood Authority raised a number of queries which required further consideration by the applicant. The applicant subsequently submitted updated information which was considered further.

8.3.10 A second response from the Lead Local Flood Authority was therefore provided. This response confirmed that in terms of the design approach that the applicant had detailed were acceptable. The response stated that ‘The Coopers Chartered Consulting Engineers Drainage Statement (DS) indicates the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDs) techniques being utilised by the means of an attenuation basin at the north east of the development site with a discharge via a swale to Carleton beck at the North east of the site. The applicant has design the basin to accommodate surface water discharge from the Story development, Greenfield Runoff Rates identified as (Qbar) 4.4l/s. CCC has reviewed the details with regards to the discharge rate and drain down times associated with the attenuation basin and would agree to the proposed Greenfield Runoff rate of 5l/s. This rate is a considerable reduction on the Greenfield runoff rates submitted in the FRA and clarification has been demonstrate with calculations which support the application site of 149 Residential units.

The applicant has also provided a site investigation report which indicates that the site is unsuitable for infiltration methods of surface water disposal. Therefore, the applicant has opted for the second method of disposal in the sustainable hierarchy which would be direct to Carleton Beck designated Main River. This is acceptable subject to suitable design’.

8.3.11In terms of climate change allowances for a 100-year flood event, the response confirmed that the applicant had updated their plans to reflect the updated standards of a 40% allowance (was previously 30%). The Lead Local Flood Authority stated in relation to this matter that, ‘The DS provided in the current application indicates that the attenuation basin has been designed for a 100-year flood event plus 30% allowance for climate change, this design has been updated to the current standards of 40% for climate change, the FRA indicates in section 7.8 (Page 12) that designers should assess which of the allowances is appropriate depending on individual site constraints and local flood risk and as there is a potential flood risk downstream CCC would request that the upper threshold is designed too. Drawing No 6668/15 indicates the proposed Attenuation Basin and outfall proposal to Carleton Beck and has been designed based on current design standards of 40% climate change and 10% urban creep’.

8.3.12 The response concluded that it had been noted that both surface and foul water would be offered for adoption to United Utilities, whilst the attenuation basin, flow control and swale would be maintained by a management company set up by the developer. Further details were requested and as a consequence conditions related to drainage were requested to be attached to any subsequent approval. These have been included in section 1 of this report.

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

8.3.13 United Utilities have confirmed that were the application approved, they would wish to see conditions related to surface and foul water be attached to any subsequent grant of permission. Such conditions have been included in section1 of this report.

8.3.14 The Environment Agency were also consulted. They confirmed that they have assessed the Flood Risk and Surface Water Management Strategy. On completion of that review, they have confirmed that the proposed development would not be at an unacceptable risk of flooding, nor would it exacerbate flood risk elsewhere.

8.3.15 The site is noted to be allocated and would utilise sustainable drainage methods to deal with surface water. The technical submissions have been assessed by the Lead Local Flood Authority, United Utilities and the Environment Agency.

8.3.16 The proposal incorporates a sustainable drainage system, which accords with both Policy DEV2 and paragraph 165 of the NPPF given the site is a major development. These sustainable drainage (SUDs) systems have been assessed by the Lead Local Flood Authority who have confirmed that the proposals are acceptable. United Utilities have also requested conditions related to surface and foul water were the proposal subsequently approved.

8.3.17 In terms of flooding, the site is noted to be located in a Flood Zone 1, which is an area at risk of a less than 1 in 1000 year change of being flooded by a river. Carleton Beck is noted to be located to the northern and eastern edge of the site which is connected to the River Eamont. On the basis of the flood risk designation, the site is considered to be at a low risk of flooding.

8.3.18 The Environment Agency confirmed that following an assessment of the details submitted, they were satisfied that the proposal would not be at an unacceptable risk of flooding, nor would it exacerbate flood risk elsewhere.

8.3.19 On the basis that an appropriate scheme of surface water drainage and a management scheme are designed, approved and implemented on site, the application site can be serviced by suitable drainage and would not result in an increased risk of flooding. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be compliant with Policy DEV2 and the NPPF and can be supported.

8.4 Highways Impacts

8.4.1 Policy DEV3 of the Local Plan entitled ‘Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way’ states that ‘development will be refused if it will result in a severe impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion. Development should provide safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people’.

8.4.2 Chapter 9 of the NPPF is entitled ‘Promoting sustainable transport’. Paragraph 103 states that ‘significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. This can help reduce congestion and emissions, and improve air quality and public health. However, opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making’.

8.4.3 The applicant has completed a Transport Assessment in support of this application which concluded by suggesting that the development could be completed without impacting on either highway operation or highway safety, acknowledging that the access would be made off Carleton Road.

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

8.4.4 The assessment also acknowledged that the site is within a ’25 minute walk of Penrith Town Centre and all its amenities, retail and job opportunities. There are many cycle routes within the local area and as well as the National Cycle Route there are cycle lanes on Carleton Avenue and Carleton Road heading into Penrith. The good accessibility of the site on foot and by bicycle are supported by a Travel Plan that accompanies this report to help residents choose sustainable transport options’.

8.4.5 The Highways Authority have been consulted in relation to this application. Their initial response required further information into a number of areas generally related to the refuse collection/bin storage areas proposed and ‘various aspects of the layout design’. Subsequently, the applicant provided additional information and accordingly, the Highway Authority was requested to provide a further response.

8.4.6 A further response was made by the Highway Authority. They confirmed that visibility splays had been demonstrated for 70 metres in both directions from the proposed access. It was suggested that given the existing speed limit on Carleton Road is currently 60 miles then such visibility splays would need to be increased. However, it was recognised that the applicant has suggested the speed limit on Carleton Road be reduced to 30 mph. Accordingly, visibility splays of only 60 metres would be required.

8.4.7 The Highway Authority have based their agreement to the proposed visibility splays of 60 or 70 metres on the basis that the speed limit is reduced. In order for the applicant/developer to achieve a visibility splay plan acceptable (as required by condition) the speed limit will have to be reduced on Carleton Road. This can be achieved via separate legislation and will require the applicant to engage with the Highway Authority in due course. However, from a planning perspective, it is considered reasonable to assume this will occur (otherwise the condition will not be discharged) and as such the proposal, in relation to access, can be considered acceptable.

8.4.8 It is noted that some objectors have raised concerns over the local highway network in that they consider it to be at capacity and this development would make this problem even worse. Those concerns related to the existing speed limit on Carleton Road which would effectively be resolved given the access visibility proposals of the applicant (and the requirement for reducing the speed limit in order to accommodate it). Visibility details for any site compound was also noted by the Highway Authority. In order to ensure that this is appropriate, further details will be required at a later date as requested by condition in section 1. Only once approved, could that be constructed.

8.4.9 Whilst the concerns over general capacity are noted, they are not consistent with the views of the Highway Authority. An increase in traffic levels or vehicles movements resulting from a development does not in itself represent harm, or a valid reason for the refusal of this planning application. It is the impact of any increase that must be considered in terms of capacity and safety. The Highway Authority has confirmed that the local highway network is not considered to be at capacity and can safely absorb traffic movements raised by this development.

8.4.10 It is noted that the Highway Authority have requested significant contributions to improve the existing highway network. These will ensure that the local highway network is of sufficient standard to protect pedestrian and cyclist safety (as well as vehicle users too). Such will be achieved by enhancements for pedestrians (refuge island). These requirements (listed in Section 1 of this report) would be secured a by Section 106 legal agreement. Until that legal agreement has been put in place, no development can take place as the decision will not be issued without the legal

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

agreement having first been completed. Thereafter, compliance with this Legal Agreement would be a legal requirement which can be enforced by the Council.

8.4.11 However, these planning obligations have been confirmed by the Highway Authority as necessary and as such the Local Planning Authority considers that these obligations will ensure an enhanced local highway network that protects the safety of existing and future highway users (whether they be pedestrians, drivers or cyclists). On that basis, the provision of these enhancements are considered to be planning gains that in this instance would be benefits of the scheme if it was approved.

8.4.12 As has been established the only basis upon which a proposal can be refused in terms of highways impacts is if the said impacts were ‘severe’ in terms of safety and congestion. No such severe impacts are considered likely as a consequence of this proposal were it approved and then implemented. On that basis, to refuse a proposal on such grounds, when the Highway Authority has no such concerns, would be unreasonable, inappropriate and disproportionate.

8.4.13 Given the site is considered part of Carleton, which in itself is recognised as part of Penrith, within the Local Plan the site is considered well related to the town. On this basis, there are opportunities for future residents to utilise more sustainable methods to access the ready supply of services and shops in the town. Whether this be on foot, bike, mobility scooter, etc.) the site is considered close enough to ensure that future occupants need not rely solely upon the use of the car.

8.4.14 Accordingly then, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of highway impacts, consistent with Policy DEV3 of the Local Plan, the NPPF and can be supported.

8.5 Landscape and Design

8.5.1 Policy DEV5 entitled ‘Design of New Development’ of the Local Plan require development to demonstrate a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment.

8.5.2 The Policy states, ‘New development will be required to demonstrate that it meets each of the following criteria:

Shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area.

Protects and where possible enhances the district’s distinctive rural landscape, natural environment and biodiversity.

Reflects the existing street scene through use of appropriate scale, mass, form, layout, high quality architectural design and use of materials.

Optimises the potential use of the site and avoids overlooking.

Protects the amenity of the existing residents and business occupiers and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers.

Use quality materials which complement or enhance local surroundings.

Protects features and characteristics of local importance.

Provides adequate space for the storage, collection and recycling of waste.

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Can be easily accessed and used by all, regardless of age and disability’.

8.5.3 It is acknowledged that the proposed development would alter the appearance of the site. However, it is equally acknowledged that this alteration was accepted both when the site was allocated for housing as part of the Local Plan and when it was approved for 110 dwellings to be constructed upon it under Planning Permission ref. 17/0408. Whilst that change in visual appearance would remain were this application approved, the material difference is not considered significant were this site subject to 149 dwellings being constructed upon it not least because this site was allocated for 261 dwellings in total.

8.5.4 As has been noted, some objectors have suggested the proposal is contrary to national planning policy as it is, in their view, open countryside. The site is an allocated site for housing development and is known as ‘E3’ within the local plan, therefore the site is considered as part of Penrith. The entire site is allocated for 261 dwellings. Whilst there is a view from some objectors who consider this site to be ‘open countryside’, officers are unable to agree with this opinion. The site is subject to an extant planning permission, granted under ref. 17/0408. This is a significant fall-back position in its own right and the fact that it is allocated within the local plan is even more significant. Combined, these factors illustrate the principle of the sites development has been established as acceptable on this site.

8.5.5 In reality then, given development of the site is, in principle, acceptable, the addition of a further 39 homes, relative to the aforementioned extant permission is the sole consideration before the Planning Authority. Notwithstanding, the development will be considered as a whole.

8.5.6 Whilst there is an acknowledged landscape impact in the granting of any planning permission, in this case, the site was allocated for a large number of dwellings. Even 149 dwellings being constructed on this site, would mean the allocated site as a whole would still deliver under the allocation within the local plan. Given that higher allocation was considered acceptable when the site was allocated as part of the Local Plan, it is not considered reasonable, in planning terms, to conclude that a scheme that would deliver less than the approved allocation would result in a significantly detrimental impact in terms of landscape.

8.5.7 It is recognised that the density of the development would be increased were this application approved. However, as has been established within this report, an application for 149 dwellings would still result in a total number of dwellings below the formal allocation for the site. In reality, the number of dwellings proposed means that even more land is available for public open space than would be had the applicant sought to deliver the total allocation or even exceed it. In allocating the site for a total of 261 homes, the Council accepted that the housing would be constructed in a dense layout and as such it would be unreasonable and inconsistent to refuse this application on these grounds.

8.5.8 Paragraph 127 of the NPPF states that, ‘Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments:

a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development;

b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping;

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities);

d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit;

e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and

f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users46; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience’.

8.5.9 Paragraph 130 of the NPPF states that, ‘Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, taking into account any local design standards or style guides in plans or supplementary planning documents. Conversely, where the design of a development accords with clear expectations in plan policies, design should not be used by the decision-maker as a valid reason to object to development. Local planning authorities should also seek to ensure that the quality of approved development is not materially diminished between permission and completion, as a result of changes being made to the permitted scheme (for example through changes to approved details such as the materials used)’.

8.5.10 In this case, the development seeks to utilise a mixed palate of materials. These would range from paving stone, ranging in colours of natural, burnt ochre and charcoal. Various brick varieties are also proposed. Smooth red, antique brick, Hampton rural blend and Milano blend. Tumbled natural sandstone would also be incorporated into the development proposal. Off-white render is also proposed to be utilised in the finishes of the development. White uPVC windows and patio doors would be used along with uPVC composite doors. Black uPVC gutter and downpipes are proposed and roofs would be finished in natural slate. Lower roofs would be finished in grey pantiles.

8.5.11 The proposal would involve a range of house types including, terraced, semi-detached and detached dwellings. The area to the west and south-west of site is noted to be dominated by residential development. These homes range in style and size and are not dominated by any particular style or design.

8.5.12 Such a range of styles and design means that given there is no such dominant style with which the development would be able to ‘comply’ with. The applicant has provided plans which demonstrate a range of house types. In total, ten different house types are proposed. The materials proposed are listed in paragraph 8.5.9 above and would result in a mixture of finishes which in many ways would reflect the mixture of house types and materials in the area given no dominant style or material exists.

8.5.13That being said, the proposed design is not considered particularly innovative. However, it is not considered ‘poor’ and in that context not appropriate to refuse. The area is subject to such a range of design styles that these proposed dwellings, particularly those finished with stone frontages, would be of a reasonable architectural

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

merit and would not have a detrimental impact on the character of the area. The applicant has offered a range of materials to be utilised in the development.

8.5.14 The materials proposed range from stone paving, ranging in colours of natural, burnt ochre and charcoal. Various brick varieties are also proposed. Smooth red, antique brick, Hampton rural blend and Milano blend. Tumbled natural sandstone would also be incorporated into the development proposal. Off-white render is also proposed to be utilised in the finishes of the development. White uPVC windows and patio doors would be used along with uPVC composite doors. Black uPVC gutter and downpipes are proposed and roofs would be finished in natural slate. Lower roofs would be finished in grey pantiles. These materials are considered acceptable and would be appropriate and consistent with those already used and existing within the locality and wider area.

8.5.15 It is acknowledged that some objectors have raised concerns that the development of the site would result in the loss of high quality and versatile agricultural land. It can be confirmed that the land is Grade 3 land. The NPPF recognises the value of the best and most versatile land.

8.5.16 Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states (the element specifically related to best and most versatile land has been deliberately emboldened) that ‘Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan);

b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland;

c) maintaining the character of the undeveloped coast, while improving public access to it where appropriate;

d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;

e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans; and

f) remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate’.

8.5.17 Unfortunately, information available from the Natural England website does not subdivide the Grade 3 land between ‘A’ and ‘B’. Grade 3 land is referred to as ‘good to moderate’ with subgrade ‘a’ being ‘good quality’ and subgrade ‘b’ being ‘moderate quality’. Grade 2 land is ‘very good quality’ with Grade 1 being ‘excellent quality’. Accordingly it is considered that there are no concerns in relation to this issue. Importantly, it is noted that Natural England offer no objection to the proposal (subject to appropriate mitigation) and made no comments in relation to the agricultural classification of the land.

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

8.5.18 Furthermore, the design of the development is noted to include environmentally sustainable principles. Policy ENV5 entitled ‘Environmentally Sustainable Design’ states that ‘proposals for commercial development and for major residential development, defined in Appendix 2, should demonstrate, where it is practical for them to do so, that they have considered each of the following criteria:

Maximising daylight and passive solar gain through the orientation of buildings.

Integrating sustainable urban drainage systems.

Designing and positioning buildings to minimise wind funnelling, frost pockets and uncomfortable microclimates.

Integrating renewable energy technology into the scheme, and in schemes comprising over 50 dwellings or on sites over 1.5 hectares, exploring the scope for direct heating.

Minimising construction waste, through for example designing out waste during the design stage, selecting sustainable and efficient building materials and reusing materials where possible.

Providing well-designed and visually unobtrusive outdoor waste storage areas to promote cycling.

Promoting sustainable transport modes, through for example careful layout and road design to ensure it is conducive to walking and cycling and prioritises the pedestrian and cyclist over the car’.

8.5.19 It is recognised that the Policy states ‘should’ demonstrate, rather than ‘must’ but despite this, it is considered important that development endeavours to provide as strong an environmentally sustainable design as possible. Notwithstanding, the requirements of the policy must be recognised in the consideration of this application.

8.5.20 The applicant advises that a large proportion of the development is orientated in a south/east orientation to ensure passive solar gain in order to assist in reducing the amount of energy the dwellings would require for heat. In addition, the applicants have confirmed a ‘fabric first’ approach.

8.5.21 Such an approach is aimed at ensuring that high levels of thermal insulation are incorporated into the construction to ensure that thermal performance and sustainability are embedded in the ‘fabric’ of the dwellings for the long-term.

8.5.22The applicants have also confirmed that by incorporating modern insulation materials in the build process, ‘U’ values can be managed. Such values relate to the efficiency of a buildings ‘fabric’ as insulators. Essentially, they can demonstrate how effective a building would be at preventing heat from transmitting from within the building to outside. In measuring ‘U’ values, the lower the number, the slower heat is able to transmit through it and so accordingly, the buildings fabric is better at insulating heat the lower the ‘U’ value.

8.5.23 In this case, the applicant advises that the following values will apply to the buildings proposed on site:

Ground floors – concrete slab with PIR insulation and screed achieving a U value of 0.16W/m2K;

External walls – cavity wall with injected glass mineral wool insulation achieving a U value of 0.28W/m2K, or cavity wall with PIR insulation achieving a U value of 28W/m2K;

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Roofs – 500mm mineral fibre insulation quilt achieving a U value of 0.09W/m2K;

Windows – PVCU, double glazed, low e coating and argon filled achieving a U value of 1.40W/m2K; and

Doors – composite external doors construction achieving a U value of 1.40W/m2K.

8.5.24The applicant has also confirmed that the proposed homes will feature air permeability of 5m3/hr@50pa which they consider a 50% improvement on existing Building regulations standards. Efficient water fittings and low energy light fittings will also be incorporated into the development in order to try and ensure that the homes proposed are as energy efficient as possible.

8.5.25 The applicants consider this passive carbon reduction and fabric first approach is a practical way of helping to reduce CO2 emissions and energy demand. In this case, the applicant is considered to have proposed reasonable and appropriate methods in order to comply with the requirements of Policy ENV5, which should be afforded considerable weight in the determination of this application.

8.5.26 In consultation with the Council’s Building Control Service, it has been confirmed that, there are limiting ‘U’ values within the Building Regs. However, each dwelling was assessed and a ‘SAP’ calculation arrived at. ‘SAP’ calculations are better known as ‘Standard Assessment Procedure’ and effectively measure the energy efficiency of a property.

8.5.27 It should be noted that it is not possible to just consider the specifics of the ‘U’ values relative to the requirements of existing Policy DEV5, as the Policy is not explicit in that specific values have to be attained. However, having reviewed the data available in relation to the building regulations ‘Limiting fabric parameters’ the proposal in this case would provide values within the building regulation requirements. The applicant has added that ‘Regarding the U values query, we have calculated the quoted U values based on our house type specifications. Whereby if we install the components detailed in our specifications we will achieve these U values. The U values quoted in the statement should be treated as minimum values we would achieve and exceed for Building Regulations compliance’. Therefore, based upon the aforementioned considerations, the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrates that the proposal achieves sustainable design in accordance with Policy DEV5.

8.5.28 Boundary treatment is noted to be varied, which is understandable given the scale of the development site. Timber fencing, brick walls, hedgerow and reclaimed stone walls will form much of the boundary throughout the site. Acoustic fencing is also included in specific areas of the site where considered appropriate.

8.5.29 Much like the consideration of the design types of the area, there are varying boundary treatments in the area too. It is noted that hedgerow is proposed along part of the west and south-western boundary between existing dwellings on the A686 and Harthwaite Gardens. The remaining boundary in this area features proposed acoustic fencing.

8.5.30 The proposed boundary treatments are therefore considered acceptable as are the proposed designs of the dwellings including the proposed environmentally sustainable design features intended to be incorporated into the scheme.

8.5.31 In light of the above it is therefore considered that the development will have an acceptable and not an adverse impact upon the character or appearance of the local

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

landscape. Therefore, the proposal accords with Policies DEV5, ENV5 and the NPPF and can be supported.

8.6 Residential Amenity

8.6.1 The nearest residential dwellings to the site are immediately adjacent, located off the A686 and on Harthwaite Gardens, to the west of the site. Within the Local Plan, existing and future amenity of occupants of dwellings is considered in Policy DEV5 of the Local Plan, entitled ‘Design of New Development’ (referred to above) which states, ‘New development will be required to demonstrate that it meets each of the following criteria:

Shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area.

Protects and where possible enhances the district’s distinctive rural landscape, natural environment and biodiversity.

Reflects the existing street scene through use of appropriate scale, mass, form, layout, high quality architectural design and use of materials.

Optimises the potential use of the site and avoids overlooking.

Protects the amenity of the existing residents and business occupiers and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers.

Use quality materials which complement or enhance local surroundings.

Protects features and characteristics of local importance.

Provides adequate space for the storage, collection and recycling of waste.

Can be easily accessed and used by all, regardless of age and disability’.

8.6.2 Paragraph 127 of the NPPF includes various considerations and requirements in relation to Chapter 12 of the NPPF entitled ‘Achieving well-designed places’. Criterion ‘f’ states that, planning policies and decision should ensure that developments ‘create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience’.

8.6.3 The Housing SPD (2010) recommends that there is a separation distance of 21 metres between principal windows and 13 metres between a main elevation and a blank gable wall. These are noted to be recommendations but if achieved, should help protect the amenity of existing occupants of dwellings as well as future occupiers of any development.

8.6.4 It is noted that some objectors have raised concerns regarding their amenity. One comment received related to the proximity of affordable/social housing to their property. These comments are not material planning considerations and should form no part of the determination of this application. Another objection has been based upon the proximity of ‘rented’ housing to their own dwelling. Equally, this has no materiality in the weight of the decision before the Local Planning Authority. In any event, the applicant has altered the plan for where the affordable housing will be located throughout the site ensuring that rather than located in one specific part of the site, it is located in varying

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

places throughout the proposed layout which is considered to be acceptable to the Housing Team.

8.6.5 In relation to other concerns (such as those of perceived potential amenity loss) these are understood but were previously considered in the determination of planning application ref. 17/0408 when the Planning Committee permitted 110 dwellings to be constructed on site. The Council considered the impact of the development of the site upon neighbouring amenity to be acceptable. The current proposal would not result in any significantly greater impact upon neighbouring amenity than previously approved. In addition, such concerns were considered when the site was formally allocated for housing within the Local Plan. Nevertheless, this is a fresh planning application and as such, it is important that the application is considered as a whole on its planning merits.

8.6.6 It is recognised that there will be some impacts upon neighbouring amenity by virtue of the development of this site. However, as has been previously established, such was considered in the determination of the 110 dwelling development to be acceptable. The consideration then was that there would be some negative impacts in terms of residential amenity. Such negative impacts remain likely as a result of this proposal being implemented were it approved. For example, existing occupants of dwellings looking over the current land, have uninterrupted views. However, the loss of view is not a material planning consideration and as such cannot be considered in the determination of this proposal.

8.6.7 Although the amenity impacts are recognised, it is very important that in the consideration of such matters that the planning history and status of the site within the plan are borne in mind which have previously been referred to. The site is already permitted for development for 110 dwellings. That permission is therefore able to be implemented in any event subject to conditions being formally discharged. In light of that, whilst the consideration is still the application before the Local Planning Authority as a whole, the fall-back position should not be forgotten and remember that in comparison to that extant permission, this application proposes an increase of a further 39 dwellings beyond that already permitted. In that context it should also be considered whether such an increase would make the proposal significantly harmful in amenity terms.

8.6.8 The harm previously accepted was not considered to be significantly detrimental and accordingly Members approved the planning permission ref. 17/0408. Were this application permitted for a further 39 dwellings, it is not considered that such an increase in numbers would result in any increased, significant detrimental amenity impacts to warrant refusal of this application.

8.6.9 It must also be remembered that the site would still be delivering slightly under the allocation in the Local Plan as well, even at 149 dwellings. In that consideration, given the entire site was allocated for 261 properties, it is important to bear in mind that the amenity of the area was considered by the Policy team and considered acceptable when allocating this site for housing development at that time. It is also important to understand what Policy DEV5 is aiming to achieve. Amenity is important and ensuring it is protected to an appropriate level is something that planning decisions seek to consider and achieve in the planning balance. If amenity is considered likely to be impacted by a development proposal, simply having that amenity being impacted is not considered necessarily a sufficient justification or reason to refuse a proposal. It is the extent and severity of that impact which must be considered in this instance.

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

8.6.10 The planning process endeavours to deal with numerous competing agendas and seeks to consider each fairly and reasonably in the determination process. In this instance the key question is whether or not amenity would be so significantly harmful as to merit the refusal of the development of an allocated site, with permission for 110 dwellings to be constructed upon it already approved.

8.6.11 In that consideration it is also recognised that the boundaries between the existing dwellings and the proposed development will comprise a variety of materials. Hedgerow and acoustic fencing are proposed for much of the western and south-western boundaries which are considered to be appropriate ways to help protect amenity of both existing and future occupants. This is something that Policy DEV5 seeks to achieve and this mitigation is considered appropriate, proportionate and reasonable in this instance.

8.6.12 It is further recognised that the Housing SPD includes recommended separation distances, which can also aid ensuring amenity is maintained. The applicant has advised that ‘back to back distances and distances between facing primary windows have generally been set at around 21 metres, with primary window to gable distances set at around 12m’. Whilst it is noted that the SPD is not a diktat, policy or mandatory obligation to be fulfilled, it is a recommendation – these proposals would, in this case, meet the recommendations of the SPD which are at such distances in order to help preserve amenity of existing residents, effectively ensuring that existing amenity is protected in line with the requirements of Policy DEV5.

8.6.13 It is also important to consider that the Environmental Health Team have been consulted in relation to this application. They have not offered any objections to the proposal and would require the submission of information prior to occupation of some of the units to ensure that the technical methods offered by the applicant to protect amenity of future occupants of this proposed development would achieve the aims and intentions of the assessments submitted in support of the application. The requirement for this is included in the draft conditions in section 1 of this report.

8.6.14 The applicant has also advised that the gardens proposed throughout the development have back to back distances of 24 and 35 metres. Such gardens are considered good sizes and can assist and aid future occupants to enjoy their gardens as amenity spaces in themselves. This is considered compliant with Policy DEV5 which generally also seeks to ensure that the amenity of future occupants is acceptable.

8.6.15 Development can protect amenity for existing occupiers of nearby dwellings and in this instance the applicant has sought to achieve this by maintaining appropriate separation distances and utilise acoustic fencing where appropriate as well as other boundary treatment methods. Whilst there will be a change in outlook for those existing occupants, it would not be reasonable to refuse development because the circumstances simply would change. It was accepted previously that the amenity would change with the construction of 110 dwellings. It is once again accepted that the amenity will change by constructing 149 dwellings upon the site. However, the question that has to be considered is whether the amenity impacts would be significantly detrimental as a result of this proposal and the additional 39 houses sought, rather than that the amenity of the area would simply change. That is inevitable of development and it would be highly unreasonable to take that approach in the consideration of new any proposals before the Planning Authority.

8.6.16 As has been well established within this report, the site is an allocated site within the Local Plan. Furthermore, the applicant has confirmed the plans would meet the

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

recommendations within the Housing SPD for minimum separation distances. In these circumstances, given the status of the site, boundary treatment proposals and indeed the intent to achieve such separation distances, the proposals are considered acceptable in an amenity context. It is further considered that there would be no significant material difference in over-looking, loss of light, privacy or general amenity loss not already considered as part of the previous application for 110 dwellings and as such in relation to this proposal for 149, the application is considered acceptable in terms of amenity.

8.6.17 The amenity of future and existing occupants has therefore been considered and it is concluded that the proposal would not result in any significantly detrimental impacts in terms of residential amenity. Accordingly, the proposal is considered consistent with Policy DEV5 and the NPPF and can be supported.

8.7 Affordable Housing

8.7.1 The Eden Local Plan confirms the requirements for affordable housing contributions. Policy HS1, entitled, ‘Affordable Housing’ confirms that ‘the council will seek to secure the provision of 30% of all new housing as affordable homes on schemes with 11 or more units where the on-site contribution does not equate precisely to a whole number of units, the contribution will be rounded down to the nearest unit’.

8.7.2 In this instance a development of 149 dwellings would be anticipated to provide 44 affordable units. The affordable units were originally proposed to be located in a particular area of the site. Officers (including the housing officer) had concerns in regard to this and consequently, the applicant re-considered its proposal.

8.7.3 The updated layout now illustrates that affordable housing units would be located in various locations throughout the site. This would provide the same number of affordable units but in a more balanced way, across the breadth of the site. This method of affordable housing delivery is considered far more acceptable and the proposed change is welcomed.

8.7.4 It is also noted that the Housing Officer has been consulted upon in regard to this application. Their response confirmed that the proposal was considered acceptable in respect of the proposed, updated layout proposed which dispersed the affordable units throughout the site. In addition, it was considered that the unit sizes, following the applicants own liaison with the registered providers the and increased the unit size to a slightly larger 3 bed unit (from a 2 bed) was welcomed and considered acceptable.

8.7.5 In terms of the tenure mix, the Housing Officer confirmed that a mix of 19 affordable rented units and 25 intermediate affordable housing units was originally proposed. However, the updated proposals split this 50/50. On that basis, the Housing Officer confirmed that such a tenure mix would be acceptable.

8.7.6 The Housing Officer therefore confirmed that they the proposals were acceptable from a Housing perspective.

8.7.7 On that basis, it is considered that the proposals are consistent with Policy HS1 of the Eden Local Plan and can be supported.

8.8 Natural Environment

8.8.1 Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan, entitled ‘Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Geodiversity’ confirms that ‘new development will be required to avoid any net loss of biodiversity, and where possible enhance existing

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

assets. Should emerging proposals identify potential impacts upon designated sites, regard should be given to the objectives for each of the hierarchy of sites’.

8.8.2 Chapter 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) entitled ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ confirms the national guidance on such matters. In this instance, it is noted that the application site is not located within a designated landscape nor a site designated by any ecological or habitat designation. The site is, however, located 190 metres to the north of the River Eden and Tributaries (River Eamont) Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the River Eden and Tributaries (River Eamont) Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

8.8.3 Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states that ‘Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan);

b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland;

c) maintaining the character of the undeveloped coast, while improving public access to it where appropriate;

d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;

e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans; and

f) remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate’.

8.8.4 Paragraph 178 states that, ‘Planning policies and decisions should ensure that:

a) a site is suitable for its proposed use taking account of ground conditions and any risks arising from land instability and contamination. This includes risks arising from natural hazards or former activities such as mining, and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation (as well as potential impacts on the natural environment arising from that remediation);

b) after remediation, as a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and

c) adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is available to inform these assessments’.

8.8.5 Paragraph 180 states that, ‘Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so they should:

a) mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life60;

b) identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason; and

c) limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation’.

8.8.6 The applicant has produced an Ecological Assessment of the site in support of the application. This assessment has considered designated site, protected species, trees, habitats and invasive species.

8.8.7 The assessment considered all designated sites such as the aforementioned River Eden and Tributaries (River Eamont) Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the River Eden and Tributaries (River Eamont) Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) to be of a sufficient distance away from the proposal site to mitigate any potential significantly negative impacts. However, this was caveated by the recommendation that appropriate management and construction practices and pollution controls are adhered to throughout the course of the works.

8.8.8 In this regard the request for a Construction Environmental Management Plan by Natural England to ensure that these designated sites, are protected properly from any potential contamination is noted. It is considered that these sites, approximately 190 metres to the south, beyond the A66 trunk road can be protected appropriately by the strict implementation of this plan (which will need to be agreed prior to commencement as per the condition in Section 1 of this report). Natural England will be consulted on these details before they are formally approved, if this planning application is approved.

8.8.9 The partial removal of hedgerow was also considered, along with the planting of new native hedgerow (proposed to comprise hawthorn, hazel, holly, dog-rose and blackthorn) would result in an ‘overall species diversity on site’ that ‘will increase as part of the development’.

8.8.10 In terms of protected species, the assessment considered that in relation to badgers, pre-construction checks be carried out in site to ensure no badger setts were on site and that these should take place 1-3 months prior to the commencement of the works. It was confirmed that were a sett (or setts) discovered a licence from Natural England would be required in order to allow activities that could disturb setts or even damage or destroy them. Licences are only issued between July and November and only once Planning Permission is granted.

8.8.11 In terms of roosting bats, the only place with roosting potential is an Oak tree, (ref. TN2) which is not located on site (the lone single storey farm building on site was considered to have a negligible level of suitability for roosting bats). However, it was noted that lighting on site during construction works could interfere with bats feeding. Therefore, it was considered that lighting schemes during or post-works should be designed to comply with relevant guidance notes to minimise the risk of causing disturbance. It was recommended that bat boxes be integrated into the buildings of the proposed development to provide further roosting opportunities on site.

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

8.8.12 In relation to nesting birds, it was recommended that hedgerow be removed outside of the bird breeding season (March to August) but if not possible, the hedgerow for removal be checked by appropriately qualified ecologists prior to clearance. An extra pre-cautionary measure was also proposed. This related to a pre-construction check for evidence of barn owl 3 months prior to the removal of the lone single storey farm building that is on site.

8.8.13 In terms of hedgehog, it was considered that appropriate mitigation would be to conduct precautionary checks on any long grass or hedgerow that requires clearance for nesting or hibernating hedgehogs.

8.8.14 Finally, in terms of water vole, it was proposed that a small outfall be created in the south-eastern part of the sustainable drainage scheme. It was also recommended that an ecological clerk of works should perform a precautionary check for water vole signs within the relevant area and a minimum of 50 metres both up and down stream prior to the commencement of any relevant works.

8.8.15 The assessment also confirmed and acknowledged that without appropriate mitigation, construction works have the potential to result in significant negative impacts on site and its surrounding habitat if not undertaken properly. These have been referred to earlier in this report. Such methods of best practice recommended were noted to be a Construction Environment Management Plan (required by condition) and run-off areas to prevent pollutants or contaminants entering the watercourse, dust suppression, any excavations having methods for animals to escape from in the event they fell in and an ecologist being available and contacted should protected species be encountered during construction. All such recommendations are supported by officers and are expected to form the basis upon which the Construction Environment Management Plan is comprised.

8.8.16 Natural England were consulted upon in relation to this application and offered no objections subject to appropriate mitigation being secured. In order to ensure this mitigation was achieved, a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) was required and should include a working buffer zone of at least 10 metres around Carleton Beck as well as suitable pollution prevention measures. A condition requiring a CEMP is included in the suite of conditions within this report.

8.8.17 The applicants own assessment confirms that where appropriate measures, mitigation and practices are implemented, the impact of construction can be mitigated. Planning conditions are used where they can make development acceptable and in this case such a condition requiring a CEMP can assist in achieving this. Protected Species are protected by separate law and in any event, such laws must be adhered to. However, it is clear from the assessment and Natural England’s response that any potential impacts on protected species can also be mitigated.

8.8.18 It is noted that the site is a mix of improved grassland and arable land, however, it is all classed as ‘Grade 3’ land (Grade 1 is the best). Unfortunately, information available from the Natural England website does not subdivide the Grade 3 land between ‘A’ and ‘B’. Grade 3 land is referred to as ‘good to moderate’ with subgrade ‘a’ being ‘good quality’ and subgrade ‘b’ being ‘moderate quality’. Grade 2 land is ‘very good quality’ with Grade 1 being ‘excellent quality’. Regardless, this site has been allocated for housing and is subject to an extant planning permission and in the view of officers granting planning permission would not be contrary to paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

8.8.19 Given that mitigation is considered acceptable and of course, the site is already permitted for 110 dwellings and allocated for housing development, it is considered that the site and surrounding area would not be significantly adversely affected were this application approved and subsequently implemented in accordance with recommended conditions. These are intended to ensure that the natural environment is appropriately protected and given Natural England has requested the requirement of the CEMP, this is considered an indication that mitigation can ensure that important, designated sites, such as the SAC and SSSI can protected from any works upon this site.

8.8.20 It is therefore considered that the proposal is compliant with Policy ENV1 of the Eden Local Plan as well as the NPPF and can be supported on the basis that appropriate condition(s) are imposed upon any subsequent grant of planning permission.

8.9 Heritage Impacts

8.9.1 It is noted that the application site is not located within the setting of any Listed Buildings or within a Conservation Area. Within the Local Plan, Policy ENV10, entitled ‘The Historic Environment’ states that ‘where a development proposal affecting an archaeological site is acceptable in principle, the council will ensure preservation of the remains in situ as a preferred solution. Where in situ preservation is not justified, the development will be required to make adequate provision fort excavation and recording before or during development.

8.9.2 The Grade II Listed building, Hunter Hall School is located approximately 116 metres away, to the east of the nearest boundary of the proposal site. A Roman Road and Enclosures are a Scheduled Ancient Monument located approximately 200 metres from the south east corner of the site. However due to existing property and the topography of the land any impacts upon these heritage assets is considered minimal. The Cross Keys public house is also a Grade II listed building and is located approximately 76 metres from the south-west corner of the site and the property ‘Candia’ is also noted to be a Grade II Listed Building approximately 77 metres from the south-western boundary of the site.

8.9.3 In consideration of these additional Listed Buildings, any impact on the setting or significance of these Listed buildings is considered minimal due to a number of properties being located in-between them and the proposal site itself.

8.9.4 No objections have been raised to the application by Cumbria County Council’s Historic Environment Officer. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in any adverse impacts upon the historic environment or upon any heritage assets and is considered compliant with Policy ENV10.

8.10 Provision of Open Space

8.10.1 Under the requirements of the Eden Local Plan, new major housing developments are required to provide sufficient open space provision in any new development. Policy COM3 of the Eden Local Plan entitled ‘Provision of New Open Space’, would require the provision of appropriate levels of open space in relation to amenity space on the site.

8.10.2 The applicant has advised that the site will deliver 9,845 metres sq. of public open space. This equates to 0.9845 of a hectare. The scheme as a whole also includes a further 1.78 hectares of land dedicated to the drainage scheme. That land is available (when not draining surface water away from the site) as amenity space too. In total, therefore, that would result in 2.76 hectares of public space.

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

8.10.3 Policy COM3 states that open space can be defined in a variety of ways. These include informal recreation space (amenity open space), urban parks and gardens, playgrounds, outdoor sport facilities and allotments.

8.10.4 The Policy does not specifically require a development to provide all of these types of open space. However, it will be expected to meet at least one of the above listed types in order to ensure policy compliance. In this case, the proposal before the council would be expected to provide 3700 sq. metres of amenity open space (0.37 hectares).

8.10.5 The amenity open space offered in this instance therefore exceeds this requirement and accordingly, the proposal is considered to comply with the Policy COM3 and can be supported.

9. New Homes Bonus

9.1 The prospect of receiving a Bonus is, in principle, capable of being taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in determining a planning application. Whether potential Bonus payments are in fact a material consideration in relation to a particular application will depend on whether those payments would be used in a way which is connected to the application and to the use and development of land. For example, potential Bonus payments could be a material consideration if they were to be used to mitigate impacts resulting from development. But if the use to which the payments are to be put is unclear or is for purposes unrelated to the development concerned a decision maker would not be entitled to take them into account when making a decision on a planning application. In this particular case, there are no plans to use the New Homes Bonus arising from this application in connection with this development.

10. Implications

10.1 Legal Implications

10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. Each application is determined upon its own planning merits.

10.2 Equality and Diversity

10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010.

10.3 Environment

10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

10.4 Crime and Disorder

10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions.

10.5 Children

10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions.

10.6 Human Rights

10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention for the Protection of on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998.

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

11. Conclusion

11.1 The site is noted to be an allocated site, subject to an extant planning permission for 110 dwellings (planning permission ref. 13/0033). The proposal site is also noted to not cover the fully allocated area. The full site, known as ‘E3’ in the Local Plan has been allocated for a total of 261 homes. This proposal would permit 149 dwellings to be constructed upon it if approved and implemented.

11.2 Given the ‘northern’ part of the allocated site is permitted for a further 96 homes, the site, as a whole, would still not deliver the precise allocation sought by the Local Plan. Accordingly, the scale of the development proposed is considered acceptable given the aforementioned allocation. The site is also recognised as being on the edge of the settlement and therefore would be within Penrith once constructed. The Plan’s Locational Strategy, Policy LS1, confirms Penrith to the be the ‘Main Town’ of the district. The Policy further notes that as the ‘Main Town’ it is expected to ‘benefit from sustained development’ which includes large scale housing development.

11.3 Such a proposal is therefore considered compliant with the Locational Strategy of the Local Plan and on that basis the principle of development is established.

11.4 Given the extant permission for the site, which remains a significant material consideration in relation to this application, consideration of how significantly more ‘harmful’ the proposal would be has been considered along with the application outright as a standalone permission (which this would be).

11.5 Whilst there are inevitable amenity impacts by such a development being implemented these were previously considered in the granting of 110 dwellings being constructed upon the site. Of course, such considerations were also taken account of when the site was allocated for housing for 261 dwellings too when the Local Plan was formulated.

11.6 In the context of this application, it is not considered that such amenity impacts resulting from the current proposal, would be so significantly harmful as to merit the refusal of this application. The applicant has offered separation distances compliant with the existing Housing SPD and proposes to utilise acoustic fencing and other boundary treatment methods where appropriate. These mitigation methods are considered acceptable and would ensure existing amenity is protected to an appropriate level.

11.7 The proposed design of the dwellings is also considered acceptable. It is noted that the area is subject to a range of house types and materials and as such, the range of materials and design of dwellings proposed in this case would not be inappropriate. It is therefore considered compliant with the Local Plan in terms of design.

11.8 The applicant has also advised of the range of methods proposed to ensure that the proposed dwellings are sustainable in an environmental way. The details submitted included ‘U’ values (such values relate to the efficiency of a buildings ‘fabric’ as insulators essentially, they can demonstrate how effective a building would be at preventing heat from transmitting from within the building to outside). Whilst Policy DEV5 only seeks that development ‘should’ achieve these standards (it is accepted that there would be potential circumstance where it would not be possible) the proposals still seeks development to consider these factors.

11.9 These measures have been assessed in consultation with Building Control who have provided guidance in what ‘U’ value standards are required as minimum national standards. The consequence of this is that officers are of the view that relevant policy

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

has been complied with and that the development will result in homes that are efficient once constructed and moving forward during their occupation.

11.10 Other concerns related to highways and the site contributing to congestion, capacity and safety concerns of the local highway network are appreciated and understood. However, the response from the Highway Authority does not reflect such concerns. In order to refuse an application on such grounds, any highway impact would need to be ‘severe’ in terms of either safety or congestion. No such impacts are anticipated as a consequence of this development were it approved and subsequently implemented. Accordingly, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of highways.

11.11 The proposed site access, off Carleton Road is also considered acceptable to the Highway Authority and accordingly, officers have no concerns in this regard.

11.12 The concerns related to the site being in ‘open countryside’ have been considered within this report and it is clear that this assessment is not accurate given the sites status within the Local Plan. Accordingly, these concerns whilst noted, are not accepted as a reason to refuse the proposal before the Local Planning Authority.

11.13 The benefit of such allocated sites coming forward, receiving planning permission and then having said permissions implemented mean that the housing targets that comprise the plan can be achieved. In addition, such housing developments result in affordable housing. This site will contribute 44 such affordable units which is a significant contribution to the districts affordable housing needs.

11.14 As has been confirmed this is considered a significant benefit of the scheme and one that this allocated site was anticipated to provide. Whilst the site would still be delivering (as a whole in combination with the approved site to the north) an amount of housing slightly under the plans allocation, this permission, if granted, would mean that the site was delivering much closer to the allocation of 261 than it would if it delivered 110 homes.

11.15 Officers understand that the density of the development has caused concerns and in pre-application discussions, officers too raised this particular issue with the developer. However, as has been established within this report, the site has an allocation greater than what would ultimately be delivered even if this permission was granted. As such, the density was previously considered acceptable when the site was allocated originally in the local plan.

11.16 The site is also noted to not be located within or immediately adjacent to any designated sites. However, 190 metres to the south are both the River Eden and Tributaries (River Eamont) Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the River Eden and Tributaries (River Eamont) Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). These are separated from the site by the A66 but nevertheless, the applicants own Ecology report suggests a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to be created by the applicant to ensure these areas are protected.

11.17 As significant designated sites it is important that such mitigation is in place prior to construction is undertaken. Accordingly, a condition to require such is included in section 1 of this report. It is further recognised that Natural England requested a CEMP too. Given Natural England have requested this, although mitigation pre-supposes that there is a potential for such impacts to take place that could impact both the SAC and SSSI, the purpose of mitigation is to ensure such is prevented. Planning Conditions are used to ensure development can be made acceptable and in this case, it is considered that the imposition of such a condition, on the request of a professional body such as

Agenda Item 1

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Natural England is therefore appropriate and reasonable to ensure these important designated sites are protected throughout any construction works.

11.18 It is therefore considered that all material considerations have been weighed in relation to this proposal. As an allocated site it is anticipated it will deliver housing, comprising affordable units (in this case 44) and that this permission would ensure that the site delivered close to its anticipated allocation helping ensure that the Council achieves its housing targets over the development plan period which is significant driver of National Planning Policy.

11.19 Accordingly, it is considered that there are no significantly harmful impacts to merit the refusal of this application and therefore the development proposed is recommended for approval subject to conditions set out therein and subject to the completion of a legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

Oliver Shimell Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development

Background Papers: Planning File 19/0426

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer

Agenda Item 2

REPORTS FOR DEBATE


Planning Application No: 19/0447 Date Received: 25/06/19

OS Grid Ref: 6649 2449 Expiry Date: 22/08/19

Extension of time agreed to 18/11/19

Parish: Long Marton Ward: Long Marton


Proposal: Erection of three self-build dwellings with all matters reserved

Location: Somerwood Close, Long Marton

Applicant: Somerwood Developments

Agent: Bruce Armstrong-Payne

Case Officer: Mat Wilson

Reason for Referral: The application has been called-in to Committee by an elected Member in order to discuss the planning ramifications of Self-build development

Agenda Item 2

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Agenda Item 2

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

The development is considered to be unacceptable on the grounds that the proposal conflicts with the spatial planning policies of the Council. The application site does not meet the criteria of infill or rounding off development as required for new housing within the Smaller Villages and Hamlets, and as such is considered to fall as development within the Rural Area. Market housing beyond the Main Towns, Key Hubs or Smaller Villages and Hamlets is not in accordance with planning policy. Whilst it is acknowledged that the provision of three houses for self-build and custom build would go a small way to meeting the requirement of providing enough permissions to meet the Self-build demand (thereby attracting some weight in favour), this would not outweigh the fundamental policy conflict of allowing market housing in the countryside. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies LS1 and HS2 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-2032.


2.1 Proposal

2.1.1 A development of three dwellings is proposed at the end of Somerwood Close at Long Marton. This would comprise a pair of semi-detached properties and one detached house, each finished in white dry dash render with brown concrete quoins, timber windows and doors, sandstone bay windows, and concrete tiles. Each dwelling provides 3 bedrooms and each has an integral garage.

2.1.2 The development would extend the row of houses along the south side of Somerwood Close, with each dwelling stepping down as the ground falls away from the existing housing in Long Marton.

2.1.3 This application is essentially a re-submission of a previously approved, but now expired, scheme granted permission in 2015 under a different planning policy regime – before adoption of the current Local Plan, with the exception being that the dwellings are now proposed as self-build/custom build houses.


2.2.1 The application site adjoining Long Marton to the west, comprises the southern half of a small enclosed grass meadow measuring around 37m wide and 31m deep, accessed by a gate at the end of Somerwood Close. The meadow is bounded by hedgerows to the north and south, with a post and rail fence separating the site from the agricultural field to the west. The northern part of the meadow is also within the applicant’s ownership, where similarly a grant of planning permission - for two dwellings – has also lapsed.

2.2.2 Long Marton is designated as a Smaller Village and Hamlet in Policy LS1 `Locational Strategy’ in the Local Plan. In terms of planning constraints the site is within the County Council safeguarding area for mineral extraction, and a public footpath runs to the north of the meadow. The site is Flood Zone 1 (least vulnerable). The site is not within a Conservation Area or a Coal Risk Zone.

3. Consultees


Agenda Item 2

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Consultee Response

Highway Authority (Cumbria County Council)

The application is looking to connect with the existing public highway at Somerwood Close, Long Marton. The proposed development is unlikely to be put forward for adoption with Cumbria County Council, however if it was then CCC as Local Highway Authority would request the inclusion of the following condition:

The carriageway and footways shall be designed, constructed, drained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. No work shall be commenced until a full specification has been approved. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is complete.

There is no information contained with the application which indicates the width of the access road, for a development of this size CCC would need to see an access width of 4.1m to accommodate access and conflicting traffic movements.

The access and carriageway should be constructed in a as stated on drawing No: SCLM/HD/P/02 Hard surface with permeable bitmac and should be completed prior to occupation. The application has indicate the require levels of off street parking, however it should be added that the proposed development will be situated in an existing residential area at the end of a cul-de-sac; the applicant should provide adequate land to park construction vehicles and materials throughout the construction phase, construction activities should not block the public highway or access for existing residents of Somerwood close and the surrounding area.

CCC as Highways authority would have no objection to the principle of development, however would seek the inclusion of the conditions in any consent the local Planning authority may consider granting to address surfacing and gradient of access, parking and turning areas.

3.2 Discretionary Consultees

Consultee Response

Local Lead Flood Authority (Cumbria County Council)

The application has indicated that the roof and surface water will be drained on a separate network to

Agenda Item 2

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

the foul water, the proposal has indicated the use of infiltration techniques which would be supported by CCC as Lead Local Flood Authority. Office based assessment indicates that the site is located in an area where the soil type is free draining. When utilising infiltration techniques the applicant should still undertake invasive ground investigation to BRE365, the reason for this would be to inform the final drainage design and demonstrate the size of storage/infiltration system required.

As such CCC as LLFA would request the inclusion of the following condition in relation to the surface water drainage network:

Full details of the surface water drainage system including invasive ground investigation shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to development being commenced. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained operational thereafter.

United Utilities We can confirm the proposals are acceptable in principle to United Utilities and therefore should planning permission be granted we request the inclusion of a condition that the development be carried out in accordance with the Drainage Plan.

Housing As the proposed development site is in Long Marton, which is designated as a Smaller Village and Hamlet under the Local Plan (Policy LS1), in accordance with Policy HS1 (Affordable Housing) no affordable contributions in this location will apply to sites of 5 or fewer dwellings; therefore no affordable housing implications apply and I have no comments to make.

It is however noted from the accompanying Location Plan that the applicant is in ownership of the land to the north of the development site. Given the level of affordable housing need within the district (as reported in our latest District Wide Housing Needs Study 2018) it should be noted by the applicant at this stage in the planning process, we would not consider it acceptable to sub-divide sites and submit applications in a piecemeal fashion to avoid making affordable housing contributions. Should it be the applicants intention to submit a separate planning application to the north of the development site in the near future mechanisms may be put in place to ensure that the full affordable housing contribution required is provided from the total overall site.

Agenda Item 2

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Cumbria Minerals and Waste (Cumbria County Council)

The proposed development is on the edge of a settlement with other residential development nearby. Mineral extraction on or close to the application site would therefore not be environmentally acceptable. The safeguarding area extends across a significant area of surrounding open land so the proposal will not prevent access to this mineral resource for extraction in the future.

I consider that criteria 2 and 4 of Policy DC15 (Minerals Safeguarding) in the adopted Cumbria Minerals and Waste Local Plan are satisfied.

Cumbria County Council as minerals planning authority therefore does not object to this application.

4. Parish Council/Meeting Response


Parish Council/Meeting

Object Support No Response No Objection

Long Marton Parish Council

4.1 Long Marton Parish Council submitted a ‘No objections’ response.

5. Representations

5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 11 July 2019.


No of Representations Received 0 No of neutral representations 0

No of objection letters 0


6.1 Site History:

* 13/0073 Erection of three dwellings - Approved

* 15/0386 Erection of three dwellings – Approved

6.2 Other Relevant Planning History Adjacent the Site:

* 14/0093 Development of two bungalows - Approved

* 14/1121 Outline planning permission for three dwellings - Refused

* 15/0087 Erection of two bungalows – Approved

7. Policy Context

7.1 Development Plan

Local Plan 2014-2032

Relevant Policies

Agenda Item 2

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

LS1 Locational Strategy

LS2 Housing Targets and Distribution

HS2 Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets

DEV1 General Approach to New Development

DEV5 Design of New Development

ENV2 Protection and Enhancements of Landscapes and Trees Supplementary Planning Documents:

Housing SPD incorporating Residential Development Guidelines.


National Planning Policy Framework:

Chapter 2 - Achieving sustainable development;

Chapter 4 - Decision-making;

Chapter 5 - Delivering a sufficient supply of homes;

Chapter 11 - Making effective use of land;

Chapter 12 - Achieving well designed places;

Chapter 14 - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change;

Chapter 15 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment.

The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application.



Principle

Built Environment

Residential amenity

Heritage/Landscape Impact

Infrastructure/Drainage

Natural Environment

Self/Custom Build

8.2 Principle

8.2.1 The District’s locational strategy for development is defined at Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan. This sets out the hierarchy of settlements, ensuring that development is focused in the most sustainable locations, namely the Market Towns and Key Hubs. Settlements offering a lower provision of services and facilities are termed as Smaller Villages and Hamlets. The application site is located within the settlement of Long Marton, which is designated as a Smaller Village and Hamlet within the Eden Local Plan. In such settlements, the Local Plan is clear that development of greenfield sites

such as the application site, ‘will be restricted to infill sites, which fill a modest gap between existing buildings within the settlement; or rounding off, which provides a modest extension beyond the limit of the settlement to a logical, defensible boundary; [or] existing development and the reuse of traditional rural buildings and structures.’

8.2.2 There are limited facilities within the settlement of Long Marton in terms of providing for the day to day requirements of its residents. This is why the village sits lower down the

Agenda Item 2

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

settlement hierarchy as a Smaller Village and Hamlet within the Eden Local Plan. The village does not benefit from a shop or a Doctor’s Surgery and has limited public transport links. The minimal gains and benefits that would be achieved through the creation of an additional three dwellings in an inappropriate development in an unsustainable location does not, therefore, represent a development of a sufficient scale to alter the sustainability of Long Marton in any way.

8.2.3 Policy HS2 of the Eden Local Plan `Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets’ further restricts development to housing ‘of an appropriate scale, which reflects the built form of adjoining and neighbouring development to the site and the service function of the settlement, where it meets all of the following criteria (inter alia):

Where development is restricted to infilling and rounding off of the current village settlement pattern, in accordance with Policy LS1.

The building does not contain more than 150m2 internal floorspace (gross).’

Development in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets will be permitted were it meets the criteria set out in Policies LS1 and HS2.

8.2.4 The development must therefore constitute either infill or rounding off, in a manner which reflects the pattern of development in the locality, in order to comply with the housing policies in the Local Plan. This proposal is clearly not in any sense an infill development; it would not fill a gap between buildings. It would extend the built form of the village into the countryside beyond its parameters.

8.2.5 The proposed scheme would more plausibly be considered as rounding off, where development may be permitted in Smaller Villages and Hamlets on sites constrained by a logical, defensible boundary, which would prevent further development beyond the site itself. When viewed in conjunction with the northern part of the meadow, which the agent for the application has indicated would also be brought forward for development if the current application is successful, the plot as a whole would appear on plan to be a reasonably logical and modest extension of Somerwood Close to the field boundary, mirroring development to the north, where Hawthorne Cottage, The Croft and Long Marton School each occupy similar outlying locations at the western edge of the village.

8.2.6 Rounding off developments are only permitted however where a defensible boundary precludes further development beyond the site into the countryside beyond. Such a barrier to development would need to be physical or permanent, for instance a road, a river, or a significant change in land levels. The site is constrained on its western edge only by a post and rail fence. This is not a defensible boundary which would inhibit further development encroaching into the countryside. Previous Appeal decisions have dismissed field boundaries as not fulfilling the criteria of a defensible boundary (see appeal decision on 17/0806). Without a physical feature at the edge of the site providing a barrier to developing into the field beyond, the proposal does not meet the criteria for consideration as rounding off. The proposal should be treated therefore as for new dwellings in the countryside. The spatial planning policy allows for development in the Rural Areas only for the re-use of traditional buildings, the provision of affordable housing as an exception to policy only, or where proposals accord with other policies in the Local Plan. The proposed development does not comply with the adopted housing policies, and represents an unjustified departure from the Eden Local Plan. Therefore, the principle of residential development of this plot is not acceptable.

Agenda Item 2

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

8.2.7 Balanced against this however is the stated intention of putting forward the development as self-build/custom build housing. The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 places a duty on Authorities to grant enough suitable permissions on serviced plots to meet the need set out in the self-build register, for each year, within 3 years. Self-build and Custom build housing is defined as housing built by an individual, a group of individuals, or persons working with or for them, to be occupied by that individual. Such housing can be either market or affordable housing.

8.2.8 Eden District Council has been able to demonstrate sufficient self-build permissions to meet the registered demand for the preceding couple of years. Demand however has substantially increased this year, with 75 people adding their names to the register since May 2019. There is a requirement therefore to demonstrate an equivalent substantial increase in the number of self-build development permissions. Eden has 3 years in order to grant enough permissions to meet the demand – thereby complying with the duty.

8.2.9 Policy HS2, for Housing in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets, is ascribed in the Local Plan as allowing people to meet their own housing needs locally, particularly through self-build. The explanatory paragraph to the Policy goes on to describe: The Council wishes to support those in rural areas who wish to build or commission their own home where they have a strong local connection, as this can help meet local housing aspirations and sustain villages. Such permissions would therefore be subject to local occupancy clauses, secured through conditions of approval.

8.2.10 Whilst the requirement for providing self-build and custom build housing is acknowledged, such developments must be in accordance with the policies of the Local Plan as a whole. The requirement to provide self-build developments does not attract such overriding weight that it should outweigh fundamental spatial planning policies directing where the Council will accept residential development. The proposal under consideration is for new market housing in a Rural Area. Furthermore, there is no evidence that there are sufficient numbers amongst those who have signed Eden’s Self-build and Custom Build Register who would comply with the local connection criteria, which would be a requisite condition should the development be allowed.

8.2.11 The previous grants of planning permission (13/0073, 15/0386) for a similar development on the site should not be given weight in the planning balance, since the decision was made under a different planning policy regime. Neither of these planning permissions were implemented and as such do not represent a fall-back position. There has been a material change in circumstances since the last planning approval, with the Council’s Local Plan now adopted and its spatial strategies allowing dwellings in the Villages and Hamlets only where they infill a gap or round off a settlement to a defensible boundary. Notwithstanding the prior permissions granted at this site, as both have lapsed, the current application should be considered solely against its compliance with the Eden Local Plan (2014-2032).

8.2.12 Whilst Eden will need to grant sufficient suitable developments in order to meet the uplift in Self-build demand, it has three years in which to do so, and as such there is no compelling need at this time to grant self-build developments which would otherwise conflict with policy. The requirement to meet the demand for self-build and custom build housing does not overcome the fundamental policy conflict, and therefore the proposal is not acceptable in principle.

8.3 Built Environment

Agenda Item 2

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

8.3.1 The dwellings proposed would complement the building style employed throughout Somerwood Close and would therefore respect the built form of the streetscene. The layout achieves a reasonable housing density and the scale and appearance of the dwellings are appropriate within the context of the built environment. The dwellings are considered acceptable in terms of the relevant requirements of Policy DEV5 of the Local Plan - `Design of New Development’ in that they would reflect local distinctiveness; complement the form and character of the built environment; and use materials which complement or enhance local surroundings.


8.4.1 There are no concerns with the amenity afforded to each of the respective new dwellings. Each dwelling is provided with generous outdoor amenity space and the layout of the windows avoids overlooking. Amenity and privacy levels for the new dwellings are satisfactory.

8.4.2 The development directly affects only the adjacent dwelling to the east of the site, 28 Somerwood Close, in terms of amenity. Currently the application site is separated by only a very low fence from the neighbouring property. The site layout shows a new 1.8m fence would be provided, which would afford appropriate privacy for the residents of the existing dwelling. No windows overlook the site from the property, and none are proposed in the corresponding facing side elevation of the adjacent new dwelling. Hawthorne Cottage to the north does have windows in its side elevation facing onto the site, but at 37m to the nearest of the proposed dwellings, this is in excess of the separation distances set out within the Housing SPD, and in this regard no harm arises. The proposal therefore is in accordance with Policy DEV5, in that it protects the amenity of existing residents and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers.

8.5 Heritage/Landscape Impact

8.5.1 The development would not affect any designated or non-designated heritage assets.

8.5.2 The landscape impact of the new houses would be relatively limited and localised. The site is a self-contained parcel of land and whilst the principle of developing market housing in the Rural Area remains unacceptable, it is acknowledged that landscape impact of the houses would not be significantly harmful although the development would result in the unjustified loss of an area of undeveloped land which forms and contributes to the setting to the village.

8.5.3 Of more concern is the proposed fencing around the whole development, close-boarded timber fencing 1.8m in height. This would create an inappropriate hard edge onto the surrounding countryside which is considered unacceptable. Should permission be granted, a revised boundary treatment should be sought through conditions in order to provide a softer transition between the urban and the rural environments.

8.6 Infrastructure/Drainage

8.6.1 The proposed layout provides space within the site for off-street parking and turning. No harm is considered to arise in respect of highway safety. The Highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority raise no objections to the proposal.

8.6.2 Foul water drainage will connect to the mains sewer. Surface water is to be discharged via a soakaway to the satisfaction of the Lead Local Flood Authority. The parking and turning areas will be formed from permeable block paving. The Site Drainage Plan is accepted by United Utilities with no objections raised. The drainage scheme is considered acceptable.

Agenda Item 2

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

8.7 Natural Environment

8.7.1 A substantial hedgerow borders the application site to the south. The remainder of the site is a wild meadow which will have biodiversity value. Its loss should be compensated through a landscaping scheme which offsets the ecological loss through a substantial and detailed scheme of planting and which ensures the hedgerow is not compromised; this should be achieved through conditions of any grant of planning permission.

8.8 Self-Build

8.8.1 Self-build and custom housebuilding is a key element of the government’s agenda to increase supply and tackle the housing crisis. As such legislation and guidance was introduced in 2015 and 2016 to support an increase in self-build and custom housebuilding.

8.8.2 In terms of the Council’s requirement for Self-Build and Custom Build, this is set out within Section 2A (2) of the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (The 2015 Act) which sets out the overarching duty as to the provision of permissions for self-build/custom housing:

(2) An authority to which this section applies must give suitable development permission in respect of enough serviced plots of land to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding in the authority’s area arising in each base period.

8.8.3 Section 2A (2) adds, at subsection (6) that:

c) development permission is suitable if it is permission in respect of development that could include self-build and custom housebuilding.

8.8.4 The Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016) provides a legal definition of self-build and custom housebuilding. The Act does not distinguish between self-build and custom housebuilding and provides that both are where an individual, an association of individuals, or persons working with or for individuals or associations of individuals, build or complete houses to be occupied as homes by those individuals. For it to be ‘possible’ for a permission to be used for self-build, s.2A (2) of the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act (2015), the permission must be for ‘a serviced plot of land’ (that is, a parcel of land with planning permission, which is laid out and ready for development with access and utilities/services provided to the plot boundary).

8.8.5 In accordance with the regulations, Eden District Council holds a Self-Build and Custom Build register of people who are interested in such projects within the District. The register helps to inform the Council of the level of demand for Self-Build and custom build plots within the District and may be a material consideration in decision taking. The 2015 Act places a duty on Local Planning Authorities to have regard to the register when carrying out their planning, housing, land disposal and regeneration functions.

8.8.6 30 October 2019 marked three years since the end of the first register base period. The legislation requires that all authorities must have granted sufficient planning consents for enough serviced plots, which are suitable for self and custom build to meet the demand for the period of the 01 April 2016 to 30 October 2016 (demand is measured by the number of people joining the Council’s Self-Build and Custom Build Housing Register). In this period, Eden District Council received a total of 5 applications for entry onto its register.

Agenda Item 2

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

8.8.7 In response to this demand, Eden District Council has granted planning permission for 21 confirmed self and custom build dwellings in the period 01 April 2016 to 30 October 2018. The Council has therefore, met and exceeded the requirements of the legislation.

8.8.8 It should be noted, that the number of planning permissions granted for self/custom build may in fact be a higher figure stated above. The Council is currently in the process of interrogating all planning permissions granted since 1 April 2016 for four dwellings or fewer to identify whether or not they meet the legal definition of Self-Build and custom build housing. It is likely, therefore, that the Council has further exceeded its requirements in this regard.

8.8.9 Therefore, in the consideration that the Council has exceeded its requirements in relation to self and custom build development, only limited weight should be attached to the Self-Build nature of the proposal in the determination of this planning application as the proposal does not accord with the Eden Local Plan. As such, the benefits of the proposed development cannot reasonably be said to outweigh the harm resulting from the development of three dwellings in an unsuitable and unsustainable location, which is unable to comply with the Locational Strategy set out in Policy LS1 of the Eden Local Plan.

8.8.10 It is considered that the limited economic, social and environmental benefits achieved through the development of three Self-Build dwellings do not outweigh the conflict with the Eden Local Plan, nor do any material considerations warrant a departure from the Local Plan in this instance.

8.8.11 Therefore, the Council’s requirements in relation to self and custom build developments do not warrant the approval of this planning application.

9. New Homes Bonus


10. Implications


10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. Each application is determined on the planning merits.



10.3 Environment

Agenda Item 2

REPORTS FOR DEBATE




10.5 Children


10.6 Human Rights

10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998.

11. Conclusion

11.1 The development is considered to be unacceptable on the grounds that the proposal conflicts with the spatial planning policies of the Council. The application site does not meet the criteria of infill or rounding off development as required for new housing within the Smaller Villages and Hamlets, and as such is considered to be development within the Rural Area. Market housing beyond the Main Towns, Key Hubs or Smaller Villages and Hamlets is not in accordance with planning policy. Whilst it is acknowledged that the provision of three houses for self-build and custom build would go a small way to meeting the requirement of providing enough permissions to meet the Self-build demand (thereby attracting some weight in favour), this would not however outweigh the fundamental policy conflict of allowing market housing in the countryside. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies LS1 and HS2 of the Eden Local Plan 2014-2032, and is therefore recommended for refusal.




Agenda Item 3

REPORTS FOR DEBATE


Planning Application No: 19/0595 Date Received: 15 August 2019

OS Grid Ref: NY 347836 531774

Expiry Date: 11 October 2019 (Time Ext agreed to the

15 November 2019)

Parish: Catterlen Ward: Hesket


Proposal: Construction of 3 No. new residential dwellings.

Location: Land adjacent to Blencathra Barn, Newton Reigny

Applicant: Mr and Mrs A Chalmers

Agent: Mr I Pleasant, Jay Ashall Partnership

Case Officer: Caroline Brier

Reason for Referral: Proposal has been called in on material planning grounds by the Parish Council and an objector.

Agenda Item 3

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Agenda Item 3

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Time limit for commencement

1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years

from the date of this permission.


Approved Plans

2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the

drawings hereby approved:

i. Application Form received 12 August 2019

ii. Location Plan (1288 LO1) received 12 August 2019

iii. Proposed Site Plan (1288–101) received 12 August 2019

iv. Proposed Site Plan (1288–105 Rev A) received 1 November 2019

v. Proposed Plans and Elevations (1288-106) received 12 August 2019

vi. Proposed Plans and Elevations (1288-107 Rev A) received 1 November

2019

vii. Design, Access and Planning Statement received 1 November 2019

viii. Arboricultural Report, Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment

received 27 August 2019

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission.

Before the development is commenced

3. Full details of surface water drainage system (incorporating SUDs features as far as practicable) and a maintenance schedule shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to development being commenced. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the schedule.

Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan.

4. No development shall take place until a written Arboricultural Method Statement has been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority to include details of (i) the location and specification of Tree Protection Barriers as recommended in The Rowan Tree Surveys report dated 20th August 2019; and (ii) the extent of pruning work to the ash tree T6. The area within the protective barriers shall be regarded as sacrosanct and there shall be no excavation work carried out, once installed the barriers shall not be removed or altered.

Agenda Item 3

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Reason: To prevent damage to trees intended for retention in the interest of local amenity. It is necessary for the condition to be on the basis that “No development shall commence until” as compliance with the requirements of the condition at a later time could result in unacceptable harm contrary to the policies of the Development Plan.

Ongoing Conditions

5. Construction works shall be carried out only between 0800 – 1800 hours Mondays – Fridays; 0900 – 1300 hours on Saturdays and there shall be no activity on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of residents living nearby.

6. Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems.

Reason: To secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution.

7. The occupation of any the approved dwellings at Land Adjacent to Blencathra Barn, Newton Reigny shall be limited to a person(s) with a local connection to the locality, or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident Dependants. Locality refers to the parish and surrounding parishes.

In the first instance, if a property has been actively marketed for at least six months and an occupier cannot be found then the definition of locality will be extended out to include the County of Cumbria.

A person with a local connection means a person who meets one of the following criteria:

The person lives in the locality and has done for a continuous period of at least three years.

The person works permanently in the locality for a minimum of 16 hours per week. Where a person is employed in an established business that operates in multiple locations, their employment activities should take place predominantly inside the locality.

The person has a firm offer of permanent employment, for a minimum of 16 hours per week in an already established business within the locality.

The person has moved away but has a strong established and continuous links with the locality by reason of birth or long term immediate family connections.

The person needs to live in the locality because they need substantial care from a relative who has lived in the locality for at least three years, or needs to provide substantial care to a relative who has lived in the locality at least three years. Substantial care means that identified as required by a medical doctor or relevant statutory support agency.

Reason: To provide housing to meet local needs and support the village in accordance with policy HS2 of the local development plan.


2.1 Proposal

Agenda Item 3

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

2.1.1 This proposal seeks full planning permission for the erection of 3 No. two storey, three bedroomed residential dwellings.

2.1.2 The dwellings would take the form of a small row of cottage style dwellings located just off centre, slightly to the north within the site.

2.1.3 As a whole the development would measure approximately 23 metres in length, 10 metres in width and 8.6 metres in height. The proposed materials include stone and render to the elevations, a slate roof and UPVC windows and doors.

2.1.4 Under reserved matters approval 92/0640 a bungalow was approved on this site and works commenced, as confirmed in writing by the Principal Development Control Officer in 2004. As such it is duly noted that works could continue lawfully as per the approved plans. It is also noted that whilst unable to scale the approved drawing from 1993, the footprint of the bungalow appears to be larger than the proposed footprint of the 3 No. dwellings.

2.1.5 The planning permission under planning approval 92/0640 is confirmed as commenced through the laying of service ducts and pipe work to the location of the bungalow, along with the conversion of two barns. This means that the permission is extant.

2.1.6 The Agent refers to the proposal site as brownfield, however, as no construction works were carried out for the bungalow, the Council considers the site to be greenfield. A greenfield site is classified as one that has not been built upon previously. This site meets that criteria and would therefore require the local occupancy restrictions to be applied should approval be granted.


2.2.1 The site is located centrally within the village of Newton Reigny, set back from the main road through the village with all sides bound by residential curtilages. It is accessed along a 75 metres cul de sac that serves several properties.

2.2.2 It is approximately 0.33 of an acre in size and is currently in an unkempt, overgrown state. The site is not considered to affect the setting of any listed buildings. It is not within a conservation area and it is within a flood zone 1.

3. Consultees


Consultee Response


No objection – Considering the current usage of the access, it is considered that the increase of use will not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

Lead Local Flood Authority (Cumbria County Council)

No objection – Request a pre-commencement condition be included with any approval granted.


Consultee Response

United Utilities No objection and no conditions suggested. Response forwarded to agent for information.

MWLP (Minerals & Waste) No objection.

Arboriculturist No objection – ‘The Rowan Tree Surveys tree report is an accurate assessment of the trees within and

Agenda Item 3

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

adjacent to the site and I agree with the conclusion that none of the Retention Category C trees within the redline boundary should be considered a constraint to development. The report has identified a minor incursion into the Root Protection Area of the ash T6 in the NE corner of the site and the likelihood that it will also require some facilitation pruning to be able to construct the proposed dwellings. The RPA incursion is tolerable and the tree report has included a Tree Protection Plan showing the recommended position for protective fencing, the extent of pruning required is not clear at this stage but it is unlikely to be extensive or damaging to the health and appearance of the tree. The report also provides some information in respect of the type of fencing that could be installed but this will need to be confirmed prior to the commencement of any construction activity. In conclusion I have no objections to the scheme but if it is acceptable in other planning terms and likely to be granted consent I would recommend a condition is attached.’

Housing No objection - ‘Newton Reigny is identified as a Smaller Village and Hamlet under policy LS1 of the emerging Local Plan. Policy HS2 states that, within the Smaller Villages and Hamlets listed in policy LS1, permission will be given for housing of an appropriate scale, which reflects the built form of adjoining and neighbouring development to the site and the service function of the settlement, where it meets all of the following criteria:

• Where development is restricted to infilling and rounding off of the current village settlement pattern, in accordance with Policy LS1.

• The building does not contain more than 150m2 internal floorspace (gross).

• In the case of Greenfield sites a condition or legal agreement restricting occupancy to only those meeting local connection criteria, defined in Appendix 6, will be applied.

Provided the development site is considered to be inside the settlement of Newton Reigny, I can confirm that there is no affordable housing requirement’.

Conservation Officer ‘It is considered that the proposed development will result in a minor impact on the setting of the listed farmhouse (Bank Foot Farm) being visible in views to the rear when viewing from the north. However the hedgerow and trees will provide screening to

Agenda Item 3

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

reduce this visual impact. Overall the development is considered to be in accordance with conservation polices’.

4. Parish Council Response


Parish Council Object Support No Response No View

Expressed

Catterlen X

4.1 ‘Application drawings as submitted are not accurate. Shared access and Highways issues. Adjacent property boundaries and amenity values will be compromised. There is no essential need for this development currently in Newton Reigny. The Catterlen Parish Council strongly recommends a site visit by EDC Planning Committee’.

5. Representations

5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 19 August 2019.


No of Representations Received 3 No of neutral representations 0


5.2 Letters of objection raised the following material considerations to the application:

Not in keeping with a close-knit rural village and would cause traffic chaos in a very confined space.

Will suffer lack of privacy and be overlooked.

Understand no right to light, however lives in a north facing house which will now have no light at all.

Will suffer more noise nuisance and vehicular noise.

Concerns about natural water springs running through the development site which may if disturbed cause flooding.

The development will put a home at risk.

Roof protection areas have not been thoroughly investigated as only a basic visual inspection has taken place.

If tree roots are disturbed could cause tree to fall putting objector’s property, other properties and proposed development in jeopardy.

Additional traffic will create extra danger.

Currently 19 vehicles serving 6 properties. This proposal could total 27 without regulation.

Believes the proposal breaches the highways test for the number of vehicles that will be using the confined space.

Scale of proposed development and its visual impact when viewed from neighbouring garden and road.

Visual impact will be greatly increased by the fact that the development lies at the top of a steep north-facing slope.

Proposal would overlook garden and greatly detract from the setting of a listed property.

Agenda Item 3

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

5.3 Letters of objection raised the following non-material considerations:

The applicant has already turned two dwellings in this confined space into holiday lets and built a third property years ago without planning consent.

Both holiday lets impact on neighbouring residents, the third has never been lived in.

The third property named as the ‘House’ on the plans was converted by the application from a garage (no planning permission).

Suffer from significant noise nuisance in the early hours due to these holiday lets.

Disturbance caused from hot tubs in other properties in same ownership as proposal.

Certain the proposal will also be for holiday lets which will add to noise issue.

Potential of large parties renting all properties without the restrictions found on a normal holiday park.

Applicant doesn’t live at site to control noise levels.

Ownership of tree T6 as marked on the plans is in dispute. Tree causes damage to wall and property with the cost being born on neighbour each time. Applicant only claims ownership when it suits.

A rural village should not be subject to expansion just for a money orientated gain by an applicant who has no interest or desire to live in the area and one who has no consideration for those who do live here.

Concerns access may become available as a rat run/short cut to the development from Blencathra and Saddleback Barns.

Has checked the Cumbria planning overdevelopment definition and feel the proposed three dwellings also falls into this category.


Application No Description Outcome

89/0104 Conversion of barns and outbuildings to form dwellings and new in fill dwellings

Outline Approval 18/05/89

92/0640 Conversion of barns and outbuildings to form dwellings and erection of new dwelling

Reserved Matters Approval 15/04/93

95/0423 Conversion of existing barn to two no. dwellings and new build garages to serve dwelling so formed

Full Approval 17/08/95

7. Policy Context


Eden Local Plan (2014-32)

LS1 - Locational Strategy

DEV1 - General Approach to New Development

DEV3 – Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way

DEV5 - Design of New Development

HS2 – Housing in Smaller Villages and Hamlets

Agenda Item 3

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

ENV 10 – The Historic Environment

Supplementary Planning Documents:

Housing (2010)



Chapter 2 - Achieving sustainable development

Chapter 4 - Decision-making

Chapter 5 - Delivering a sufficient supply of homes

Chapter 9 – Promoting sustainable transport

Chapter 11 - Making effective use of land

Chapter 12 - Achieving well-designed places

7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application.



Principle

Landscape and Visual Impacts

Residential Amenity

Scale and Design

8.2 Principle

8.2.1 Policy LS1 – ‘Locational Strategy’ states that the village of Newton Reigny is designated as one of the ‘Smaller Villages and Hamlets’. In these locations development is restricted to infill sites, which fill a modest gap between existing buildings within the settlement or rounding off, which provides a modest extension beyond the limit of the settlement to a logical, defensible boundary.

8.2.2 Policy DEV1 – ‘General Approach to New Development’ advises that the Council will always work proactively with applicants to find solutions which mean the proposals can be approved wherever possible, and to secure developments that improves economic, social and environmental conditions in the area.

8.2.3 Policy DEV3 – ‘Transport, Accessibility and Rights of Way’ states that proposals will be expected to adhere to guidance and standards issues by the Highway Authority on the number of parking spaces to be provided. It also states that developments likely to generate severe adverse travel impacts will not be permitted where they are isolated or difficult to access locations unless an overwhelming environmental, social or economic need can be demonstrated.

8.2.4 Policy DEV5 – ‘Design of New Development’ requires developments to show a clear understanding of the form and character of the districts built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area. It also looks for proposals to protect the amenity of the existing residents and provide an acceptable amenity for future occupiers.

Agenda Item 3

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

8.2.5 Policy HS2 – ‘Housing in Smaller Villages and Hamlets’ seeks to support housing of an appropriate scale in the Smaller Villages and Hamlets so long as it meets all of the following criteria:

Where development is restricted to infilling and rounding off of the current village settlement pattern, in accordance with Policy LS1.

The building does not contain more than 150m2 internal floor space (gross).

In the case of greenfield sites a condition or legal agreement restricting occupancy to only those meeting local connection criteria, defined in Appendix 6, will be applied.

8.2.6 The proposal site is considered to be an infill site with residential curtilages on all sides. Each proposed dwelling is less than the 150m2 internal floor space outlined in policy HS2. Whilst an extant permission remains on the proposal site, building works were not commenced and as such the site is considered to be greenfield meaning local occupancy restrictions are required to be applied to any approval granted. In principle this proposal is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the Development Plan subject to further considerations on landscape and visual impacts and residential amenity.

8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts

8.3.1 Policy DEV5 requires that proposed development demonstrates that it shows clear understanding of the form and character of the District’s built environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area.

8.3.2 The site is back land development and would be fleetingly visible from the main road through the village between Bank foot Farm and Lower House.

8.3.3 The site is on land higher than the aforementioned public vantage point and the land to the north of the site drops considerably in a northerly direction. As such this proposal would provide a new feature in this location, however it is not considered to be a detrimental feature and would be viewed entirely within the context of the existing residential dwellings adjacent to the application site.

8.3.4 Whilst the proposal would be visible in the landscape, it is constrained by vegetation around it, meaning that the site has no interconnectivity with the surrounding open countryside and landscape. Due to the topography of the land form in this location there are no open views, nor is this area a protected landscape. As such, the building would not adversely alter the aesthetic coherence of the local landscape.

8.3.5 To provide a softer impact on the landscape, and to help the development to better harmonise with the existing built environment, the Agent/Applicant has agreed to amend the rear elevation to stone face, as this is considered to be more in-keeping with the existing residential dwellings immediately adjacent than a rendered elevation.

8.3.6 It is accepted that there would be a change in visual appearance were this land to be subject to the implementation of a residential development. It is also acknowledged and accepted that this site is not subject to any landscape designation and whilst this impact is acknowledged and accepted, the impact is not considered to be so severe as to be significantly harmful to an extent that should result in a refusal of the proposal based upon landscape harm.


Agenda Item 3

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

8.4.1 Policy DEV5 requires that (inter alia) development shall protect the amenity of existing residents and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers.

8.4.2 In terms of neighbouring amenity, to the north of the proposal site a property known as Bank Foot Farm is approximately 45 metres away. It is a grade II listed building and concern from an objector has raised that this proposal would greatly detract from the setting of the listed building.

8.4.3 The Conservation Officer was consulted in this regard and concluded that the proposal would result in a minor impact on the setting of the listed farmhouse being visible in views to the rear when viewing from the north. However, overall the development was considered to be in accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, paragraph 193 of the NPPF and policy ENV10 (‘the Historic Environment’) of the Eden Local Plan.

8.4.4 Taking into consideration the Conservation Officers assessment, the distance between the proposal site and the landscaping in between, it is considered sufficient to ensure that there would be no adverse harm to the appearance of setting of the listed building. Furthermore, it is considered that any minor impacts to the listed building would not justify the refusal of this application.

8.4.5 To the north east of the proposal site is a property known as Lower House which is approximately 15 metres away. The topography of the land in this location sees Lower House sited within a sloping site, with the garden area rising steeply in a southerly direction. The existing two story garage of Blencathra Barn is located close to the southern boundary of Lower House. The nature of this area is dwellings/residential buildings at different heights due to the topography, however not withstanding this, the aforementioned existing garage is not considered to be a dominant or overbearing feature to Lower House.

8.4.6 In consideration of the above, the proposal would be sited to the south west of Lower House, approximately 15 metres away. Due to the orientation of the proposal, there would not be any direct window to window overlooking. Two ground floor windows are proposed to the east elevation and these would serve an entrance hall and W/C. Given the non-habitable nature of these rooms and that a 2 metre high boundary treatment can be erected between the two without requiring planning permission, it is not considered that any unacceptable overlooking into the garden area of Lower House would be created.

8.4.7 It is proposed to insert two roof lights into the east facing roof slope, which would provide light to an en-suite and bathroom. It is not considered that the roof lights would adversely affect the closest neighbouring property (Lower House) as they would not readily enable views downwards towards this property or over any private garden.

8.4.8 Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed development would impact differently on Lower House’s current amenity as the proposal site would be on land higher than Lower House. On balance this impact is considered to be moderate and is not considered to create overlooking, overbearing or loss of light. As such, on balance, it is not considered that the proposal would cause an unacceptable adverse impact to Lower House.

8.4.9 To the south east and south of this proposal site is the curtilage of Blencathra Barn which is within the applicant’s ownership. Notwithstanding this, policy DEV5 requires proposals to provide an acceptable amenity for future occupiers as well as existing residents. The proposal would face the rear garden area of Blencathra Barn with an

Agenda Item 3

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

approximate distance of 15 metres between the two. There is no direct window to window overlooking. The area between the principal elevation and the boundary of the neighbouring property would be the car parking area. It is not considered that this proposal would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of Blencathra Barn.

8.4.10 Beyond Blencathra Barn and across three curtilages, to the south of the proposal site is Meadow Cottage. This property is just over 40 metres away and given the separation distance it is not considered that this property would be adversely effected by this proposal.

8.4.11 To the west of the site and set slightly forward of the proposed properties is Beckside House. This is a newly built brick faced property. There is a distance of approximately 15 metres between the two and the closest element to the proposal site is a blank single storey garage elevation. The main body of Beckside House sits further to the west and a single ground floor window faces onto the access road into the proposal site. The distance and orientation of the proposal to Beckside House is considered to be acceptable and to not adversely affect the living conditions or amenity of this property.

8.4.12 The Housing SPD offers guidance regarding separation distances and recommends principal windows on a new property should not be less than 21 metres from any directly facing windows in another property. It also advises a distance of 13 metres should be maintained from the main face of a dwelling to a blank gable wall. The proposal is in accordance with this guidance.

8.4.13 It is acknowledged that this proposal would create a new impact to the surrounding neighbouring amenity, however in considering if this impact would adversely affect the living conditions for the residents of these neighbouring properties, the location, orientation and location of windows of the proposed properties has been examined.

8.4.14 Due to the proposed location of development on the site, the distances provided above and the orientation of the neighbouring residential properties adjoining the site, this proposal is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan and the Housing SPD in that it would not result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the neighbouring amenity.

8.5 Scale and Design

8.5.1 Chapter 12 of the NPPF and Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan require the design of new development to be to high standard, reflecting the form and character of the locality.

8.5.2 This development proposes 3 No., three bedroom dwellings in a cottage style row. Overall the dimensions of the structure are approximately 23 metres long, 10 metres wide and 8.6 metres in height.

8.5.3 Individually, unit 1 would have a total floor area of approximately 98.21m2. Unit 2 would have a total floor area of approximately 93.6m2 and unit 3 would have a total floor area of approximately 112.53m2. Each unit meets the requirements of policy HS2 in that the individual buildings do not contain more than 150m2 internal floor space (gross).

8.5.4 The proposed materials are stone and render to the elevations, slate roof and mahogany effect wood grain UPVC windows and the same colour timber and UPVC doors. The boundaries are proposed to be finished with stone walls and timber fences.

Agenda Item 3

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

8.5.5 The scale is considered to be modest and makes good use of the site. The proposed building would appear tall in height due to the sloping nature of the topography to the north of the site.

8.5.6 The design is considered to be relatively neutral with gable elements to the east end front and rear and single storey elements to each side which adds interest with different roof heights.

8.5.7 Given the mix of design and materials of properties within the vicinity, this proposal is considered to reflect the existing street scene through use of appropriate scale, mass, form, layout and use of materials in accordance with policy DEV5.

8.6 Other

8.6.1 Objectors have raised concerns regarding potential flooding that this proposal could cause due to a natural spring running through the north end of the site. The whole of the site is classed as being within a flood zone 1 which is the lowest probability of flooding. Cumbria County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority has requested a pre-commencement condition (see recommendation) requiring full details of the surface water drainage system, which would be required to be approved before any development could commence, should approval be granted. If implemented on site, the proposed conditions will provide sufficient mitigation to ensure that the appropriate drainage scheme can be achieved and developed at the site.

8.6.2 The ownership of the tree referenced ‘T6B’ within the Arboricultural Report, Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment is in dispute. The tree is located in the north eastern corner of the plot. Both the owner of the neighbouring property and the applicant claim ownership of the tree. This is a civil matter between the two parties and not a material planning consideration for this planning application.

8.6.3 The Arboriculturist is satisfied with the report that has been provided however has requested a condition be attached to any approval granted (see recommendation) to ensure the extent of the pruning and exact fencing is agreed for the protection of the tree.

8.6.4 The generation of additional traffic from this proposal raises concerns for objectors. Policy DEV3 advises that development will be refused if it will result in a severe impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Cumbria County Council as the Highway Authority have assessed the proposal and conclude that given the current usage of the access, the increase of use would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and therefore raise no objections to the proposal. As such, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of highways grounds.

8.6.5 It has been raised by objectors that a garage within the ownership of the applicant, but outside of the proposal site has been converted into a separate property without planning permission. Whist it is noted that this is not a material planning consideration for this proposal, the applicant has confirmed the garage has been converted to an office and shower room in association with Saddleback and Blencathra Barn which are rented out as holiday lets. If further concern is raised in this regard, it would be required to be investigated by the Council’s Planning Enforcement Team and dealt with as an enforcement matter in the usual way.

8.6.6 Noise disturbance from the holiday lets out side of the proposal site has been raised as an objection. This is not a material planning consideration for this planning application

Agenda Item 3

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

and issues of this nature should be raised with the Council’s Environmental Health section who could investigate this matter. As this is not a material planning consideration it has consequently not been taken into account in the determination of this application.

9. New Homes Bonus


10. Implications


10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. Each application is considered on the particular planning merits.



10.3 Environment




10.5 Children


10.6 Human Rights

10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998.

11. Conclusion

11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations:

11.2 The principle of the proposed residential development is considered to be acceptable. Furthermore, the planning merits have been weighed against the potential threat to neighbouring amenity and potential impacts upon the character of the area. The

Agenda Item 3

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

development has been carefully considered and any impacts are considered to be minor and would not result in any unacceptable adverse impacts.

11.3 The proposal for a 3 No. residential dwellings is considered to be compliant with policies LS1, DEV1, DEV3, DEV5 and HS2 and as such, on balance is considered to be supportable.




Agenda Item 4

REPORTS FOR DEBATE


Planning Application No : 19/0650 Date Received : 5 September 2019

OS Grid Ref : NY76770 13459 Expiry Date : 6 November 2019

Parish : Musgrave Ward : Brough

Application Type : Full

Proposal : Change of use from part paddock to garden, conversion of existing outbuilding to games room, conversion of existing integral barn to form new kitchen, new garage/store (as amended) to front of property, and garden room extension (as amended).

Location : Low Green, Great Musgrave

Applicant : Mr and Mrs N and P Shackleford

Agent : Mr P Foskett (Foskett Hylton)

Case Officer : D Cox

Reason for Referral : Recommendation contrary to that of the Parish Council.

Agenda Item 4

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

Agenda Item 4

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Time Limit for Commencement

1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.


Approved Plans

2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the plan application detail and drawings as amended as hereby approved:

i. Location plan drawing Drawing Ref No 1 as dated received by the Local Planning Authority on the 5 September 2019.

ii. Proposed site plan Drawing Ref No 1051 01 22B as dated received by the Local Planning Authority on the 5 September 2019.

iii. Proposed garden room extension Drawing Ref Nos 1051 01 10-11A as dated received by the Local Planning Authority on the 5 September 2019.

iv. Proposed conversion to games room plan and elevations drawing Ref No 1051 01 04 as dated received by the Local Planning Authority on the 5 September 2019.

v. Proposed conversion of integral barn to kitchen plans and elevations drawing Ref Nos 1051 01 07A and 05B as dated received by the Local Planning Authority on the 5 September 2019.

vi. Revised Car garage and Tool Shed plans and elevations Drawing Ref Nos 1051 01 16B, 17B and 23 as dated received by the Local Planning Authority on the 27 September 2019.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission.

3. The drainage for foul and surface water, shall be mains connected or to soakaway. Surface water drainage should not be greater than the already existing. A soakaway solution shall not be positioned in close proximity to the highway and should be at least 5m away from the highway and property.

Reason: To secure a satisfactory form of development on the site.


2.1 Proposal

2.1.1 The Full Application submitted, seeks approval for the change of use from part paddock to garden, conversion of existing outbuilding to games room, conversion of existing integral barn to form new kitchen, new garage/store (as amended) to front of property, and garden room extension, all in relation to and for the benefit of the existing detached two storey dwelling known as Low Green, Great Musgrave.

Agenda Item 4

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

2.1.2 As submitted, the development proposals overall are broken down as follows:

2.1.3 Garden room extension - a garden room extension projecting 4.5m from the existing wall of the house is proposed. The access opening will be created in place of two existing windows and the roof pitch in slate with Velux roof windows has been configured to fit well with the existing first floor windows.

2.1.4 Double doors are to open onto the garden and the application proposes to extend the garden boundary stone wall into the current paddock by some 6.75m to provide an outdoor sitting space. The existing dry stone wall would be taken down in part and re-built on the new footprint.

2.1.5 Conversion of existing outbuilding to games room - The current stone faced and slate roofed outbuilding was built and used by the previous owner to house motor cycles and as a result is too small to function well as a garage. The proposal is to maintain all of the existing openings and glaze the current double door opening and ‘hayloft’ window to introduce natural daylight.

2.1.6 The interior would be damp proofed and insulated to building regulations standards and ultimately used as a games room. The current tarmac area between the outbuilding and the house will be laid with flagstones to introduce a courtyard.

2.1.7 Conversion of existing integral barn to form new kitchen - The proposal is to convert the integral former barn, now used for storage and as a utility space, to a habitable room and re-site the kitchen.

2.1.8 The current arched barn opening would have a glazed screen with single door opening onto the courtyard to the outbuilding opposite. This would reflect one of the details in the outbuilding and replicate a similar slot window detail to the new kitchen space. A Velux window in the rear slope of the roof would further provide natural daylight.

2.1.9 New three car garage and garden tool store to front of property (as amended) - This aspect of the proposal is to develop a three car garage and garden tool shed to the front (east) of the property. The design solution (as amended) takes on board the curving nature of the plot boundary and the sloping of the site and embeds the garage at a level that would be accessible from the existing sloping driveway.

2.1.10 The positioning of the garage and the parking spaces, is to improve the aspect of the west facing garden by keeping vehicles to the front of the property. As amended, the floor area of the single storey building would be W6.4m x L 12.8 (east rear flank) and L10.6m (west front flank), 2m to eaves and 3.95m to ridge height.

2.1.11 As the proposed garage is to be partially sunk into the sloping ground (by approx. 1m to the rear) indications are that the eaves in this location will be approx. level to the nearby existing natural stone wall, as it fronts the adjacent highway.

2.1.12 The garage is proposed to be located to the east and within the existing garden curtilage of Low Green, and between it and the village highway. The southern gable end of the proposed new garage will be approx. 20m obliquely from the neighbouring dwelling Lane Head, and the equivalent northern gable end will be obliquely approx. 18m from the other neighbouring dwelling, Meadow View.


2.2.1 The application site and detached two storey dwelling (a former extended and modified farmhouse) with outbuilding is located within, and surrounded by several similar such

Agenda Item 4

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

residential properties all within the designated small village and hamlet (Policy LS1 “Locational Strategy”) of Great Musgrave.

2.2.2 Vehicular access to the site is both via a shared (Meadow View) short private driveway (off the nearby village highway) as well as via a separate and independent pedestrian/vehicular gateway, again from the same village highway.

2.2.3 The application site, in common with much of the surrounding area, is on land which slopes generally from east to west, with staggered development generally facing onto and towards the adjacent village highway, which ultimately links the settlement to St Theobalds, a church set down in the valley of the Eden River, approximately 275m to the south.

2.2.4 The garage is proposed to be located to the east and within the existing garden curtilage of Low Green, and between it and the village highway. The southern gable end of the proposed new garage will be approx. 20m obliquely from the neighbouring dwelling Lane Head, and the equivalent northern gable end will be obliquely approx. 18m from the other neighbouring dwelling, Meadow View.

3. Consultees


Consultee Response


No objection.

Lead Local Flood Authority (Cumbria County Council)

No objection subject to following condition:

“The drainage for foul and surface water, shall be mains connected or to soakaway. Surface water drainage should not be greater than the already existing. A soakaway solution shall not be positioned in close proximity to the highway and should be at least 5m away from the highway and property.”


Consultee Response

Minerals & Waste (Cumbria County Council)

No objection.

4. Parish Council


Parish Council Object Support No Response

No View Expressed

Musgrave Parish Council

4.1 A Parish Council meeting was held at Great Musgrave on Monday 30 September. One of the items under discussion was the proposed development at Low Green in Great Musgrave. Parish Council members had previously visited the site and met with the owners to hear their plans, especially in relation to the proposed 3 car garage along Church Lane.

Agenda Item 4

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

4.2 Following discussion the Parish Council members voted unanimously to object to the building of the garage based on the following reasons:

This proposed development is not in keeping with the local vernacular and building line.

The proposed 3 car garage is an over development of the property and also the scale and size of the proposed garage is immense.

There is not a requirement for a 3 car garage as this already exists albeit in two separate locations.

This proposed development will adversely affect neighbouring properties and their view.

There is concern that any future owner may wish to apply for change of use to living accommodation.

This application should not be delegated and needs to go to a full planning meeting and we have been asked by our residents if the Chairman could attend this meeting to represent the views of the residents.

5. Representations

5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on 19 September 2019.


No of Representations Received

13 No of neutral representations

0


5.1.1 The objections and concerns raised are summarised as follows:

5.1.2 Material objections/concerns:

- Ample parking already exists on site. - A further structure forward of the building line would compromise the areas

character and visual amenity. - The resulting 3 bay garage building will be overbearing, too big and out of scale. - Does not reflect the general building line/street scene in this part of the village. - Such garaging could be better located elsewhere on site. - Not in keeping with the village.

5.1.3 Non material objection/concerns:

- The existing house is already large enough. - The proposal represents further “garden grabbing”. - May result in loss of view by users of the lane and by neighbouring property. - The resulting garage may be converted to living accommodation in the future.

5.1.4 The letter of support is summarised as follows:

- The proposals sought are not untypical of the character of the area. - Other similar such development that has occurred and taken place in the vicinity. - Low Green is on a large plot which has already and can further accommodate such

well designed and detailed development without compromise to the areas character and amenity.

Agenda Item 4

REPORTS FOR DEBATE


Application No Description Outcome

09/0940 Full Application – Demolition of existing rear outbuilding and erection of rear two storey extension.

Withdrawn.

10/0228 Full Application - Demolition of existing rear outbuilding and erection of two storey rear extension.

Approved.

10/0690 Non-material amendment to application 10/0228 comprising of change location of door and new windows.

Approved.

13/0142 Demolition of existing out building, construction of smaller outbuilding and provision of a new access.

Approved.

19/0620 Change of use from paddock to garden. Conversion of existing outbuilding to games room.

Householder/Returned

7. Policy Context




Chapter 12 Achieving well-designed places

Eden Local Plan 2014-2032:

LS1 Locational Strategy

DEV1 General Approach to New Development

DEV5 Design of New Development

ENV2 Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Trees

ENV10 The Historic Environment

7.3 The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application.



Principle

Design and Character and Neighbouring Amenity

Landscape and Visual Impacts

8.2 Principle

8.2.1 The application and site, made in relation to an existing detached dwelling, is located centrally within the small village and hamlet of Great Musgrave.

8.2.2 As proposed, the application seeks full detailed approval for a development comprising essentially of four elements:

- a minor and relatively small scale extension to the existing rear garden, to the rear and south of the property (Low Green) and comprising change of use of part of the

Agenda Item 4

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

applicants existing paddock into a more rounded off and low natural stone walled garden,

- the change of use of an existing detached outbuilding (motorcycle store) as approved under previous application Re No 13/0142 into a games room,

- the conversion of the existing integral barn to form a new kitchen, and (what appears as the fundamental contentious element),

- the creation of a new detached and stand alone single storey, 3 bay (with associated tool store) garage, clad in natural stone and slate, to the front (north) of Low Green and between it and the adjacent village highway/lane.

8.2.3 In principle therefore associated residential use, such as is being put forward in its various individual and cumulative elements, is acceptable in relation to and for the benefit of an existing dwelling, such as is the case with this application. The small scale additional increase in garden area, conversion to games room and creation of associated integral kitchen, all for the benefit of Low Green again are considered acceptable against the criteria concerns of both Policy DEV5 “Design of New Development” and the “Housing” SPD. In terms of the principle of creating additional vehicular and garden tool storage (in the form of garaging and tool shed) then these too are considered acceptable in planning terms and in accordance with the broad aims of the above relevant adopted Eden Local Plan Policies DEV1 “General Approach to New Development” and DEV5 “Design of New Development”.

8.2.4 The Parish Council have outlined their concerns (see above). There are no objections to the proposal from the Statutory Consultees, including the Highway Authority and Local Lead Flood Authority.

8.2.5 The Parish Council have also expressed concern that, in terms of the proposed new garage, that “a future owner may wish to apply for a change of use to separate living accommodation.” The Council must however consider the application which is made to it on the merits and not speculate on any future application.

8.3 Design and Character and Neighbouring Amenity

8.3.1 The application is considered against the Development Plan and in particular the relevant adopted Eden Local Plan 2014-32 and the criteria concerns of Policy DEV5 “Design of New Development”.

8.3.2 As outlined within Policy DEV5 “Design of New Development”, “The Council will support high quality design, which reflects local distinctiveness.” and that “New development will be required to demonstrate that it meets each of the following criteria”.

8.3.3 With regard to the above, the proposal (as amended) is therefore considered as follows:

8.3.4 - Shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the Districts built and natural environment, complimenting and enhancing the existing area.

8.3.5 In terms of the proposed garden room extension - projecting 4.5m from the existing wall of the house is proposed. The access opening will be created in place of two existing windows and the roof pitch in natural slate with velux roof windows has been configured to fit well with the existing first floor windows.

8.3.6 Double doors open onto the garden and the application proposes to extend the garden boundary stone wall into the current paddock by some 6.75m to provide an outdoor

Agenda Item 4

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

sitting space. The existing dry stone wall would be taken down in part and re-built on the new footprint.

8.3.7 New three car garage and garden tool store to front of property (as amended) - This aspect of the proposal is to develop a three car garage and garden tool shed to the front (east) of the property.

8.3.8 The design solution (as amended) takes on board the curving nature of the plot boundary and the sloping of the site and embeds the garage at a level that would be accessible from the existing sloping driveway.

8.3.9 The positioning of the garage and the parking spaces, is designed to improve the aspect of the west facing garden by keeping vehicles to the front of the property. As amended, the floor area of the single storey building is to be W6.4m x L 12.8 (east rear flank) and L10.6m (west front flank), 2m to eaves and 3.95m to ridge height.

8.3.10 As the proposed garage is to be partially sunk into the sloping ground (by approx. 1m to the rear) indications are that the eaves in this location will be approx. level to the nearby existing natural stone wall, as it fronts the adjacent highway.

8.3 11 The garage is proposed to be located to the east and within the existing garden curtilage of Low Green, and between it and the village highway. The southern gable end of the proposed new garage will be approximately 20m obliquely from the neighbouring dwelling Lane Head, and the equivalent northern gable end will be again obliquely approximately 18m from the other neighbouring dwelling, Meadow View.

8.3.12 The plans as submitted therefore are considered to show for a sympathetically scaled and traditionally clad (natural stone and slate to match existing) single storey design solutions. In terms of the garage, as a structure not untypical of many found across the District, this is to be both sited, set down and pitch roofed to minimise and limit visual impact.

8.3.13 Siting and separation distances from the nearest neighbouring properties are such that the developments (both individually and overall) will have limited impact (loss of view not being a material planning consideration) both on individual or broader amenity/character considerations, and the development proposed, and specifically the new garage is not considered thereby to be at significant or unreasonable odds with the aims of adopted Plan Policy DEV5 “Design of Development” or “Housing” SPD.

8.3.14 - Protects and where possible enhances the Districts distinctive rural landscape, natural environment and biodiversity.

8.3.15 The developments proposed relate to an existing detached and extended dwelling and large associated curtilage located centrally within the designated small village and hamlet of Great Musgrave. Whilst the area and settlement have undoubted charm, it is to be noted that there are no specific designated heritage assets or designations in the immediate vicinity of the proposals.

8.3.16 As such, and in light of the above, limited scale, siting and design detail (including use of traditional cladding) then the development as proposed is considered to reasonably comply and accord with the above.

8.3.17 - Reflects the existing street scene through use of appropriate scale, mass, form, layout, high quality architectural design and use of materials.

8.3.18 This aspect appears to form a significant element of the concern and objection received and relating to the proposal, and the garage detail (as amended). Again, and

Agenda Item 4

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

re-iterating the above, The design solution (as amended) takes on board the curving nature of the plot boundary and the sloping of the site and embeds the garage at a level that would be accessible from the existing sloping driveway.

8.3.19 The positioning of the garage and the parking spaces, is designed to improve the aspect of the west facing garden by keeping vehicles to the front of the property. As amended, the floor area of the single storey building is to be W6.4m x L 12.8 (east rear flank) and L10.6m (west front flank), 2m to eaves and 3.95m to ridge height.

8.3.20 As the proposed garage is to be partially sunk into the sloping ground (by approximately 1m to the rear) indications are that the eaves in this location will be approximately level to the nearby existing natural stone wall, as it fronts the adjacent highway.

8.3.21 The garage is proposed to be located to the east and within the existing large garden curtilage of Low Green, and between it and the village highway. The southern gable end of the proposed new garage will be approximately 20m and at an oblique angle from the neighbouring dwelling Lane Head. The equivalent northern gable end will also be at an oblique angle at a distance of approximately 18m from the other neighbouring dwelling, Meadow View.

8.3.22 The plans as submitted therefore are considered to show for a sympathetically scaled and traditionally clad (natural stone and slate to match existing and surrounding) single storey design solutions. In terms of the garage, as a structure it is not untypical of many found across the District. The garage will be both sited, set down and with a pitch roofed to minimise and limit visual impact, and without significant or unreasonable compromise to the areas existing character.

8.3.23 Siting and separation distances from the nearest neighbouring properties are such that the developments (both individually and overall) will have limited impact (loss of view not being a material planning consideration) both on individual or broader amenity/character considerations, and the development proposed, and specifically the new garage is not considered thereby to be at significant or unreasonable odds with the aims of adopted Plan Policy DEV5 “Design of Development” or the “Housing” SPD in this aspect.

8.3.24 - Optimises the potential use of the site and avoids overlooking.

- Protects the amenity of existing residents and business occupiers and provides an acceptable amenity for future occupiers.

8.3.25 The proposed detached single storey 3 bay garage and tool shed, which is proposed to be set down and partially sunk into the already sloping ground is to be accessed from the already existing adjacent driveway. In this aspect the Highway Authority have raised no objection.

8.3.26 The vehicular garaging and tool storage development proposed is to be located within the applicants existing curtilage, and this, together with the design detail put forward, and relevant separation distances (from nearest relevant neighbouring property will ensure that such overlooking (as is likely to occur from such facility) is likely to be limited and to an acceptable degree, given the overall residential nature of the area. As previously noted the southern gable end of the proposed new garage will be at a distance of approximately 20m from the neighbouring dwelling Lane Head and at an oblique angle, whilst the equivalent northern gable end will be at a distance of approximately 18m from the other neighbouring dwelling, Meadow View and also at an oblique angle).

Agenda Item 4

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

8.3.27 In considering both certain objectors reservations and the Parish Councils specific comment, it is also to be noted that:

- The right to an existing view is not a material planning consideration, and

- Concern that “a future owner may wish to apply for a change of use to separate living accommodation.” which does not form part of the present submission detail, and therefore does not form part of the present consideration and would of necessity form the basis of a separate planning application, should it arise at some point in the future.

8.3.28 - Uses quality materials which complement or enhance local surroundings

- Protects features and characteristics of local importance

This is the most relevant consideration in the determination of this application. The developments (... extensions, conversion and new build) proposed are suitably designed, small scale, suitably sited and sympathetically externally clad (matching locally found natural stone and slate) to ensure that the resulting scheme continues to complement and/or enhance local surroundings. This design continues to complement the local surroundings in the same manner as the previously approved development on the site.

8.3.29 The application site is located centrally within the existing designated small village and hamlet of Great Musgrave. Whilst the settlement has charm and character, there are no immediately relevant designated heritage assets affected by the development proposed. Concerns relating to the nearby road network and the distant (and remote) setting of St Theobalds (approximately 275m to the south) in the valley bottom of the Eden river are considered both remote and unaffected in the broader sense of the limited scale and degree of visual separation involved.

8.3.30 The development is considered to reasonably comply with the aims and criteria concerns of Policy DEV5 “Design of Development” in relation to understanding and respecting the character of the area. In this regard the development as proposed is again not considered to have any significant or adverse impact in terms of the concerns and considerations identified within Policies ENV2 “Protection and Enhancements of Landscapes and Trees” and ENV10 “The Historic Environment”.

8.4 Landscape and Visual Impacts

8.4.1 Several of the objections received relate to the potential of the development proposed, and in particular the proposed new garage block, to have an adverse impact in these contexts.

8.4.2 As outlined above, the development proposed, is however considered not dissimilar to many other existing traditional and new structures found across the settlements of the District as a whole, and even in terms of scale, massing and volume to other buildings within the associated settlement of Great Musgrave.

8.4.3 The impact in this aspect will consequently be both limited and acceptable. It is to be noted that, despite concerns raised, no specific historic or landscape designation exists on the site, or in its immediate vicinity, with the Church of St Theobalds being both physically and visually remote from the application site in terms of character setting. The adopted Eden Local Plan Policy ENV10 “The Historic Environment” has been quoted by the Parish, however in this context and for the reasons above, such views are not shared or considered to be relevant in this instance.

Agenda Item 4

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

8.4.4 The application site is located centrally within the existing designated small village and hamlet of Great Musgrave. Whilst the settlement has charm and character, there are no immediately relevant designated heritage assets affected by the development proposed. Concerns relating to the nearby road network and the distant (and remote) setting of St Theobalds (approximately 275m to the south) in the valley bottom of the Eden river are considered both remote and unaffected in the broader sense of the limited scale and degree of visual separation involved. As such, the proposal is considered to reasonably comply with the aims and criteria concerns of Policy DEV5 “Design of New Development”.

8.4.5 The development as proposed is again not considered to have any significant or adverse impact in terms of the concerns and considerations identified within Policies ENV2 “Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Geodiversity” and ENV10 “The Historic Environment”.

8.4.6 As amended, the plan details submitted show for a low key, sensitively detailed, traditionally constructed and considerately sited development and small scale change of use, in associated with and for the benefit of an existing dwelling. Though amenity (... or the loss of it in terms of view) is cited by objectors as one of the main reasons to refuse this application, this is not considered to be a material consideration, nor does it represent justification for the refusal of this planning application.

8.4.7 The development proposed is considered to reasonably accord with the aims and criteria concerns of relevant adopted Plan Policies DEV1 “General approach to new development”, DEV5 “Design of New Development”, ENV2 “Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Geodiversity” and the “Housing” SPD.

9. Implications


9.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise. Each application is considered on the planning merits.



9.3 Environment




9.5 Human Rights

9.5.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights and Protection of Fundamental Freedoms 1950, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998.

Agenda Item 4

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

10. Conclusion

10.1 The development proposed is considered not dissimilar to many other existing traditional and new structures found across the settlements of the District as a whole, and even in terms of scale, massing and volume to other buildings within the relevant and associated settlement of Great Musgrave.

10.2 In relation to the impact of the development, it is considered that the extent will consequently be both limited and acceptable. It is to be noted that, despite concerns raised by objectors, no specific historic or landscape designation exists on the site, or in its immediate vicinity. The Church of St Theobalds is both physically and visually remote from the application site in terms of character setting.

10.3 The adopted Eden Local Plan Policy ENV10 “The Historic Environment” has been quoted by the Parish Council as a reason to refuse the application. However in this context and for the reasons considered above, these concerns are not specifically relevant here nor are they sufficient ground for refusal in planning terms.

10.4 The application site is located centrally within the existing designated small village and hamlet of Great Musgrave. Whilst the settlement has charm and character, there are no immediately relevant designated heritage assets affected by the development proposed.

10.5 As an overall scheme, the proposal remains considered to reasonably comply with the design and amenity aims and criteria concerns of Policy DEV5 “Design of New Development”. In addition the development as proposed is not considered to have any significant or adverse impact in terms of the character or broader landscape setting concerns and considerations identified within Policies ENV2 “Protection and Enhancements of Landscapes and Trees” and ENV10 “The Historic Environment”.

10.6 As amended, the plan details submitted show for a low key, sensitively detailed, traditionally constructed and considerately sited development and small scale change of use, in associated with and for the benefit of an existing dwelling.

10.7 Though amenity (... or the loss of it in terms of view) is cited by objectors as one of the main reasons to refuse, such is not considered to be the case given the above, and again and as amended the development proposed is considered to reasonably accord with the aims and criteria concerns of relevant adopted Plan Policies DEV1 “General Approach to New Development”, DEV5 “Design of New Development”, ENV2 ““Protection and Enhancements of Landscapes and Trees” and the “Housing” SPD.




REPORTS FOR DEBATE Eden District Council Planning ... › documents › s14779 › ... · PLP2,...

Documents

Transcript of REPORTS FOR DEBATE Eden District Council Planning ... › documents › s14779 › ... · PLP2,...