Committee Date: 21 July 2016 Planning Committee Agenda...reference 12/0345). Location: Land opposite Ivy House, Ousby, CA10 1QA ... letter dated 3 February 2016, Ousby Parish Council

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

1

Eden District Council

Planning Committee AgendaCommittee Date: 21 July 2016

INDEX

Item No Application Details Officer

RecommendationPage Number

1 Planning Application No: 16/0014Reserved matters application for the creation of 6 No dwellings including 1 No affordable dwelling (outline planning reference 12/0345).Land opposite Ivy House, Ousby, CA10 1QAWillan Trading Ltd

Recommended to:

APPROVESubject to Conditions 3

2 Planning Application No: 15/0832Erection of four Market Led DwellingsLand Adj Fell View, NentheadMr J R Edgar

Recommended to:

APPROVESubject to Conditions

14

3 Planning Application No: 15/1168Erection of 5 No Two Bedroom Bungalows and 2 No Two Storey Terrace HousesBrent Road, PenrithEden Housing Association

Recommended to:

APPROVESubject to Conditions 22

4 Planning Application No: 16/0119Proposed agricultural field accessLand off Snuff Mill Lane, StaintonAtric Ltd

Recommended to:


36

5 Planning Application No: 16/0218Reinstatement of Mayflower and Ghyll Cottages into two DwellingsMayflower Cottage, Greystoke Gill, GreystokeMrs & Miss Graham

Recommended to:

REFUSEWith Reasons 42

6 Planning Application No: 16/0479Erection of detached dwellingLand at Orchard Cottage, Little Salkeld, Penrith

Recommended to:


52

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

2

Item No Application Details Officer

RecommendationPage Number

Mr and Mrs D Addis

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

3

Item 1

Date of Committee: 21 July 2016

Planning Application No: 16/0014 Date Received: 6 January 2016

OS Grid Ref: 361981 534872 Expiry Date: 02 March 2016

Parish: Ousby Ward: Hartside

Application Type: Reserved Matters

Proposal: Reserved matters application for the creation of 6 No dwellings including 1 No affordable dwelling (outline planning reference 12/0345).

Location: Land opposite Ivy House, Ousby, CA10 1QA

Applicant: Willan Trading Ltd

Agent: Mr Graham Norman

Case Officer: Mr Daniel Addis

Reason for Referral: The officer recommendation to approve is contrary to the view of Ousby Parish Council and an objector has requested a hearing.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

4

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that delegated authority is given to the Head of Planning to grant planning permission subject to the provision of a s106 Legal Agreement to secure unit one as an affordable house in perpetuity and subject to the following conditions or should the s106 Legal Agreement fail to be entered into for the application to be refused:

Approved Plans

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

i) Application Forms received 6 January 2016

ii) Location Plan 111-145A-08 received 20 April 2016iii) Site Plan 111-145A-10 received 20 April 2016

iv) Units 1 and 2 Plans and Elevations 111-145A-03 received 20 April 2016

v) Units 1 and 2 Plans and Elevations 111-145A-04 received 20 April 2016

vi) Units 3 and 4 Plan and Elevations 111-145A-05A received 20 April 2016

vii) Units 3 and 4 Section and Elevations 111-145A-06A received 20 April 2016

viii) Units 5 and 6 Plan and Elevations 111-145A-07A received 20 April 2016

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

Before the Development is Commenced

3. The carriageway and footways 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 for approval before work commences on site. These details shall be in accordance with the standards laid down in the current Cumbria Design Guide. Any works so approved shall be constructed before the development is complete.

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

Pre-Occupancy or Other Stage Conditions

4. Prior to their use on site samples of the proposed external materials to be used on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing with the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved materials.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed materials are acceptable in this location and in the absence of samples at the application stage.

5. The translocation of the existing hedgerow along the western boundary of the

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

5

site shall be carried out in accordance with the Method Statement for the Translocation of a Hedgerow received 20 April 2016.

Reason: to ensure that the hedge is relocated in a manner which ensures that it is protected.

Note to Developer i. A fibre optic cable runs along the roadside on the western boundary of the site and care should be taken to ensure it is protected during the relocation of the section of the hedgerow.

2. Proposal and Site Description2.1 Proposal

2.1.1 The application proposed the reserved matters for the erection of six houses following the grant of outline planning permission (allowed on appeal under planning reference 12/0345 on 25 April 2013). The reserved matters that are being sought are appearance, layout and scale. Approval was granted at the outline stage for access. One of the proposed six units (unit 1) will be secured as an affordable house in perpetuity through an S106 legal agreement.

2.1.2 The application proposes two semi-detached houses (units 1-2) and four detached houses (units 3-6) and all of which are arranged around a shared access road.

2.1.3 Units 1 and 2 form a two storey semi-detached building with a pitched slate roof. The walls are finished in an off-white render with full window surrounds and upvc casement windows. The elevations are well proportioned and balanced and the overall unit will read well in the context of the site. Units 3 and 4 are the same unit and feature front and rear projections on a rectangular single storey house. The units both feature chimneys with a slate roof, cill and lintel details to the openings all finished in brick. Units 5 and 6 are the same unit and are similar in appearance to units 3 and 4 although with one front projection and nothing to the rear. Materials and finishing are the same which will help establish a theme to the development.

2.1.4 The site plan submitted with the application shows extensive planting on the site including planting around the boundaries.

2.2 Site Description

2.2.1 Ousby is characterised by sporadic residential development interspersed by agricultural buildings and open areas. The site is a triangular section of open grazing land which forms part of a field area. The site occupies a central position in the village. Residential bungalows are situated adjacent to the east of the site, the Fox Inn to the north, Ivy House and village U3099 road to the west, and the wider open field to the south.

2.2.2 An existing approximate 2.5 boundary hedge is in situ along the western boundary. An existing field access gate can be found at the north boundary. A post and wire fence acts as a boundary to the bungalows to the east. Generally, the land rises from north to the south.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

6

3. Consultees3.1 Statutory Consultees

Consultee ResponseLocal Highway Authority No objection subject to conditionsLead Local Flood Authority No objection

3.2 Discretionary Consultees

United Utilities No commentHousing Development Officer No objection on the basis of one affordable unit

4. Parish Council/Meeting Response

Please Tick as AppropriateParish Council/Meeting Object Support No Response No View

ExpressedOusby Parish Council

X

4.1 The full (updated following amendment and reconsultation) response from Ousby Parish Council is set out below:“Whilst the applicant has tried to address some of the concerns noted in our previous letter dated 3 February 2016, Ousby Parish Council objects to this amended planning application and makes the following observations:1. Ousby Parish Council is pleased to see that the access point to the development site from the C3004 Ousby /Skirwith road has now been moved southwards, in effect returning to its position on the original application 12/0345. We note that the telegraph pole currently located in the proposed original access point will be relocated or removed, as appropriate.2. A detailed method statement has been included in the amended 16/0014 plans for the translocation of the existing hedgerow each side of the repositioned access point. There is concern that this contains no mention of the fibre optic broadband cable embedded in the verge along the hedge bottom during February 2016 by BT contractor, Reid Pipeline Services.3. The repositioned access point means that the previous 16/0014 access road has been modified to become a length of non-adopted road that runs from the perimeter of unit 5, past unit 6 to link with the pedestrian footpath leading from the development to the Fox Inn. The plans state that this non-adopted road will be constructed of permeable paving. However there is no indication of who will be responsible for this non-adopted paved road and fund its future maintenance.4. Preparation work undertaken to date by the applicant indicates that initial access to the site during the construction work will be through an existing field gate opposite the Fox Inn car park, at the most northerly point of the development site. This gate is on a busy road junction and is on a blind corner. There have been numerous accidents here over the years, including a road death in 2015. Any construction traffic entering and leaving the site at this point will render this junction and the blind corner unacceptably

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

7

dangerous. It is therefore crucial that the site access road is completed before any construction work begins on the dwellings.5. The completed housing development is likely to be occupied by families with children, who will need to use the footpath running through the amenity area to access the school bus which stops at the Melmerby road end. The footpath leads pedestrians to this same busy and hazardous road junction, which could place unaccompanied youngsters and also drivers at greater risk at peak times.6. Although the amended plans show a designated soakaway area at the south end of the development site for neighbouring properties Hamara Ghar and The Hawthorns, the reserved matters details of this amended application still do not fully address previous concerns submitted against 12/0345 about disruption of existing drainage systems and potential flooding of neighbouring properties. Furthermore there is still no mention of any drainage arrangements that will also be required for third neighbouring property, Eden Croft.The contour of the site can be best described as an upturned saucer, with the neighbouring properties Hamara Ghar and the Hawthorns, located at the lowest point on the rim. Due to the contour of the land, these properties already regularly suffer from localised flooding during wet weather. We remain concerned that the drainage arrangements for the foul and surface water of the proposed new dwellings will simply worsen the current situation, particularly as the dissipated water from the individual surface water soakaways will continue to follow this unchanged contour of the land.7. The original percolation test for this housing development was undertaken at the beginning of April 2012 after an extended period of exceptionally warm, dry weather. We note that the percolation test was recently repeated by Willan Trading Ltd, with 5 sheets of supporting data integral to the amendment documents. The amended plans state an average percolation value of 3.23 – unconvincingly and rather remarkably, this is identical to the 3.23 reported in PFK’s revised drainage statement dated August 2012. While the supporting data may have enabled the applicant to more accurately calculate the capacity of a septic system for the development, it should also be noted that the water table in the area is close to the surface.8. The soakaway pipes from the existing septic tank at Hamara Ghar run towards the property called Low Bradley. This means they will lie directly below properties marked 5 and 6 on the development layout plan.9. Furthermore an old drainage system that channels surface water from Ousby village green is known to lie within the proposed site, following the line of the new double hedgerow that will be planted along the boundary of two neighbouring properties.10. To date the applicant, Willan Trading Ltd, has not contacted any of the neighbouring residents to explain what arrangements will be made to ensure their septic tank systems are not compromised by the proposed dwellings. Until that happens, the residents have no idea whether or not what is being proposed will be suitable, as full details are still not available in the amended 16/0014 documentation. Ousby parish council has also not been contacted regarding the surface water drains from Ousby village green.11. The revised matters application details a new double staggered hedgerow to be planted on the boundary between Hamara Ghar, The Hawthorns and the development site. While this might prove an effective way to protect people’s privacy, the roots could

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

8

interfere with the individual surface water soakaways for the new properties, the new pipe work to be installed for the outflow from the existing properties’ septic tanks, the pipe work for the surface water from Ousby village green or indeed the existing septic tanks themselves - any of which could cause flooding difficulties.12. The future arrangements for the maintenance of this double staggered hedgerow need further clarification. A note on the amended site plan states that the developer will enter into a legal agreement with the council (presumably Eden District Council) for its maintenance but this would seem unlikely to happen given the current economic climate and the reduction of non-statutory council services.Please could you include these observations in your consideration of amended planning application 16/0014.”

5. Representations5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours and a site notice was posted on

15-01-16.

No of Neighbours Consulted 7 No of letters of support 0No of Representations Received 6 No of neutral representations 1No of objection letters 5

5.2 Letters of objection raised the following material considerations:

Insufficient parking proposed Impact on existing septic tanks and soakaways Uncertainty over maintenance of proposed boundary hedges Concern that waste and surface water will worsen existing situation An old drainage system from Ousby village hall runs through the site Proposed planting could impact on effectiveness of existing drainage network Water discharging onto highway at access

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

Concerns about future housing taken off the same estate road Incorrectly named properties adjoining the site (resolved) The revised access arrangement is unacceptable (resolved)

5.4 Letters of observation raised the following material considerations:

Concern over existing soakaways that are on the site Concern over cost of moving soakaways Uncertainty over who will be responsible for the planting and treatment plant The land is already very wet Highways safety - children crossing highway to reach the bus route

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

9

6. Relevant Planning History

Application No Description Outcome12/0345 Erection of 6 No dwellings including 1 No

affordable dwelling.Allowed on appeal 25 April 2013.

7. Policy Context7.1 Development Plan

Core Strategy DPD Policy:

CS4 - Flood Risk CS6 - Developer Contributions CS7 - Principles for Housing CS10 - Affordable Housing CS16 - Principles for the Natural Environment CS17 - Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment CS18 - Design of New DevelopmentSupplementary Planning Documents:

Housing (2010)

7.2 Other Material Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework:

Supporting a prosperous rural economy Promoting sustainable transport Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Requiring good design Promoting healthy communities Conserving and enhancing the natural environmentNational Planning Practice Guidance

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

8. Planning Assessment8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues

Landscape and Visual Impacts Residential Amenity Drainage/Infrastructure Natural Environment

8.2 Principle

8.2.1 The principle of 6 dwellings at this site has been established by outline planning approval reference 12/0345 which was allowed on appeal on 25 April 2013.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

10

8.3 Landscape and Visual Impacts

8.3.1 The application proposes one two storey semi-detached property to the south of the access and four single storey houses sited along the north/northeast boundary.

8.3.2 With regards to impact on the landscape the site is well related to the village of Ousby and the site will be seen in the context of the village. With regards to visual impacts the site would be most visible from the public road to the west of the site (both heading south and north). The two storey semi-detached building would be most noticeable with the remaining single storey houses being sited on lower ground which falls away to the north/northeast. The area already features a mixture of single storey houses including Ivy House opposite the access and two storey houses including Bradley Foot and Low Bradley. The two storey semi-detached property addresses the public road at an oblique angle which is character with the closest residential properties opposite the access ie Ivy House and Low Bradley.

8.3.3 Open space has been provided on the site in response to Saved Local Plan Policy BE20 ie 15sqm per dwelling. However as the site is for less than ten units this is not a policy requirement. The proposed site plan suggests that the open space will be secured through an S106 Legal Agreement however this is not considered necessary as it is not required by policy.

8.4 Residential Amenity

8.4.1 The application proposed new housing well related to an existing village with no conflicting nearby uses. The site has been designed and laid out taking into regard the Housing SPD and particularly separation distances ie 21m elevation window to elevation window to maintain privacy. This level of separation is already acceptable and additional boundary planting is also proposed to further protect the residential amenity of both the existing and proposed dwellings.

8.5 Drainage/Infrastructure

8.5.1 With regards to foul drainage Ousby does not benefit from a public sewer and therefore the application proposes a communal sewage treatment plant and soakaway on land adjacent to unit 1. There is no objection to this proposal and United Utilities has not commented on the application as they have no infrastructure in the area. The technical specifications of the treatment plant have been provided and Building Control is the mechanism for ensuring that it is fit for purpose.

8.5.2 With regards to surface water the application proposes soakaways both to serve the proposed dwellings and also the access road to serve the dwellings. This is an acceptable approach particularly where there is no mains drainage. The County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority has considered surface water drainage at the site and likely flooding and has confirmed that the site is not in a flood zone and there are no records of historic flooding at the site.

8.5.3 Concern has been raised that the proposed site accommodates soakaways for adjoining dwellings and also a drain from Ousby Village Hall. The proposed site plan acknowledges the presence of the existing soakaways on the site and confirms that these will be relocated to a position where they will still function as soakaways. Whilst the developer may not have been in contact with the owners of the adjoining properties at this planning stage this confirmation is enough to allow an application to be determined. If the soakaways are relocated either not in accordance with the approved

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

11

plans or relocated in such a way that they no longer function then this would have to be investigated at that time. The same principle would apply for the Ousby Village Hall drainage - if a drainage network is discovered during construction then the developer will have the responsibility of ensuring that it is either protected or diverted in such a way to ensure that it still functions. The applicant has stated that this drain will not be affected by the development.

8.5.4 Any planting will be designed to ensure that it will not affect the underground drainage infrastructure either through it siting or the species planted ie shallow rooting species.

8.5.5 Concern has been raised that surface water could pass from the site onto the public road at the access to the site. However this has not been acknowledged by highways as an issue and if it were to then highways would have its own legislation to prevent it.

8.5.6 The section of non-adopted road at units 5 and 6 will be maintained by the owners of both of these properties. This would be secured through the Title of the properties.

8.5.7 The Parish Council has raised concerns with the safety of the existing vehicular access for construction traffic and the proposed pedestrian footpath as they join the public road to the north of the site. The access cannot be used for construction vehicles as stipulated by planning condition 7 of the outline approval. The highways authority is satisfied that adequate visibility has been met and therefore has no objection to the footpath.

8.6 Natural Environment

8.6.1 The site is currently used for agriculture and has a low ecological sensitivity to development. The relocation of the hedgerow along the western boundary is perhaps the most sensitive element of the proposal regarding the natural environment however this has been addressed by the detailed relocation method statement and secured as such by planning condition.

8.6.2 With regards to landscaping the proposed site plan shows extensive hedgerow planting surrounding the site with limited landscaping on the individual plots. This is a reasonable approach with the final plot landscaping being left to the property owners. A condition exists on the outline approval (condition 10) to ensure that the landscaping scheme is implemented and maintained in accordance with the proposed site plan. The future maintenance of the landscaping including the boundary treatments would fall with the new owners of the properties.

8.7 Main Issues Summary

8.7.1 The application proposes the reserved matters following the grant of outline planning permission in 2013. Details of the appearance, layout and scale are considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the development plan.

8.7.2 Site specific concerns have been raised by a number of objectors and also the Parish Council. These have been taken into account as part of the overall planning balance however there are no site specific issues that are outstanding that would warrant the application being refused.

9. New Homes Bonus9.1 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

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

12

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. Implications10.1 Legal Implications

10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise.

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 on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998.

11. Conclusion11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan and that this is

not outweighed by material planning considerations and that therefore the application is recommended for approval subject to an S106 legal agreement to secure one affordable house.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

13

Ruth AtkinsonCommunities Director

Background Papers: Planning File

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

14

Item 2


Planning Application No: 15/0832 Date Received: 7 September 2015

OS Grid Ref: 378237 543975 Expiry Date: 2 November 2015

Parish: Alston Moor Ward: Alston

Application Type: Full Planning Permission

Proposal: Erection of four Market Led Dwellings

Location: Land Adjacent Fell View, Nenthead

Applicant: Mr J R Edgar

Agent: Brier Associates

Case Officer: Mr Kevin Hutchinson

Reason for Referral: The application has attracted a significant level of local interest, there is a request from an objector to be heard by committee and the recommendation is contrary to the view the parish council who object to the proposal.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

15

1. Recommendation

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

Time limit for commencement

1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 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

Approved Plans

2. the development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings hereby approved:

site location plan – C1505 – 100

proposed dwellings – C1505 – 01

dwellings, elevations floor plans and site layout – C1505 – 01

dwellings site plan C1505 – 03


Landscaping

3. The development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved prior to the occupation of any part of the development. Any trees or other plants which die or are removed within the first 5 years following the implementation of the landscaping scheme shall be replaced during the next planting season.

Reason: to ensure that the development is landscaped in the interests of the visual character and appearance of the area.

Materials

4. Samples of the materials to be used on the external surfaces of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any of the above ground works are commenced, and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in this application. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: to ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings which are located within the North Pennines AONB.

5. No development shall commence until there has been submitted to and

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

16

approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatments to be erected on and around site. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: to protect the visual appearance of the area which is within the North Pennines AONB and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

Highways requirements

6. The development shall not commence until visibility splays at each access providing clear visibility of 2 m x 33 m measured down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the major road have been provided at the junction of the access road with the county highway. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order) relating to permitted development, no structure, vehicle or object of any kind shall be erected, parked or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to be grown within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splay. The visibility splays shall be constructed before general development of the site commences so that construction traffic is safeguarded.

Reason: in the interests of highway safety and to support local transport plan policies: LD7 and LD8.

7. The access drive shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or otherwise bound and shall be constructed and completed before the development is brought into use of that particular dwelling is occupied. This surfacing shall extend for a distance of at least 5 m inside the site, as measured from the carriageway edge of the adjacent highway.

Reason: in the interests of highway safety and to support local transport plan policies:LD5, LD7 and LD8.

8. The gradient of the access drive is shall be no steeper than 1 in 10 for a distance of not less than 6 m as measured from highway boundary.

Reason: in the interests of highway safety and to support local transport plan policies: LD7 and LD8.

9. Details of all measures to be taken by the applicant/developer to prevent surface water discharging onto or off the highway shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval prior to development being commenced. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the development being completed and should be maintained operational thereafter.

Reason: in the interests of highway safety and environmental management and to support local transport plan policies: LD7 and LD8.

10.The whole of the access area bounded by the carriageway edge, entrance gates and the splays shall be constructed and drained to the specification of the local planning authority in consultation with the Highway authority.

Reason: in the interests of road safety and to support local transport plan policies

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

17

LD5, LD7 and LD8 highway.

11.The access and parking/turning requirements shall be substantially met before any building work commences on site so that construction traffic can Park and turn clear of the highway.

Reason: the carrying out of this development without the provisions of these facilities during the construction work is likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users and to support local transport plan policies: LD8.

Informatives

The phase 1 Habitat and scooping survey for protected species has indicated that the habitat on site is of low to moderate conservation interest. However, the habitats on site offers the breeding potential for local populations of breeding birds. All European protected species, species of conservation concern should be considered at all times during construction, and if individual animals are suspected or appear within the construction phase of the development, work must stop and further guidance to protect the protected species from harm and disturbance should be sought by contacting and approved ecologist.


2.1.1 The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of four market led houses on an infill site on the edge of Nenthead. The application was originally submitted for the erection of 3 market led houses and one affordable dwelling house. In the light of the changed advice within the Planning Practice Guidance following the government’s successful appeal to the High Court which requires no affordable financial contribution or affordable dwellings for schemes of 5 or less dwellings, the application was amended to remove the single affordable dwelling and replace it with a fourth market led dwelling.

2.1.2 The houses are arranged as two pairs of semi-detached houses set back from the adjoining public highway with a mixture of front gardens and parking between the highway and the houses. The houses are of a traditional two-storey cottage vernacular design, stone faced to the front elevation with render to the remaining. Stone detailing includes cill and lintel window and door surrounds, quoins all under a slate roof with single chimneys on each gable.

2.1.3 The site will be accessed by individual driveways onto the adjacent public highway.2.1.4 The application is supported with a design and access/planning statement and more

latterly following the consultation response from Natural England a phase 1 Habitat survey and scooping survey for European protected species.’


2.2.1 The site is greenfield and is considered to represent an infill between Whitehall House to the north and Chapel Row to the south. The site and adjacent properties lie within a cluster of buildings slightly detached from the main core of the main village of Nenthead but remains one of the scattered elements that can be considered to form

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

18

the overall village of Nenthead. The site is generally set on a self west facing hillside rising above the main core of the village with the application site rising up and away from the public highway further to the north-east. In response to this the application proposes an element of cutting into the hillside to create a level platform with terraced gardens to the rear.

2.2.2 It is considered that the site is within the edge of the settlement of Nenthead which does not have a rigid settlement edge; rather it dissipates out in to the open countryside with sporadic single houses and clusters of housing surrounding the main call, but which can all be considered to form the cohesive settlement of Nenthead.

2.2.3 The site does not have a specific ecological designation however it is near to a UK Priority Habitat - located approximately 35m to the south of the site, and the site is located within the North Pennines AONB.

3. Statutory Consultees

Consultee ResponseCumbria County Council - Highway Authority

No objection subject to conditions: that visibility splays are required. The access drive shall be surfaced the access drive shall be no steeper than 1 in 10 measures will be required to prevent surface

water discharging onto the public road the access area shall be constructed and

drained to a particular specification the access requirements shall be substantially

met before building works may commence.North Pennines AONB Concern that there is a risk that the scattered pattern

which defines the landscape character might be lost if the development is approved. The break in development is a key component of the historic nature of development on the fringe of the open countryside.Necessary to consider the appropriateness of this size of development in this location, the buildings do not seem to follow the building line set by Whitehall House or Chapel Row nor does the design fully reference the local vernacular architecture or materials.

Natural England Confirmation that the application site includes an area of Priority Habitat as listed on section 41 of the natural environmental and rural communities (NERC) act 2006. The NPPF states that ‘when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.’

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

19



ExpressedAlston

4.1 The Parish Council has provided to observations as follows:

6th of October 2015

Resolved that the parish council are not prepared to make a recommendation until highways have assessed the current condition of the road, and a flood assessment has been undertaken to ensure that other properties within the village are not adversely affected.

I have included an extract from the public participation section of the meeting to indicate the reasoning behind the parish council’s request that highways inspect the road and the potential for flooding is explored.

Firstly, there is no good reason for additional properties to be built, as there are many already on the market, including one which has been for 6 years. Access is along a road which has seen 14 new properties built recently, some are still empty and unsold. The residents were not aware of any surveys that had demonstrated housing need. The site access is on the narrowest point of the road, with a blind crest and bend. The road is poorly drained and additional points of access will add to the danger when there is ice across the road. There is no scope for additional roadside parking, and in winter when it is impossible for vehicles to use the road, the vehicles from these properties will add to the parking chaos in the village centre.

The proposed development has been described as infill, but the very particular landscape of widely spaced houses is what defines the character of the upper village and to build here will destroy the special environment valued by residents and visitors.

Photos were circulated to demonstrate that a wide angled lens had been used for the applicant’s photos to make the space appear wider than it is.

It was confirmed that a child had been hit by a car, and pets killed on the road at this point.

Comments made by members

Work carried out by highways on the road in the past has resulted in flooding of properties lower down, and there was a concern that additional building could increase the risk. As noted by the residents the drainage at Whitehall is poor, and the area subject to adverse weather.

6th of July 2016

recommend refusal on the grounds that the parish council supports the Nenthead’s residents use as set out in a paper and because of the decision by the county council that a report on traffic safety and flood risk is not needed.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

20


28 September 2015.

No of Neighbours Consulted 10 No of letters of support 0No of Representations Received

17 No of neutral representations 1

No of objection letters 16

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

The development of the site would cause harm to the AONB;

The design and layout of the proposed buildings is out of character and would not blend in, other houses in the area are detached or in rows of terraced houses;

Road access is poor;

Unacceptable impact on adjoining properties - overlooking, overshadowing, overbearing and out of character;

Highway safety impacts;

Loss of natural habitat;

Existing problems with on-street parking, particularly in poor weather;

Lack of services within the village;

Problems with water run-off and flooding may be exacerbated;

Impact on residential amenity of surrounding properties;

No ecological information has been submitted;

The site is outside of the village of Nenthead;

Impact on the nearby listed Gunpowder Store.5.3 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are non-material

considerations:Loss of views;

Impacts on house sales in the area;

No need for housing.

5.4 One letter of observation raised the following non-material consideration:

There is no need for further housing the area.Petition5.5 On 30 June 2016 a petition containing 43 signatories was received objecting on the

following grounds:

proposal will involve increased traffic

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

21

an increasing danger to pedestrians

increased cars parked in the village in winter conditions

inappropriate scale of development on agricultural land

6. Relevant Planning HistoryThere is no relevant planning history.


Saved Local Plan Policies:

NE2 - Development in the North Pennines AONBCore Strategy DPD Policy:

CS1 - Sustainable Development Principles CS2 - Locational Strategy CS4 - Flood Risk CS5 - Transport and Accessibility CS6 - Developer Contributions CS7 - Principles for Housing CS10 - Affordable Housing CS18 - Design of New DevelopmentSupplementary Planning Documents:

Housing (2010) North Pennines AONB Planning Guidelines (July 2011) North Pennines AONB Building Design Guide (2011)



Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Requiring good designNational Planning Practice Guidance



8.1.1 The main planning issues are considered to be:

Principle and the need for housing;

Impact on the AONB;

Design;

Impact on residential amenity;

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

22

Impact on highway safety.

8.2 Principle

8.2.1 The site is considered to fall within the settlement boundary of Nenthead. The area is characterised by more scattered properties and becomes looser and less formed at its edges. The area of Whitehall is a cohesive group of dwellings which is considered to form part of the settlement that is Nenthead.

8.2.2 The Council are currently unable to demonstrate a five year housing supply which currently stands at 3.33 years and as such, paragraph 14 of the NPPF which requires applications to be determined with a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF states in paragraph 14 that:‘for decision taking this means:

approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and

where the development plan is absent, silent or relative policies are out of date, granting permission unless;

any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrate the outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this framework taken as a whole; or

specific policies in this framework indicate development should be restricted.’8.2.3 Eden Core Strategy policy CS to: Locational Strategy identifies Nenthead as a local

service Centre, where development should be limited to ‘small-scale development to sustain local services, support rural businesses and meet local needs including housing, provision of employment, improvements to accessibility.’ The principal of the proposal is considered to accord with this policy as the site is located within a cohesive part of the overall settlement of Nenthead.


8.3.1 The site is an area of agricultural land which forms a break between Whitehall and Chapel Row which is set within a range of buildings surrounded by countryside but forming part of the settlement of Nenthead. The dwellings on this side of the road have all been subject to some cut and fill due to the land rising to the rear.

8.3.2 Concerns have been expressed over the loss of the gap and its function as an integral part of the landscape character which may be lost were the development approved. It is considered that whilst the gap is historic in nature, there are other areas of land which perform a similar function in separating development and maintain a more scattered feeling within the edges of Nenthead. The land is already influenced by development on three sides. The landscape in this area is large scale and it is not considered that the impact would be greater than local in this area, for what can be considered a simple infill site.

8.3.3 It is considered that the impact on the landscape would be significant in the immediate environment but that this is outweighed by the location within the village and the need for the Council to deliver housing.


Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

23

8.4.1 The comments of the neighbouring residents in relation to residential amenity form a sustained objection to the proposal. However, the proposed dwellings conform with the Council’s standards in relation to overlooking. A condition in relation to construction management can be added in order to minimise disruption through the construction process but it is inevitable that construction will bring a level of disruption.

8.4.2 The impact on residential amenity is minimal and is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Policy in this location.

8.5 Infrastructure

8.5.1 Comments have been made in relation to flooding. The land is within Flood Zone 1 and therefore the application is not required to be accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment. The proposal would deal with surface water via a soakaway and as such would not exacerbate the existing situation. Development should not seek to address issues which are existing but ensure that conditions are not worsened. It is considered that the application is acceptable in this regard.

8.5.2 Highways8.5.1 the County highway authority have been consulted in respect of this application and

confirm no objection to the proposal subject to a series of standard conditions which address objectors concerns in this area.


8.6.1 The application is not situated within or adjacent to an area of interest but nevertheless Natural England have raised concern over the adjacent area of the priority habitat. As a consequence the applicant provided a Phase 1 Habitat survey and scoping survey which confirmed that the site was located within semi-natural vegetation with low to moderate conservation interest and that the proposed works will not directly impact on the adjacent habitat of high importance and that no impact is considered. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required other than general silt management practices and pollution control measures, which would be provided.

8.7 Built Environment

8.7.1 The dwellings are staggered in their location on site which aids in the integration of the proposed dwellings into the landscape and reflects the unconventional and loose layout of surrounding built form with some dwellings adjacent to the road, others set back and other buildings angled to the road. If there is to be a weakness of the scheme, it is that the proposal involves 2 pairs of semi-detached properties of a similar design, which could be considered rather suburban in appearance. However, this weakness is softened by the staggered and stepped layout within a hillside location that is yet to be contained with landscaping and boundary wall in.The proposal constitutes a relatively modest infill development of a traditional vernacular design and is therefore seen to accord with Core Strategy Policy CS 18: Design of New Development.and the respective policies of the AONB partnership.

8.8 Affordable housing8.8.1 The amended advice in the recent Planning Practice Guidance which has been

endorsed by Eden Council confirms that smaller developments outside the urban district of Penrith i.e. in the ‘designated rural area’ of between 1 to 5 dwellings does not require any financial contribution or affordable dwellings to be provided as part of the

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

24

proposal. The amended proposal for 4 market led dwellings within a local service Centre within the rural area therefore accords with this advice.


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.





10.3 Environment




10.5 Children


10.6 Human Rights


11. Conclusion11.1 It is considered that the proposal constitutes an acceptable infill development of an

appropriate and modest form and design, within the settlement of Nenthead, in accordance with Core Strategy policies capital CS2: Locational Strategy CS16: Principles for the natural environment, CS17: Principles for the built (historic)

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

25

environment and CS18: Design of new development. This modest development of 4 dwelling houses does not require a financial contribution or the provision of an affordable dwelling in respect of affordable housing and assists in providing much-needed housing within Eden District at a time when it fails to demonstrate a five-year land supply.




Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

26

Item 3


Planning Application No: 15/1168 Date Received: 22 December 2015

OS Grid Ref: 352318 530610 Expiry Date: 16 February 2016

Parish: Penrith Ward: Penrith East

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Erection of 5 No Two Bedroom Bungalows and 2 No Two Storey Terrace Houses

Location: Brent Road, Penrith

Applicant: Eden Housing Association

Agent: Mr Matthew Lawley of Day Cummins Ltd

Case Officer: Mr Daniel Addis

Reason for Referral: An Elected Member has requested that the application be heard by the Planning Committee.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

27

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that full 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.

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.

Approved Plans


i) As Proposed Site Plan 4026 04 H received 06 June 2016

ii) As Proposed House Types 4026 05 A received 06 June 2016



3. 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. 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. In the event of surface water draining to the surface water public sewer, the pass forward flow rate to the public surface water sewer must be restricted to max 5 l/s for any storm event.

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

4. Prior to the commencement of the development a management plan for the trees along the boundary of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include protection measures for the protection of relevant trees during the construction phase and the longer term management of the retained trees. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason: To protect the trees and to promote the active management of the adjoining tees to the benefit of the amenity of the area and the occupants of the proposed houses.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

28


5. Prior to the construction of any of the dwellings hereby approved details of proposed crossings of the highway verge and/or footway shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and maintained as such.

Reason: To ensure a suitable standard of crossing for pedestrian safety.

6. Prior to the construction of any of the houses hereby approved a detailed landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall include planting throughout the site and particularly between units two/three and six/seven. The agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any of the houses hereby approved. Any trees or other plants which die or are removed within the first five years following the implementation of the scheme shall be replaced during the next planting season.

Reason: To ensure that the scheme is landscaped in the interest of the visual character and appearance of the area and to protect the privacy between units two/three and six/seven which falls 3m short of the 21m separation distances as set out in the Housing SPD.

7. Prior to the construction of any of the houses hereby approved a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any of the houses hereby approved.

Reason: To protect the visual appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

Ongoing Conditions

8. No surface water will be allowed to discharge from the development site onto the public highway.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

9. No dwelling shall be occupied until a means of vehicular access has been constructed to serve it in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To secure a suitable standard of vehicular access in the interest of highway safety.


2.1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the erection of 5 No two bedroom bungalows and 2 No two storey houses. The two storey houses and one of the bungalows will form a terrace which addresses the public road to the south of the site with the remaining four detached bungalows located to the north (rear) of the site.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

29

2.1.2 The terrace of three dwellings which faces the street features a two storey element to the west which then drops down to single storey. The two storey element features a gable style roof projection and a shared overhanging porch. The single storey element features a projecting porch. Materials include tiled roofs, render walls and horizontal timber effect panelling to the first floor elevation, part of the gable and part of the porch.

2.1.3 The remaining four single storey units consist of two semi-detached properties which address the shared access road. As with the single storey element which addresses the public road the units are simply designed with projecting front porches and the same materials.

2.1.4 Vehicular access to the roadside houses will be taken directly from the public highway. These houses include parking for one car. Vehicular access to the rear properties will use the existing access onto the public road and then a shared access road. Each of these houses will include parking for one car.

2.1.5 The proposed housing whilst being considered as ‘open market housing’ in planning terms will be used as ‘affordable housing’ by Eden Housing Association.


2.2.1 The application site is appears as an underused area of land located in a predominately residential area of Penrith. When viewed from the public road to the south the site includes a roadside stretch of grass and an electricity sub-station, then a copse of predominately coniferous trees, then an area of garage/lock-ups after which the site rises up and away into a woodland.

2.2.2 The application proposes the removal of the small copse of trees by the roadside.2.2.3 There is an informal footpath which runs along the east of the site, along the access

road and then around the garages and then up and into the woodland. The application includes a footpath in the same location to formalise this informal path.


Consultee ResponseLocal Highway Authority No objection subject to conditions Lead Local Flood Authority No comments


Consultee ResponseTown Council No objection United Utilities No objection subject to condition Housing Development Officer Fully supports the application Tree Officer No response at time of report


Please Tick as AppropriateParish Object Support No Response No Objection

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

30

Council/MeetingPenrith Town Council

X


11 January 2016.

No of Neighbours Consulted 18 No of letters of supportNo of Representations Received No of neutral representations 1No of objection letters 1

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

Building foundations affecting nearby tree roots Shading of the proposed houses by adjacent trees The tree noise in windy weather would be very loud for residents The wood is subject to flooding from ‘Cold Springs’ Contrary to policy ENV4 The wood is an integral wildlife corridor from Carleton to Beacon Edge Overlooking of previously private areas Overshadowing of nearby properties Disturbance through noise and odour Overbearing - excessive scale which would have an oppressive impact The proposal is out of character with the area The development may affect road safety

5.3 In addition to the letters of objection summarised above a letter was received from Councillor Mike Eyles – the ward member for Penrith East in which the site is located.

5.3.1 Mr Eyles is concerned that the description of the application on the letter which notified interested parties of the amendment to the scheme referenced the original proposal i.e. for five houses rather than the amended proposal i.e. for 7 houses. A letter was subsequently issued apologising for this oversight.

5.3.2 Mr Eyles is also concerned that 21 days is an inadequate timeframe for people to comment on the amendments to the application however in response to this 21 days is the Council’s standard consultation period and has always been deemed suitable (both by the Council and the Government) for a consultation period.

5.3.3 Mr Eyles advises that he has received three phone calls in which the callers expressed dismay at the proposed 2 storey houses and the loss of the trees. Mr Eyles has also received five emails (which he enclosed) and 1 letter (also enclosed) – all in objection to the application. The concerns of the objectors are set out below:

Loss of trees Increased traffic Uncertainty about the footpath Lack of parking

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

31

Loss of garages/parking



Core Strategy DPD Policy:

CS1 - Sustainable Development Principles CS2 - Locational Strategy CS4 - Flood Risk CS5 - Transport and Accessibility CS6 - Developer Contributions CS7 - Principles for Housing CS8 - Making Efficient Use of Land CS10 - Affordable Housing CS16 - Principles for the Natural Environment CS17 - Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment CS18 - Design of New DevelopmentSupplementary Planning Documents:

Housing (2010)



Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Requiring good design Promoting healthy communities Conserving and enhancing the natural environmentNational Planning Practice Guidance



Principle Design Residential Amenity Infrastructure Natural Environment

8.2 Principle

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

32

8.2.1 This Council is unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) paragraph 49 “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites”. In light of this the development plan policies which relate to the supply of housing are considered out-of-date and they are therefore afforded less weight in the planning assessment. The NPPF requires in paragraph 14 that “where the development plan is out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless….the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF…..or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted”. It is considered that Penrith is a sustainable location for new housing which is supported by the NPPF.

8.2.2 The site is within the Key Service Centre of Penrith as defined within the adopted Core Strategy (CS) policy CS2. Development in the Key Service Centre of Penrith includes “sustained development appropriate to that of a large town” including the “provision of new housing”.

8.2.3 In accordance with the NPPF and the location strategy of the development plan, Penrith is considered to be a sustainable location for new housing (in principle).

8.3 Design

8.3.1 The application proposed a high quality design with a mixture of two and single storey elements. The layout respects the character of the area with an element of the proposal addressing the street to the south of the site and then with further housing wrapping round the site to the north. This respects the character of the area which already features a number of terraces and cul-de-sacs in this suburban part of Penrith. The proposed materials including render and tile roofs are in keeping with the area.

8.3.2 The proposal has taken into account the adjoining woodland to the north of the site and whilst there may be some shading from these trees however this would be relatively minor and restricted to the rear gardens. The houses are located to the south of the trees and therefore the natural path of the sun east to west would still allow exposure to the sun with minimal overshadowing. Concern has been raised about the noise of the adjoining trees however this would be for short periods only and unlikely to result in noise that would exceed safe levels or that could be considered a statutory nuisance.


8.4.1 The application is considered to be well laid out and this is particularly relevant when you consider the impact of the proposed units on adjoining properties. The two storey elements feature blank gable walls which prevents any overlooking to the private areas of adjoining properties to the west. There are a number of windows on the ground floor of the terrace however these will outlook onto the public road to the south or the properties private gardens to the rear. The single storey houses to the north have no gable windows with all windows looking south to the road or north to the garden and then woodland. It is considered that there is no issue of overlooking as a result of the proposal.

8.4.2 The gardens to the north of units four - seven range in depth from 5½m (unit seven) to 8½m (unit four). These gardens are acknowledged as not being particularly deep however there is no set policy on how far houses should be from boundaries. In this case it is considered that given the type of housing (2 bedroom bungalows) and the

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

33

backdrop of further woodland (rather than further housing) these shallow gardens are considered acceptable. There are examples near to the site where existing houses have similarly shallow gardens.

8.4.3 Units two/three and six/seven are 18m apart window to window. This separation distance is slightly short of the recommended Housing SPD separation distance of 21m for principle windows to windows in another property. It is considered in this instance given that units three, six and seven are single storey, there is parking and a road between the houses and with the benefit of additional planting (secured by condition) that this reduced separation distance is acceptable.

8.4.4 The majority of the housing is single storey with only one element (two dwellings) of two storey housing fronting the public road. The terrace style of these houses is in keeping with the adjoining semi-detached properties and the level of (acceptable) overshadowing, if any, would be the same. The proposal would not lead to any overshadowing/overbearing to adjoining properties which would be to an unacceptable degree.

8.4.5 There would be localised disruption during the construction phase of the development in terms of noise however this would be over a short duration and it is not considered necessary to restrict the hours of operation. Odour will not be an issue at any stage of the proposal.

8.5 Infrastructure

8.5.1 Cumbria County Council has been commented on the application from a highway safety perspective and is happy subject to conditions that the application is acceptable.

8.5.2 United Utilities has commented on the application from a drainage perspective and it is happy that the proposal can connect to the public drainage network.


8.6.1 The most significant environmental impact of the proposal will be the removal of the small copse of trees between the public road and the garages. Originally this was proposed to be retained and the housing set behind it however this raised issues with the design including overshadowing, security, and impact on street scene. On balance it has been held that the harm caused by the removal of the trees would be offset by the benefits of having 7 new houses (affordable) in the District. It has also been agreed that significant replanting at the north of the adjoining woodland will be undertaken as a public gain. This is to be secured through the sale of the land (the Council being the landowner) rather than through the planning process. There would remain a significant level of woodland to the north of the site which would continue to act as a wildlife corridor as highlighted by an objector to the scheme.

8.6.2 An objector has highlighted that the removal of the trees will be contrary to Proposed Local Plan policy EN4: ‘Green Infrastructure Networks’. This is an emerging policy which officers are attaching little weight to at this time given the early stages of examination. However, the policy does include a ‘public benefit’ balancing act which allows the loss of green infrastructure if it is off-set by the benefits of the scheme. This would be the case for this application as set out above. Additional planting elsewhere is also proposed.

8.6.3 Concern has been raised that the site is at risk of flooding. In response to this the site is not within a flood risk zone and the Council has not been presented with any

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

34

evidence of historical flooding at the site. Cumbria County Council as Lead Local Flooding Authority has raised no objection to the proposal.







10.3 Environment




10.5 Children


10.6 Human Rights


11. Conclusion11.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following

reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations:

The application proposes seven new dwellings in the Key Service Centre of Penrith which is a sustainable location for new housing.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

35

The design of the housing is high quality and respects the character of the area.

The proposal does not have any impact on residential amenity currently enjoyed by nearby dwellings.




Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

36

Item 4


Planning Application No: 16/0119 Date Received: 4 February 2016

OS Grid Ref: 348587 527792 Expiry Date: 30 April 2016

Parish: Dacre Ward: Dacre


Proposal: Proposed agricultural field access

Location: Land off Snuff Mill Lane, Stainton

Applicant: Atric Ltd

Agent: Bruce Armstrong Payne Planning

Case Officer: Karen Thompson

Reason for Referral: The Officer recommendation to approve the application is contrary to the view of the Parish Council.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

37

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.

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.

Approved Plans


i) Site plan received 4 February 2016

ii) Location plan received 4 February 2016

iii) Access details, drawing No VA/3 received 4 February 2016

iv) Visibility Splay, drawing No 14/033/12 received 17 May 2016



3. The development shall not commence until visibility splays providing clear visibility of 90 metres measured 2.4 metres down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the major road have been provided at the junction of the access road with the county highway. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (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.Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure that construction traffic is safeguarded.


4. The access drive shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or otherwise bound and shall be constructed and completed before the development is occupied/brought into use.Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

38

5. Access gates, if provided, shall be hung to open inwards only away from the highway, be recessed no less than 4.5m as measured from the carriageway edge of the adjacent highway and shall incorporate 45 degree splays to each side.Reason: In the interests of highway safety.


2.1.1 This application is for a new agricultural field access. The area between the highway and the access would have a hard-core surface and new gates would be installed on the boundary to the field.

2.1.2 The applicant has advised that ‘the field in question currently has two accesses, one at either end. The access nearest the village which is where the water supply is located is being lost because of a new development that has been approved and will shortly be implemented. This application is to replace that access with a new one, close to the village and the water supply in a better and safer position than either of the original two accesses. Clearly my clients would not be pursuing this course of action unless the new access was needed for the efficient agricultural operation of this section of land’.


2.2.1 The new access is proposed some 80 metres south of the nearest property Walnut House, on the edge of the village of Stainton on the C3019. The new access would be reached across a wide highway verge, measuring approximately 6 metres. The existing boundary treatment to the field is a post and rail fence.


Consultee ResponseHighway Authority No objection subject to safeguarding conditions.

3.1.1 Parish Council/Meeting Response


ExpressedDacre Parish Council

3.1.2 Dacre Parish Council object to this development, as there is at least one existing access route to this land sited on a better location on this road in terms of visibility.Concern is being raised by Dacre Parish Council with relevant bodies regarding the damage and destruction already been caused to the grass verges on this narrow lane (some of which appears to be being caused by developers already developing on this lane in contravention of planning conditions). The Parish Council are unable to support a further application, which for large agricultural vehicles to use the proposed new access is likely to result in further damage and destruction to the grass verge.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

39


11 February 2016.





NE1 Development in the CountrysideCore Strategy DPD Policy:

CS18 - Design of New Development


Requiring good designNational Planning Practice Guidance



7.1.1 Highway issues

7.2 Principle

7.2.1 Policy NE1 Development in the Countryside (Eden Local Plan 1996) states that ‘The countryside of the District is valued for its undeveloped character. To protect its character, new development in the undeveloped countryside outside settlements and groups of dwellings will only be permitted to meet local infrastructure need or if a need is established for the development in a specific location which is sufficient to outweigh environmental cost…’. This Policy indicates that exceptions may be made to this general policy if it can be demonstrated that there is a substantial need for the development to be sited in a specific location outside of any established urban area or settlement. Such need may stem from the necessity to be located close to an established rural activity or source of materials, or for a particular type, size or character of site which is not available in or adjacent to existing development.

7.2.2 The proposal is for a new agricultural field access off the C3019 which extends between the Ullswater/Dalmain road to the village centre. There are no objections in

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

40

principle to such development providing that there are no highway impacts and no adverse impacts on the visual amenity of the area.


7.3.1 The Parish Council has raised concerns for an additional access on the basis that the field is serviced by two existing accesses. However, the applicant has advised that on the basis of a recent planning consent for a new dwelling house, one of the accesses would not be easily accessed. The new access would be off the C3019 which allows for adequate highway visibility and is close to water supply. It is considered that the proposed access to the field would not have an adverse impact on the character or appearance of the immediate or surrounding area.


7.4.1 The nearest residential properties are Walnut House and Inglenook. It is considered that there would be no adverse impact on the amenity or privacy of nearby residential occupiers.

7.5 Highways

7.5.1 As requested by the Highway Authority, a speed survey and details of the visibility splay was submitted. The Highway Authority has no objection to the proposed development but recommends conditions.





8.3 Environment




8.5 Children


8.6 Human Rights


Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

41

9. Conclusion9.1 It is considered that the proposal accords with the Development Plan for the following

reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations:The proposed development, subject to conditions, is considered acceptable from a highway authority view point and would not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.




Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

42

Item 5


Planning Application No: 16/0218 Date Received: 15 February 2016

OS Grid Ref: 345013, 529776 Expiry Date: 15 April 2016

Parish: Dacre Ward: Dacre


Proposal: Reinstatement of Mayflower and Ghyll Cottages into two Dwellings (retrospective)

Location: Mayflower Cottage, Greystoke Gill, Greystoke

Applicant: Mrs & Miss Graham

Agent: PF&K Planning

Case Officer: Nick Atkinson

Reason for Referral: Request by Councillor for application to be heard at Committee and also recommendation is contrary to the view of the Parish Council.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

43

Wider Location Plan

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

44

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:1) The application proposes the creation of a new unrestricted market-led dwelling

located in an unsustainable location, outside of a Key or Local Service Centre with no overriding essential need or special circumstance being demonstrated sufficient as to allow an unrestricted dwelling in such a location. As such the proposal is contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS1, CS2, CS3, CS7, CS9, and CS10, and the provisions of the NPPF.


2.1.1 The proposed development seeks retrospective planning permission for the subdivision of a dwelling to form two separate dwellings. The building currently comprises two dwellings - Ghyll Cottage and Mayflower Cottage. The recently created second dwelling (Mayflower Cottage) is currently occupied by one of the applicants.


2.2.1 The application site is located within a rural area. The property is located immediately adjacent to a public highway, approximately 350 metres outside of the hamlet of Greystoke Gill and approximately 1.5 kilometres south east of the village of Greystoke.

2.2.2 The dwelling is surrounded in all directions by agricultural land. The nearest residential properties to the application site are ‘Stone Crest’ approximately 80 metres to the east, and ‘Millrigg Farm’ approximately 180 metres to the north.

2.2.3 Due to the subdivision of the building having already taken place, the building currently comprises two separate cottages, Ghyll Cottage and Mayflower Cottage, both of which are serviced by separate electricity and water supplies. The properties were purchased by the current applicant in 1982 under the same Land Registry title. Internal works were subsequently undertaken to turn the building into one single dwellinghouse, with Mayflower Cottage creating additional living accommodation to Ghyll Cottage.

2.2.4 In 2014, the applicants undertook further internal works to subdivide the building into two separate dwellings. Following the completion of these works, Mayflower Cottage was brought onto the Council Tax list in May 2015. In addition, an application was made to and approved by the Land Registry in May 2015 for street naming and numbering relating to Mayflower Cottage.

2.2.5 Under Section 55 (3) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the subdivision of a single building as two or more separate dwellinghouses involves a material change of use of the building which requires planning permission. There is no similar provision for the change of two residential dwellings into a single dwellinghouse under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and as such planning permission was not required for the previous change.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

45


Consultee ResponseHighway Authority Responded on 29 March 2016 confirming that there

are no objections to the principal of the proposed development. It was recommended that each property is allocated parking provision in line with the recommendations included within the Parking Guidelines in Cumbria document.


Consultee ResponseHousing Development Officer Responded on 26 February 2016 confirming that the

proposed development location would be classed as a rural exception site where the Council’s requirement is for 100% affordable housing to meet an identified housing need. As such, the development would need to be affordable to comply with the Core Strategy.



ExpressedDacre Parish Council

X

4.1 Responded on 10 March 2016 confirm their full support for the proposal. The Parish Council are of the opinion that the development will not visually alter the buildings currently in situ and will provide provision of two smaller housing units. The development would enable a young couple to remain in the parish and enable successor generations to reside in the area.

5. Representations5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to nearby neighbours.


5.2 One letter of support was received from Councillor Judith Derbyshire who provided the following comments:- The proposal would provide suitable accommodation to keep a young couple in

the area and give support to an older resident who wants to stay in her home in old age;

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

46

- The development would result in a community gain and would fit Eden District Council’s priorities for retaining young people in the district and providing support for our aging population;

- A Local Occupancy Clause would ensure the development is a community gain.5.3 No letters of objection were received.


Application No Description Outcome89/1217 Extension to Ghyll Cottage Granted 09 January

1990.6.1.1 In 2015, the applicant was notified by the Council, that the subdivision of the building to

form two separate residential properties represented a breach of planning control. On 27 October 2015, the applicant was advised that any future planning application for the subdivision was unlikely to be supported as ‘the creation of a new independent dwelling in this location is not considered to accord with current planning policies’. Following receipt of this information, the applicant submitted the current planning application.



Policy NE1 - Development in the CountrysideCore Strategy DPD Policy:

CS1 - Sustainable Development Principles CS2 - Locational Strategy CS3 - Rural Settlements and the Rural Areas CS7 - Principles for Housing CS9 – Housing on Rural Exception Sites CS10 – Affordable Housing CS16 - Principles for the Natural EnvironmentSupplementary Planning Documents:

Housing (2010)Emerging Eden Local Plan

The applicant has made reference to the Eden District Council Emerging Local Plan, noting that support for the development exists within the draft policies. Whilst weight may be given to policies contained within an emerging local plan, this is only done so in accordance with their stage of preparation. Due to the stage of plan preparation in Eden, limited weight can presently be afforded to the draft policies contained within the Emerging Local Plan.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

47



Core Planning Principles Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Requiring good designNational Planning Practice Guidance



8.1.1 Whether the principle of the development is acceptable and accords with the Development Plan.

8.2 Principle

8.2.1 It is noted that Eden District Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply. Therefore, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Paragraph 49 notes that “Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.” Furthermore, Paragraph 49 confirms that “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.” In light of this, policies within the Development relating to the supply of housing are considered to be out-of-date and should be afforded less weight in the determination of planning applications.

8.2.2 However, Planning Inspectors have concluded elsewhere that the failure to provide a five year supply does not inevitably mean that permission will be granted. It is for the decision maker to assess whether the benefits of the scheme outweigh any adverse impact the scheme may cause. An appeal decision at Newton Reigny (ref: APP/H0928/A/13/2207181), which is located approximately 3km to the North East of the current application site, concluded that the benefits of subdividing an existing dwelling to create an additional market dwelling in a settlement which is not a Local Service Centre did not outweigh the harm.

8.2.3 The application site is located within the open-countryside and outside of the Council’s identified Key and Local Service Centres within which the Council seeks to focus new development within the District. In compliance with the Development Plan, planning permission for housing within rural locations should only be granted for affordable housing where there is an existing cluster of three dwellings, or for a rural workers dwelling where there is an essential need. It is considered that the current planning application does not fulfil either requirement and as such cannot be considered as a rural exception site. As such, there is no policy support with the Development Plan for the proposal. The proposal therefore conflicts with Core Strategy Policies CS1, CS2, CS3 and CS9.

8.2.4 The application site is considered to be located outside of the hamlet of Greystoke Gill in a remote and unsustainable location. The site is remote from local services and public transport links. As such, occupiers of the dwelling would have full reliance upon

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

48

use of a private car to access services and facilities. Therefore, the application site is considered to be unsustainable and, therefore, is contrary to the principle of achieving sustainable development as outlined within both National Planning Policy and the Development Plan.

8.2.5 In relation to achieving sustainable development in rural areas, Paragraph 55 of the NPPF advises that “housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.” Furthermore, Paragraph 55 notes that “Local Planning Authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as: the essential need for a worker to live permanently at or near their place of work or

in the countryside; or where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage

asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or

where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or

the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling.”8.2.6 It is considered that the proposed development fails to meet any of the above

mentioned criteria.8.2.7 If planning permission were granted for the proposed development contrary to policy,

without good reasoning, this may leave the authority vulnerable to future applications made within the District. This is due to the precedent that could be set of approving the creation of new houses in the District on sites which poorly relate to services and are therefore unsustainable development in the open-countryside. Establishing a precedent would mean that future refusals by the Council would be difficult to defend.

8.3 Local Need

8.3.1 The applicant has put forward the case that the application should be approved as there is a need for an affordable dwelling as the current residents of Mayflower Cottage would otherwise be unable to reside in the local area. In addition, the applicant considers that the development would increase the availability and affordability of housing in the area.

8.3.2 Whilst the personal circumstances of the applicant are noted, this is not considered to be a material consideration in the determination of this application. As the location of the development site is not considered to be a rural exception site, there is no support within the Development Plan for unrestricted housing in this rural location.

8.4 Previous Use

8.4.1 It is noted that the applicant has confirmed that the building was previously used as two separate dwellings prior to being purchased in 1982. Although this is accepted, it is noted that limited details of the previous use of this property have been provided with the application. Whilst the previous use of the property and the existing layout and utilities arrangements of the two cottages are noted, this is considered to be insufficient justification for a departure from the Development Plan.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

49


8.5.1 As the proposed development does not involve any alterations to the external appearance of the building or any extensions, the application would have no impact upon the character of the local area or upon visual amenity.


8.6.1 The application does not give rise to any adverse impacts upon neighbouring residential amenity and as such this aspect of the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

8.7 Infrastructure

8.7.1 Due to the rural nature of the application site, as previously noted the site is remote from public transport links. As such, occupiers of the dwelling would have a full reliance upon the use of a private car. Due to the distance that exists from the application site to the nearest shop and school (approximately 2km to the village of Greystoke), it is unlikely that cycling or walking would be an appropriate alternative to use of the private car. As such, although the development is unlikely to generate any significant additional traffic movements, the location of the application site is unlikely to minimise the need for travel and unlikely to utilise sustainable transport modes, contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS1.


8.8.1 The application site relates to an existing residential dwelling located within the open countryside. There are no proposed alterations or extensions to the existing building. As such, it is considered that the proposed development would have no impact upon the natural environment.

8.9 Built Environment

8.9.1 The subdivision of an existing building into two separate dwellinghouses with no external alterations or extension is considered unlikely to have any impact upon the local built environment.

8.10 Other Considerations

8.10.1 The subdivision of the building has already taken place without the prior grant of planning permission. As such, this retrospective application seeks to regularise an existing breach of planning control. Although not a material planning consideration in the determination of the application, if members are minded to refuse the application, then the applicant would need to ensure that the building is reverted back to one residential dwelling. Failure on the behalf of the applicant to undertake such works would mean that the council would need to consider the expediency of pursuing formal enforcement action.


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,

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

50

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.





10.3 Environment




10.5 Children


10.6 Human Rights


11. Conclusion11.2 It is considered that the proposal does not accord with the Development Plan for the

following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations:The application proposes the creation of a new unrestricted market-led dwelling located in an unsustainable location, outside of a Key or Local Service Centre with no overriding essential need or special circumstance being demonstrated sufficient as to allow an unrestricted dwelling in such a location. As such the proposal is contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS1, CS2, CS3, CS7, CS9, and CS10, and the provisions of the NPPF.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

51




Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

52

Item 6


Planning Application No: 16/0479 Date Received: 31 May 2016

OS Grid Ref: 356603536095

Expiry Date: 26 July 2016

Parish: Hunsonby Ward: Langwathby


Proposal: Erection of detached dwelling

Location: Land at Orchard Cottage, Little Salkeld, Penrith

Applicant: Mr and Mrs D Addis

Agent:

Case Officer: Kevin Hutchinson

Reason for Referral: The Applicant is an employee of Development Management

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

53

1. Recommendation

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

1. The development permitted shall be begun either 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.

2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details and plans hereby approved (drawing no 1415/101, 1505/103/A, 1505/110 E, 1505/112 C, 1505/113/B and 1505/114 received 3 June 2016) and shall not be varied other than by prior agreement in writing by the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission.

3. Prior to the carrying out of any demolition works in respect of the former cart shed, the existing building affected by the proposed development shall be recorded in accordance with a Level 1 Survey as described by English Heritage’s document Understanding Historic Buildings A Guide to Good Recording Practice, 2006. Within 2 months of the commencement of construction works 3 copies of the resultant Level 1 Survey report shall be furnished to the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To ensure that a permanent record is made of the heritage asset of architectural and historic interest prior to its demolition as part of the proposed development.

4. Samples of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any of those respective elements are commenced, and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in this application. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings.

5. The dwelling herby approved shall not be occupied until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, height, materials and type of all boundary treatments to be erected. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the dwelling house.Reason: To protect the visual appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

6. That prior to the commencement of excavation works on site, the existing boundary wall between the new vehicular access and the existing pedestrian gate to the East shall be reduced to a height not exceeding 1.0m above the carriageway level of the adjacent highway in accordance with details submitted to the Local Planning Authority and which have subsequently been approved (before

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

54

development commences) and shall not be raised to a height exceeding 1.0m thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD7, LD8

2. Background2.1 Planning permission was granted for essentially the same development as currently

proposed under application number 15/0486 and this was the subject of a unilateral planning obligation requiring the applicant to provide a 3% financial contribution, relating to the value of the property, towards affordable housing provided by the council. Following revised Planning Practice Guidance being issued by the Government in May of this year, there is now no longer a requirement for a financial contribution for smaller schemes of between 1 and 5 dwellings in the rural area.

2.2 The current proposal therefore seeks a duplicate permission, but without the requirement for Unilateral Planning Obligation to provide a financial contribution towards affordable housing. This is one of several applications recently submitted to the Department seeking to avoid the requirement to pay a financial contribution towards affordable housing in the light of the revised government guidance.


3.1.1 The proposal relates to part of an extensive garden/orchard area to the front of Orchard Cottage within the village of Little Salkeld. A rectangular front garden to Orchard Cottage is maintained as its front and only garden area, with a portion of the remaining orchard subdivided to provide for the application site (760 sqm) and the remaining area of Orchard (3015 sqm). The full planning application is supported by a supporting statement, a Tree Report and a bat survey.

3.1.2 The proposal shows a spacious single, two storey dwelling, 14m wide by 7.7m deep with an eaves height of 4.9m and a ridge height of 7.8m. The design follows a formal and traditional approach with the front elevation in four bays around a central front door, with chimneys to the roof. The front and rear elevations are to be in stone, with smooth ‘off white’ render to either gable, articulated with quoin stone detailing to the corners and stone window and door surrounds. The roof is in slate with an exposed eaves detail and a skew stone and corbel detail to the verge, with the chimney material unspecified. The fenestration detailing is to be timber, of a sliding sash type appearance.

3.1.3 The dwelling house is orientated north south on the plot, with the front and north elevation set back some 8m from the road edge. Vehicular access is taken from the existing orchard access position. The access position has been amended and the front wall lowered to improved visibility onto the narrow village road, taking access to a parking and turning area to the front and side of the house. Boundary walls and general ground finishes are unspecified.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

55

3.1.4 The layout has been amended to include details of the foul and surface water drainage system, with foul water to the public mains and surface water going to a soakaway within the rear garden area.

3.1.5 The only change to the original proposal is the erection of a detached oak framed garage, carport and lean to log store under a natural slate roof. The side walls to the garage is timber boarding fixed to oak frame. The detached building a single story under a pitched roof measuring 7m wide and 5m deep and is located in the step to the western boundary to the south of the retained garden to Orchard Cottage.


3.2.1 Orchard Cottage forms an end of terrace building on a row of farm buildings. The farm buildings face west into the farm yard, with Orchard Cottage conversely facing east into the orchard area to the rear of the farm yard. Orchard Cottage is retaining the immediate rectangular front garden area for its own domestic use. The application site extends into the adjoining orchard and includes a former cart shed abutting the northern boundary wall which is to be demolished.

3.2.2 The application site is on relatively level ground, rising to the southern and eastern boundaries, extending to the north western corner of the adjoining orchard. The orchard overall is on slightly undulating ground rising generally to the north east, located between a single track road to the north and is set within its junction to the village road from Langwathby, which runs north-south along the eastern boundary. The orchard boundary to the north and east is formed by a substantial boundary wall between 1.5m and 2m in height. The village road to the east is at its highest point at the junction with the single track road, dropping towards Orchard Cottage to the west, and also dropping southwards towards the southern entrance to the village at the crossing point of a small river some 90m to the south.

3.2.3 The consequence of the respective change in levels over the orchard is that the southern part of the overall garden is located well above the village road level with the boundary wall forming a retaining structure in its south eastern portion. The change in level within the overall orchard also has the consequence in that the neighbouring dwelling ‘Orchard Bungalow’ to the south is set in a correspondingly low cut terrace, some 3m below. The currently proposed dwelling is located some 45 metres from ‘Orchard Bungalow’.

3.2.4 Within the remaining southern and eastern part of the orchard outline planning permission was granted for the erection of 2 dwellings under 14/0765. The subsequent application for reserved matters was deferred at the planning committee of 16 June 2016 for a committee site visit and this was undertaken on 30 June 2016.

3.2.5 The application site is located within the established limits of Little Salkeld, which is identified as a Local Service Centre within the Eden Core Strategy which identifies such settlements as capable of accommodating ‘small scale development to sustain local services, support rural business and meet local needs, including housing , provision of employment and improvements to accessibility’.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

56

4. Statutory Consultees

Consultee ResponseCCC Highways No objection subject to a condition requiring the

lowering of boundary wall and for it to be retained at its lowered height, to provide for the necessary visibility at the access position.

CCC Historic Environment Officer

No objection subject to condition requiring the recording of the former cart shed located within the site and requiring demolition.

United Utilities No objection subject to conditions.


Please Tick as AppropriateParish Council/Meeting

Object Support No Response No Objections

Hunsonby5.1 The response of Hunsonby Parish Council is still awaited and will be reported verbally

to the planning committee.

6. Representations6 .1 Letters of consultation were sent to near neighbours and a site notice was posted on

13 June 2016.

No of Neighbours Consulted 6 No of letters of support 0

No of Representations Received 0 No of neutral representations 0

No of objection letters 0


Application No Description Outcome91/0597 Residential Development (Outline)

1. The development of the site would result in a significant intrusion into the visually important area of open space in the centre of Little Salkeld resulting in a serious detriment into the visual amenity of the area and the character of the village.

2. The development of the site could lead to subsequent pressure to develop the remainder of the field

Refused17 October 1991

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

57

Application No Description Outcomewhich would result in a further erosion of the character of the settlement.

3. The proposed development would have an adverse effect upon the amenity and occupation of nearby dwellings.

14/0765 Outline planning application for the erection of two houses with approval sought for access

Approved subject to conditions16 February 2015

15/0486 Full planning permission for the erection of a single dwelling (including a unilateral planning obligation for a financial contribution).

Approved23 October 2015

16/0214 Reserved matters application for the erection of 2 dwellings, including approval for appearance landscaping layout and scale in respect of 14/0765

Application determined following committee site visit on 30 June 2016


CS1 Sustainable Development Principles

CS2 Locational Strategy

CS6 Developer Contributions

CS7 Principles for Housing

CS10 Affordable Housing

CS16 Principles for the Natural Environment

CS18 Design of New Development

Housing SPD: Residential Development Guidelines

Other Material ConsiderationsNational Planning Policy Framework - Introduction: Achieving Sustainable Development7: Requiring Good DesignThe policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

58


Principle

Landscape and visual impact

Infrastructure

Residential amenity

Form and design

Impact on natural Environment

Affordable Housing Contribution

9.2 Principle

9.2.1 The site history is a material consideration, however since the refusal of outline planning permission 91/0597 in October 1991 there has been a material change in circumstances in the adoption of the Eden Core Strategy in 2010 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March 2012.

9.2.2 In addition the principle of a residential development within the bulk of the orchard area adjoining Orchard Cottage was confirmed by the approval of the outline planning permission for two dwellings (including access) granted under 14/0765 on 16 February 2015.

9.2.3 In addition, full planning permission was granted for the erection of a dwelling house on this site under 15/0486 on 23 October 2015. The application was in accordance with policy and the subject of a Unilateral Planning Obligation for a financial contribution to affordable housing. The current proposal seeks to repeat this application but without the need for the affordable housing contribution through the Unilateral Planning Obligation. The requirement for a Unilateral Planning Obligation was removed following the Government’s revised guidance in the Planning Practice Guidance

9.2.4 The NPPF published in March 2012 states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development with relevant policies for the supply of housing not considered up-to-date if the LPA cannot demonstrate a five year land supply. The Council cannot currently demonstrate to 5 year housing land supply and therefore in terms of decision-making, the NPPF states in paragraph 14 that:

‘For decision-taking this means:

Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and

Where the development plan is absent, silent or relative policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

59

Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.’

9.2.5 Eden Core Strategy CS2: Locational Strategy identifies Little Salkeld as a Local Service Centre, where development would be limited to “small scale development to sustain local services, support rural businesses and meet local needs including housing, provision of employment, improvements to accessibility”. The principle of the proposal is considered to accord with this policy.

9.2.6 The current site marginally overlaps onto the previously approved site 14/0765 and extends over onto its boundary by some 2.25m. However, the current site has a road frontage of some 22.6m, which extends further westwards up to within 9m of the frontage of Orchard Cottage. This effectively extends the previously approved western site boundary by 18m further westwards towards Orchard Cottage. The overall impact would be to reduce the retained garden of Orchard Cottage from some 672sqm to 136sqm. This does not impact on the principle of development but is a matter for detailed consideration in respect of the inter-relationship of the two dwellings.


9.3.1 The orchard site remains well related to the central part of the village and is similar in many respects to many other infill development sites coming forward throughout the District. The development of the north western corner of the orchard, extending further towards Orchard Cottage sees the new site contained within the large orchard area, with a limited visual or landscape impact for the village, with only localised impact, viewed primarily along a short length of the single track village road.

9.3.2 In reviewing this issue, the site is within a semi mature orchard area to the front of Orchard Cottage, containing a wide variety of semi mature fruit and other trees. The trees are not the subject of a TPO and the site is not within a protected landscape designation, or within the grounds of a Listed Building or within a Conservation Area. Although like the previous proposal, the current site would involve the clearing of a number of further trees within the orchard to enable the erection of a dwelling, the Council Tree Officer confirms that they are localised and limited amenity value in the area and has no objection to specified removal. Otherwise the site is well contained in a corner of the orchard and is centrally located within the village, which in turn is set within an undulating landscape which contains view to a very localised impact.

9.3.3 The NPPF is very clear in advising approval ‘Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.’ In this instance it is considered that the loss of more of the garden/orchard area to enable this development does not ‘significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,’ such as to warrant a recommendation of refusal on this ground.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

60

9.4 Infrastructure

9.4.1 There are no objections in respect of the site access, and the proposed foul and surface water drainage arrangement. Orchard Cottage takes advantage of on street parking, which is unaffected by the current proposal.


9.5.1 The main change to the earlier outline approval is the extension of the residential development up to within 9m of the frontage of Orchard Cottage and sees the front and only garden to Orchard Cottage reduced from some 672sqm to 136sqm. This reduction of the front and only garden of Orchard Cottage is not considered unacceptable and can be seen as commensurate with the size of the cottage and is similar to many other small cottages layouts in villages elsewhere in the district. The situation is further assisted by the respective orientation between Orchard Cottage and the proposal which is set well back some 8m from the edge of the public road and offset and to the side of the principle outlook from Orchard Cottage.

9.5.2 The two adjacent properties most affected by the earlier outline application 14/0765, Orchard bungalow to the south within a low terrace area and Croft House on the opposite side of the road junction to the north east of the site, will be unaffected by the current proposal. Overall, the proposal remains acceptable within this village location.

9.6 Form and Design

9.6.1 The proposal follows a formal and traditional approach, faced in sandstone to the front and rear elevations under a slated roof, with detailing to reflect much of the form and character of other older and larger buildings within the village. The detailing of the door and window openings together with the articulation of the roof further reflect a traditional vernacular approach, all of which is appropriate to this central location in Little Salkeld. The additional oak framed and slate roofed garage carport and store this set well into the body of the site and is otherwise acceptable.

9.6.2 The site layout is simply formed to the rear of the retained and lowered front wall with the benefit of external parking only. The only concern revolves around the final form and appearance of the proposed external materials, but this can be adequately addressed by the use of an appropriate condition.

9.7 Impact on the Natural Environment

9.7.1 The orchard garden provides an attractive private garden area within the village, but is not the subject of any specific protective designation or TPO, which was a central feature in the consideration of the previous outline planning applications 14/0765 and 15/0486. The potential for the loss of some of the trees to enable the development was not considered unacceptable in respect of the adjoining application (14/0765) within this village location, as some of the existing trees on site can be retained to form the basis of a landscaping scheme which would be considered within any subsequent Reserved Matters application. However, the use of a condition preventing felling does not protect trees in the period running up to the implementation of the proposal. If the trees are of sufficient concern then the only mechanism to ensure the protection is by their use of a TPO. The tree officer confirms that they are not of sufficient importance to warrant protection of a TPO.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

61

9.7.2 In respect of the current proposal it is noted in the observations from the Tree Officer, that he has no objection, observing again that the retention value of the trees do not warrant a TPO. Further he was of the view that as site is tucked away in a corner of the larger orchard site, it has less public viewing and a landscaping condition is not required.

9.8 Affordable Housing Contribution

9.8.1 In respect of the adjoining outline application for two dwellings (14/0765) no financial contribution was required, due to DCLG advice within Planning Policy Guidance issued on 28 November 2015. This confirmed that there is no affordable housing contribution requirement in respect of small development schemes between one and five houses in the rural area and planning permission was accordingly granted on 16 February 2015.

9.8.2 However, following a significant outcome of the case West Berkshire District Council Reading Borough Council v Department for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 2222 (Admin) (31 July 2015); the Secretary of State amended the guidance within paragraphs 012-023 of the NPPG relating to planning obligations on3 August 2015. Eden District Council previously considered the legal implications of this judgement and has decided that they would revert back to the pre-November 2014 position by applying development plan policy which seeks contributions or affordable housing provision on all new applications, and that this includes those current and yet to be determined.

9.8.3 However, following a successful legal challenge by the government this situation has been reversed and the original Planning Policy Guidance has been reinstated. The consequence of this is that within the rural area for sites of between 1 and 5 dwellings no financial contribution will be required. The Housing Services Manager therefore confirms no objection to the proposal.





Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

62



11.3 Environment




11.5 Children


11.6 Human Rights


12. Conclusion12.1 It is considered that the proposal accords to the Development Plan for the following

reasons:

The proposal provides for a single residential development, within a designated Local Service Centre without any significant or demonstrable, material adverse impact on the character or amenity of the area and is therefore considered to accord with policies CS1, CS2, CS6, CS10 and CS18 of the Eden Core Strategy.


