DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE 31 August 2011

A Report by the Assistant Director Planning and Sustainability ________________________________________________________________ District Allerdale Borough Council Application No 02/2011/0382 Applicant Story Homes ________________________________________________________________ Proposal: Development of 152 residential units with associated

infrastructure (including shared link to proposed Roman Maryport Museum facility)

Location: Land off Netherhall Road, Maryport ________________________________________________________________

1.0 RECOMMENDATION 1.1 No objection is raised to the principle of the development, provided that

the Local Planning Authority:

i. secures the information outlined in Annex 2 in relation to Highways and Transport (including the provision of a full Travel Plan and detailed drainage explanations). The information should be submitted to and subsequently approved by a County Council Highways Engineer;

ii. is satisfied that there are no brownfield sites in Maryport that could be used as an alternative development site; and

iii. is satisfied that the development reflects and protects the character of the site and its surroundings and that the density and siting of any houses is deemed appropriate.

1.2 Should the Local Planning Authority be minded to grant planning

permission it is recommended that:

i. a developer contribution is secured to provide waiting restrictions on the A596 (see paragraphs 3.36-3.42 and Annex 2);

ii. a developer contribution is secured via a Section 106 Agreement to upgrade junction signals and provide enhanced safety measures (see paragraphs 3.36-3.42 and Annex 2);

iii. a condition is attached to the permission requiring the developer to submit an Application in Principle (AIP) form for all structures supporting the highway which will also attract a commuted sum (see paragraphs 3.36-3.42 and Annex 2);

iv. a condition is attached to the permission requiring the developer to implement the habitat enhancements detailed in the Phase 1 Habitat Survey (see paragraphs 3.27-3.28);

v. two conditions are attached to the permission which require the developer to undertake an archaeological excavation of the archaeological remains on the site prior to the commencement of any development (see paragraphs 3.32-3.35 and Annex 1); and

vi. a condition is attached to the permission requiring the developer to provide an additional top dressing on the Pigeonwell Lonning Public Right of Way (see paragraph 3.43).

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Cumbria County Council has been consulted by Allerdale Borough Council on a planning application for a proposed residential development of 152 units which includes a shared link to the proposed Roman Maryport Museum facility on 7.6 hectares of land. The County Council has been consulted as the proposal is classified as a significant development proposal outside the defined development limit of Maryport.

2.2 The site is a greenfield site, which is an ancillary open space, currently used for the grazing of sheep. It is situated approximately 400 metres to the north-east of Maryport town centre, on the edge of the Key Service Centre boundary. It is bounded by the A596 to the east, Pigeonwell Lonning (a Public Right of Way) to the north, woodland to the west and allotments and St. Mary’s church to the south. There are a number of established terraced streets beyond the western woodland boundary. Within a ten minute walk of the site is Camp Road Primary School (to the north west of the site) and Netherhall Secondary School (opposite the site, across the A596).

2.3 The northern boundary of the site (the boundary adjacent to Camp Farm) and the majority of the frontage along the A596 will remain undeveloped, which equates to approximately 35% of the site area. This is in recognition of the present landscape character and prominence of the site as part of the northern gateway to Maryport.

2.4 The proposal is for a residential scheme comprising a mix of terraced, semi-detached and detached dwellings, with an average density of 23.4 dwellings per hectare (developed area only), and building heights of between one and three storeys.

2.5 The applicant proposes to create a main vehicular access from the A596. The application also includes proposals to create a direct footpath/cycleway to Christian Street with a proposed footpath being created in the south-eastern corner of the site to allow access to the town centre from within the development. There will also be a pedestrian link from within the development to Pigeonwell Lonning and Roman Maryport.

2.6 A number of supporting documents have been submitted with the application. These include: Bat Risk Assessment; Archaeological Evaluation; Design and Access Statement; Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey; Flood Risk Assessment; Framework Residential Travel Plan; Planning Statement; Transport Assessment; Statement of Community Involvement; and associate drawings.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 It is understood from Allerdale Borough Council’s planning history records that there have not been any previous similar planning applications submitted for this site.

4.0 PLANNING AND TRANSPORT ISSUES

4.1 The proposal has been assessed as to whether or not it would materially conflict with or prejudice the implementation of the Cumbria Strategic Partnership’s Sub Regional Spatial Strategy (SRSpS) 2008-2028 and those policies of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (JSP) which were extended but not replaced by the North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (September 2008). The North

West of England Regional Spatial Strategy is still currently in place and is a material planning consideration, although the Government have made clear their intentions to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies when the Localism Bill is enacted.

4.2 The application has also been assessed against the policies contained in

the Cumbria Local Transport Plan (LTP) 2006-2011. 4.3 It is considered that the main strategic policy aspects raised by the

application are:

i. to determine whether or not the scale, mix and type of development is appropriate to the location, and whether or not there is any significant adverse effect on sub-regional policies;

ii. to determine whether there are any implications for the local community infrastructure;

iii. to determine whether it is sustainable in terms of transport and accessibility; and

iv. to determine whether there are any significant adverse effects on landscape, the historic environment, employment and ecology.

4.4 The following policies are considered relevant to this proposal:

Development Strategy and Locational Issues JSP Policy ST5 New development and Key Service Centres

outside the Lake District National Park SRSpS Development Principles SRSpS The Spatial Strategy SRSpS Areas within Cumbria Housing Issues JSP Policy H19 Affordable Housing outside the Lake District

National Park SRSpS Development Principles SRSpS The Spatial Strategy SRSpS Areas within Cumbria Local Community Infrastructure Issues SRSpS Development Principles SRSpS West Cumbria Sub Area Ecological Issues JSP Policy E35 Areas and features of nature conservation

interests other than those of national and international consideration importance

SRSpS Development Principles

Landscape and Visual Impact Issues JSP Policy E37 Landscape Character SRSpS Development Principles Historic Environment Issues JSP Policy E38 Historic Environment SRSpS Development Principles Transport/Accessibility and Highways Issues

JSP Policy T30 Transport Assessments JSP Policy T31 Travel Plans SRSpS Development Principles SRSpS Areas within Cumbria

LTP Policy LD4 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans LTP Policy LD5 Access to new developments LTP Policy LD6 Developer contributions LTP Policy LD7 Design standards LTP Policy LD8 Safety and security LTP Policy WS1 Travel plans LTP Policy WS3 Travel plan monitoring

Economic Development/Regeneration Issues

JSP Policy EM16 Tourism SRSpS Development Principles Development Strategy and Locational Issues 4.5 The Cumbria Community Strategy 2008-2028 aims to create: safe, strong

and inclusive communities; health and well-being throughout life; a sustainable and prosperous economy; effective connections between people and places; and a world class environmental quality. The Community Strategy seeks to energise the county’s communities, health, economy, connections and environment over the next 10-20 years. It brings together aspirations and ambitions from a range of thematic and geographic strategies.

4.6 The Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy (SRSpS) sets out the spatial

framework. This enables actions that affect specific areas and locations to serve the delivery of the Community Strategy, and provide the sub-regional spatial framework for Local Development Frameworks in Cumbria. This enables them to align to the Community Strategy.

4.7 The Community Strategy and the SRSpS recognise that the challenge is

to secure a sustainable level and pattern of development that creates balanced communities and meets need – including the need for jobs. The SRSpS states that this will require private and public investment, in appropriate locations, to bring about transformational change to the Cumbrian economy. In the interests of sustainable development, housing is also necessary at a level to complement economic growth and ensure that local housing needs are met through the achievement of balanced housing markets.

4.8 The SRSpS Development Principles require most development to be

located in designated Key Service Centres and Local Service Centres to assist in reducing the need to travel, and to give, in the following order of priority, a preference for: a) the reuse of buildings worthy of protection; b) the reuse of previously-developed land; and only then c) the use of previously undeveloped land. It will be the exception for development to be located in the open countryside. Developers are required to seek sites that are or will be made accessible by public transport, walking and cycling. Development proposals are required to reduce the risk of flooding (on site and by applying a sequential approach to location), to protect and, where possible, enhance important or distinctive conservation features (including landscapes, buildings, archaeological sites, historic parks and gardens and visually important public and private open spaces), protect landscape quality, ensure high standards of design, and avoid reductions in air quality and the quality and quantity of ground and surface waters.

4.9 With regard to the preferential use of land, whilst the site is not currently

allocated and it falls into the lowest level category (criterion c) as it is a greenfield site, it is deemed to be a sustainable location in terms of its accessibility to the Key Service Centre. It is considered that the site can act as an urban extension to Maryport. However, Allerdale Borough Council must be satisfied that there are no sequentially preferable brownfield sites.

4.10 Joint Structure Plan Policy ST5 identifies Key Service Centres to be the

focus of new development; Maryport is identified as a Key Service Centre where sustained development should take place. Policy ST5 states that the scale of development should be appropriate to the size and role of each Key Service Centre, with Local Development Frameworks needing to identify the range and scale of development required to support the role of Key Service Centres, and to ensure that land is brought forward accordingly. In deciding the scale of development required, regard should be had to the capacity of existing services to accommodate development, critical thresholds for new service investment, the size, character and environmental capacity of the existing town and the need to secure regeneration or investor confidence.

4.11 Allerdale Borough Council is currently in the process of developing their Local Development Framework (LDF). It is expected that the first document of the LDF, the Core Strategy, will be adopted in 2012. All other documents that are produced as part of the LDF will be required to conform to the Core Strategy. The Allerdale Local Plan (adopted in November 1999) is the current Development Plan to which decisions are made at the district level.

4.12 The size and scale of the proposed development is considered

appropriate when compared to the surrounding residential areas. According to the Office of National Statistics, the wards of Maryport (Netherhall, Ellenborough and Ewanrigg) contain 4,795 dwellings (NB. this figure includes Great Broughton). If approved, the proposed development would represent an increase of about 3% on the current housing stock levels, a figure which represents a modest proportional increase.

4.13 The site is within walking and cycling distance to the town centre, with

Netherhall Road offering regular bus services, reducing the reliance on the need to travel by private vehicle. This close immediacy to the town centre provides strong links to recreational and community facilities in addition to employment opportunities. The proximity to the town centre will also allow the site to play a role in supporting Maryport’s economic growth.

4.14 It is considered that development of the site for residential purposes would

accord with the Development Principles in the SRSpS and the terms of JSP Policy ST5 to support the role and function of Maryport. However, whilst the scale and location of the development is considered appropriate, there is still the requirement to identify if there is local housing need in Maryport.

Housing Issues 4.15 The Cumbria Housing Strategy 2006-2011 prepared by the Cumbria Sub-

Regional Housing Group states that the vision for Cumbria is to have a balanced housing market which will support the social and economic changes of the county over the next 20 years. The SRSpS and the Local Investment Plan for Cumbria identify the fact that the balance and condition of housing stock in West Cumbria should be improved.

4.16 Paragraph 71 of national Planning Policy Statement 3 states that where Local Planning Authorities cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five-year supply of deliverable houses, they should favourably consider planning applications for housing. They must have regard to the other policies within PPS3 which encourage: high quality housing; a good mix of housing which reflects the accommodation requirements of specific groups; using suitable sites for housing, including its environmental sustainability; and using land effectively and efficiently. Local Planning Authorities should ensure the proposed development is in line with planning for housing objectives, reflecting the need and demand for housing in, and the spatial vision for, the area and does not undermine wider policy objectives (e.g. addressing housing market renewal issues).

4.17 Table 1 below summarises the housing delivery in Allerdale for the

previous seven monitoring years. This table shows the total net additional dwellings from the monitoring year 03/04 to the last monitoring year of 09/10. On average, over the last seven monitoring years, 182.5 dwellings were built annually, compared to Allerdale Borough Council’s annualised plan target of 267 units per annum for the five year supply target. Whilst Allerdale is continuing to use the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) annual target of 267 units, it has decided not to compensate for previous years shortfalls as it is felt that this would create an unrealistic target.

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 Total Net additional dwellings

187 111 194 205 210 148 222 1277 (average of 182.5 units per year)

Table 1: Housing completion data for last seven monitoring years Source: Allerdale Borough Council Annual Monitoring Report 2009/2010

4.18 Allerdale Borough Council’s document ‘Meeting the Five Year Housing

Land Supply: 2009/2010-2014/2015’ (October 2010) recognises that Allerdale does not currently have a five year supply. Using the RSS annual target of 267 would mean that the total over five years would equate to 1,335 units; the document demonstrates that Allerdale only has a supply of deliverable land to provide 796 new units. This is equal to a three year housing land supply, meaning that there will be a shortfall of 539 units when measured against the targets for the five year period.

4.19 PPS3 states that Local Planning Authorities without a five year supply should look more favourably on new applications for housing development. However, it is important to note that this does not mean that planning permission for new housing developments will automatically be granted.

4.20 PPS3 outlines Government objectives for the delivery and standards of

housing throughout the country. There should be a wide choice of sustainable, high quality homes, both affordable and market, which address the needs of the community. The Government states that developers should propose developments which reflect local need and demand which are in sustainable locations.

4.21 The Workington/Maryport Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (April 2011) states that the housing market area has a need for 529 affordable homes over the next five years. More specifically, there is a need for: family homes (both affordable and market); two bedroom bungalows and homes for the elderly. The SHMA identifies the fact that owner occupation in this housing market area is lower than the district and county averages, with the percentage of social housing stock being significantly higher than the Cumbrian percentage. One of the main issues

facing the housing market is the need to provide more affordable rental/low cost home ownership properties to prevent younger generations leaving the market area to neighbouring villages and towns.

4.22 The development proposes a mixture of houses which would help to meet the identified local need and demand (see Table 2). The developer proposes to provide 130 no. homes for market housing and 22 no. affordable units (11 no. two bed houses for Low Cost Home Ownership and 4 no. two bed houses and 7 no. two bed bungalows for rent).

Market housing 4+ bed houses 71 no. 46.7% 3 bed houses 58 no. 38.2% 2 bed bungalows 1 no. 0.7% Intermediate housing 2 bed houses 11 no. 7.2% Social rented 2 bed houses 4 no. 2.6% 2 bed bungalows 7 no. 4.6% Totals 152 no. 100%

Table 2: Proposed housing mix Source: Application form submitted by the applicant 4.23 As part of the emerging Local Development Framework (LDF), Allerdale

Borough Council has prepared a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) (March 2010) which identifies potential land for housing use which could emerge following the adoption of the LDF. The application site is identified as a potential site for housing development (site reference – EXMP05). The SHLAA states that the site size is 9.3 hectares and has a capacity of 279 units. It expects this site to come forward 0-5 years after the LDF is adopted.

4.24 In view of the above analysis, it is clear that there has been an historic

deficit in the supply of new homes to meet housing targets. Allerdale currently has an absence of a 5 year supply of housing land, therefore the development of this site would contribute to making up the shortfall in the supply within the district and would meet local needs in Maryport.

4.25 From a community safety perspective, it is recommended that the

development follow the principles of Secured by Design, which is a national standard that looks at the crime prevention elements of house building. It is noted that the Design and Access Statement, provided as support for the planning application, does refer to the fact that the principles of Secured by Design have been incorporated into the proposal.

Local Community Infrastructure Issues 4.26 In terms of local education facilities, there are currently a number of

unfilled places within the school system in Maryport given the present organisation of the schools. It is considered that the educational facilities within Maryport currently have the capacity to accommodate the number

of school children that may move into the area as a result of this development. Therefore, in this instance, developer contributions towards providing additional educational places will not be sought.

Ecological Issues 4.27 It is considered that the site for the proposed development does not carry

any potential significant ecological issues. The County Council is not currently resourced to carry out a detailed assessment on the site; it is expected that Allerdale Borough Council should carry out a detailed assessment prior to determination.

4.28 It is requested that, if planning permission is granted, Allerdale Borough Council attaches a condition to the permission which requires the applicant to implement the habitat enhancements proposed in the Phase 1 Habitat Survey report. These enhancements should be incorporated into the landscaping of the site and throughout the entire development.

Landscape and Visual Impact Issues 4.29 The application site falls within the urban context of Maryport and is not

included in the Cumbria County Council Landscape Character Assessment. However, consideration should be given to its relationship with the adjacent landscape character sub type 5a (Lowland – Ridge and Valley) which is north, south and east of Maryport.

4.30 The Ridge and Valley landscape character sub type runs in an unbroken band from Carlisle to Workington. The sensitivities of this adjacent landscape include: distinctive undeveloped valleys; the peaceful pastoral atmosphere away from busier parts; native broad leaved woodlands, shelterbelts and remnant parklands and the interest they provide to the farmed landscape; species rich hedges and hedge banks; discrete and dispersed farmsteads; ridge top locations of settlements, undeveloped areas of ridge tops and valley rims, contrast between small scale settlements and large scale features such as wind turbines and pylons; and open and uninterrupted views from ridge tops to the Solway Firth and Lakeland Fells.

4.31 Allerdale Borough Council must be satisfied that the development reflects

and protects the character of the site and its surroundings and that the density and siting of any houses is deemed appropriate.

Historic Environment Issues 4.32 The site lies in the vicinity of the Roman fort and associated civilian

settlement at Maryport, which is legally protected as a Scheduled Monument and forms part of the World Heritage Site. To the south, in Netherhall Park, lie the remains of medieval Netherhall, which is protected as a Scheduled Monument and a listed Grade II* building, and another Scheduled Monument considered to have medieval origins. Numerous Listed Grade II buildings are located nearby.

4.33 It is noted that English Heritage has been consulted on the application, and, they will provide advice regarding any impact that the proposed development may have on the World Heritage Site and the designated heritage assets in the immediate vicinity. The advice given here relates specifically to the buried archaeological remains that survive on the site.

4.34 The site has been the subject of an archaeological desk-based

assessment and a field evaluation. The results of the evaluation show that the remains of a Romano-British enclosure, probably used for agricultural purposes, and a track way of unknown date, but possibly also of Romano-British origin, survive on the site. These remains will be disturbed by the proposed development. Adequate information has been gained by the evaluation to indicate that, while the remains are not of such significance to warrant preservation in situ, they are of sufficient worth to require a programme of full archaeological investigation, recording and archiving so that a permanent and publically accessible record is made.

4.35 It is therefore recommended that an archaeological excavation of the archaeological remains on the site be undertaken in advance of development, and it is advised that this work should be commissioned and undertaken at the expense of the developer. It is considered that this programme of work can be secured through the inclusion of two conditions in any planning consent that may be granted and a suggested form of words in included in Annex 1.

Transport/Accessibility and Highways Issues 4.36 The applicant has failed to submit the required information to enable the

Highways Authority to make a fully considered response. A copy of the response from the Highway Engineer can be found in Annex 2 and should be read in conjunction with the text below.

4.37 Whilst the applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment and a Framework Residential Travel Plan, there are a number of issues which have arisen. The Transport Assessment includes a potential discrepancy regarding the visibility of the site access junction which needs to be addressed. The Travel Plan submitted by the applicant is only a Framework document; as the end user is known, it should have been a full residential Travel Plan. Because of this, there are a number of issues which the Travel Plan is still to address. Issues include: the appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinater; the amount of time the developer offers to provide a free bus pass for the new residents; the production of Travel Plan Packs; and the provision of the suggested cycle training and cycle maintenance. It is requested that Allerdale Borough Council do not accept the submitted Framework Travel Plan and that they ensure all the issues set out in Annex 2 are fully addressed in a Full Travel Plan.

4.38 Concerns have also been raised about the drainage of the site. In pre-application discussion, the Highways Authority requested that the developer included a positive drainage system within the scheme due to

the physical constraints on the site, the large retaining wall adjacent to the highway and flooding issues on the A596. The Highways Authority stated that soakaways would only be considered if the applicant provided evidence that positive drainage cannot be achieved on the site. The applicant has failed to provide this information, yet the submitted scheme design incorporates four soakaways to accommodate highway drainage, all close to the retaining wall and one which impacts on a footway.

4.39 The Highways Engineer requests that the applicant submits an Approval in Principle form with regards to the structures supporting the highway. If any structures supporting the highway were to be adopted by the Highways Authority, the design of the walls must meet Eurocodes and Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) guidance.

4.40 The Highways Engineer has also provided some general comments. The height of the fences on some plots (see Annex 2) will need to be reduced in order to maintain the required visibility splays. Where the footpath to the north of the site access joins the A596, a suitable pedestrian barrier should be provided to guide pedestrians to the crossing point. The developer will also need to be aware, that if permission is granted, they will be required to enter into a Section 278 Agreement with regard to the new access junction with the A596, and any other works to be carried out within existing highway limits, in addition to the Section 106 Agreement for the Travel Plan contribution and highway contributions for waiting restrictions and traffic signal improvements.

4.41 A Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and Designers Response was submitted by the applicant. This document was considered by the Highways Engineer and measures included were deemed satisfactory.

4.42 With regards to the proposed increased use of Pigeonwell Lonning Public Right of Way, it is requested that the developer provides an additional top dressing to the current surface condition and to the stepped access on the route. This would enable the route to fulfil its role as a sustainable link to the local schools.

Economic Development/Regeneration Issues 4.43 It is considered that the development will improve the range and quality of

housing accommodation in the area, as well as facilitating access to an important future visitor attraction. Consequently, the application is supported from an economic development perspective.

Local Member Comments 4.44 The Local Member for Dearham and Broughton has raised concerns about

this proposed development. The issues are outlined below:

i. There will be significant Highways implications if the traffic from the estate exited onto the A596 or, indeed, onto Church Road (which is frequently congested to access/egress Camp Road school). At peak times, traffic on the A596 backs up considerably, mainly in association

with arrivals and departures to/from Netherhall School, exacerbated by heavy timber lorries. All of this frequently causes further significant congestion at the traffic lights at Netherhall Corner…and beyond.

ii. Allied to this are the clear safety implications for the pedestrian pupils (and traffic) arriving/leaving Netherhall School. Many months, if not years, of construction traffic would exacerbate the situation. I understand that two previous planning applications for this site have been refused because of Highways objections.

iii. Equally clearly, the loss or severe compromising of an important archaeological site would be seriously harmful to the potential economic prosperity of both the area and to Maryport itself. This site has already been the subject of a potential bid to the Regional Growth fund by the Cumbria LEP which, if funding were to become available, would further enhance the importance of the Roman museum and the external Roman facilities as a significant tourist destination. I understand that there are considerable Roman artefacts within the curtilage of this site which, in effect would be lost for ever if construction/development took place.

iv. Surface water drainage along parts of Netherhall Road, particularly opposite the site, is very poor and, as I understand it, requires extensive and expensive modernisation which will not be forthcoming within a severely limited Highways budget. Further 'hardstanding' of an estate would exacerbate this problem.

v. I understand that the Allerdale Local Plan seeks to "protect the quality of the area". Aesthetically, and as a Greenfield site, this is a natural and attractive entrance/vista to Maryport which would be lost. I would ask for both Environmental and Ecological Impact assessments.

vi. Whilst fully recognising the need for affordable (preferably rentable/RSL) housing in Maryport, I believe there are other alternative, Brownfield sites in Maryport, at least one of which already has planning permission.

vii. 150 additional houses would bring 200+ children. I do not believe that the local schools could cope with those numbers, and I would ask for an Educational Impact assessment.

4.45 It is considered that points i., ii., and iv. have been addressed in the

comments provided by the Highways Engineer, with point iii. covered within the comments relating to Historic Environment issues. Point vi. is contained within the Sequential Test assessment in the submitted Planning Statement whilst the comments provided by Children’s Services states that there is capacity in the local schools (point vii.). The applicant did submit an EIA scoping report to the Local Planning Authority and it was decided that an EIA was not required (point v.). As part of the application, a Phase 1 Habitat Survey was submitted, which also serves to address issues raised in point v.

0B5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 Whilst the application site is a greenfield site, it is deemed to be in a

sustainable location. The site lies adjacent to the defined development limit of Maryport and any housing development on this site would be likely

to support and complement Maryport’s future economic growth. Generally, the site is considered suitable for residential use as it satisfies the Development Principles of the SRSpS and JSP Policy ST5. It is understood from Allerdale Borough Council’s planning history records that there have not been any previous similar planning applications submitted for this site.

5.2 Ideally the site should be brought forward through the LDF process.

However, the report has established that Allerdale Borough Council does not currently have a five-year supply in order to support the delivery of general housing needs against the identified housing targets. It is considered that the development meets the national policy tests in PPS3 and would not prejudice the role, function and identified priorities for Maryport. It would also contribute to the local need and demand for affordable housing, especially in the provision of family homes and two bed bungalows.

5.3 With regard to education provision, the County Council has identified

available spaces in the local catchment schools and is satisfied that no developer contributions would be required at the current time.

5.4 It is generally considered that the development does not carry any

potential significant ecological issues. Allerdale Borough Council should be satisfied prior to determination that a detailed assessment of the site has been undertaken. If permission is granted, then a condition should be attached requiring the applicant to implement the habitat enhancements proposed in the Phase 1 Habitat Survey.

5.5 The site is a prominent gateway to Maryport and, as such, Allerdale

Borough Council must be satisfied that the development reflects and protects the character of the site and its surroundings and that the density and siting of any houses is appropriate.

5.6 The proposal will not affect any Scheduled Monuments or Listed Buildings,

although the site does lie in the vicinity of the Roman fort and associated civilian settlement. It is requested that, if planning consent is granted and prior to any subsequent development occurring, an archaeological excavation of the archaeological remains on the site is undertaken. This should be secured by condition and a suggested form of words is included in Annex 1.

5.7 In terms of the impact on transport and highways, the applicant has failed

to submit the required detail to allow the Highways Engineer to provide a fully considered response. When making a decision, Allerdale Borough Council should consider the points raised in Annex 2, especially in relation to the Transport Assessment, Travel Plan and drainage issues. If planning permission is subsequently granted, the identified Agreements would need to be secured in order to make the development acceptable. In addition, a condition should be included in the permission with regard to providing an additional topping on the Pigeonwell Lonning Public Right of Way.

5.8 From an economic development perspective, the development is

supported as it will improve the range and quality of housing accommodation in the area, as well as facilitating access to an important future visitor attraction.

Paul Feehily Assistant Director – Planning and Sustainability UContact Francesca McEnaney 01228 221027 4BUBackground Papers Planning Application File Reference 02/11/0382 5BUElectoral Division Identification Cllr B. Cameron Maryport West ED Cllr E. Martin Dearham and Broughton ED Cllr K. Little Maryport East ED Cllr T. Fee Seaton ED

Annex 1 Recommended Detailed Conditions Historic Environment UHistoric Environment Condition 1 No development shall commence within the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To afford reasonable opportunity for the examination and recording of the remains of archaeological interest that survive on the site UHistoric Environment Condition 2 There shall be, carried out within two years of the completion of the archaeological excavation on site or within such timescale as otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority: an archaeological post-excavation assessment and analysis, the preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store, the completion of an archive report, and the preparation and submission of a report of the results for publication in a suitable specialist journal. Reason: To ensure that a permanent and accessible record by the public is made of the archaeological remains that have been disturbed by the development.

Annex 2 Memorandum from the Highways Engineer dated 24th June 2011

ENVIRONMENT

Transport & Access Highways Depot � Joseph Noble Road � Lillyhall Industrial Estate

Workington � CA14 4JH � Tel 01946 506595 � Fax 01946 506537 � Email dawn.evans@cumbriacc.gov.uk

Memorandum Date: 24th June 2011 From: Dawn Evans on behalf of Jonathan Smith – Allerdale Area Highways and

Transport Manager To: Francesca McEnaney – Spatial Planning Team Reference: 2/2011/0382

Proposed residential development of 152 homes with associated infrastructure (full application)

Land off Netherhall Road, Maryport, CA15 6NT Please find the comments from the highway authority to the above application in respect to the information that has been submitted. There is insufficient information contained in the application for the Highway Authority to make a considered response. 1BThe applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment (TA) and a Framework Residential Travel Plan (TP) in support of the application. The TA and TP have been checked and the following comments need to be addressed. 2BUTransport Assessment In paragraph 3.3 the TA states that 90m visibility in both directions can be achieved, but the site access junction has been modelled with visibility as 50m to the right. That may be a typing error in the model input, but the applicant should confirm that they can actually achieve 90m. Paragraph 3.8 in the TA mentions waiting restrictions on the A596. It is likely that these will be necessary, as the properties fronting onto the A596 are very close to the site access junction. As these properties can be accessed directly from the A596, it could encourage parking on the A596 and pose an accident risk. A contribution will be required from the developer and this is expected to be in the region of £7,000. The model was recreated to check the capacity of the junction at Netherhall Corner. It showed that, (based on PRC, assuming 1% growth per year in line with WYG’s growth rates), the junction would be over capacity if the development trips are added to the 2010 survey flows. Had the TA included the results of modelling the opening year as they should have done, it would have shown this. It is therefore apparent that improvements are required to the signalised junction at Netherhall Corner. The highway authority disagrees that the developer should contribute only a proportion of the costs for the upgrade of the junction, as this work is necessary to allow the development to take place. The full cost of this works should be funded by the developer by way of a contribution via a Section 106 Agreement. This cost is likely to be in the region of £135,000, which includes the upgrade to the signals and enhanced safety measures to take into consideration the increase in pedestrians and vehicles using this junction and for future growth. UTravel Plan The end user is known so the Travel Plan should be a full residential Travel Plan rather than a

Framework which should only be used where there are multiple occupants on a mixed use site. The contents should therefore be attributed to a full Travel Plan. 4.3 – Will the Travel Plan Co-ordinator be an employee of the developer, and for how long will they be active, for the 5 year duration of the Travel Plan? Details of the site’s Travel Plan Co-ordinator should be given to Cumbria County Council’s Travel Plan Co-ordinator as soon as in position. This should be detailed in the report. 4.4 & 4.13 – A 1 week bus pass is insufficient and is unlikely to be a real incentive to travel. A minimum period on one month free with an offer of discounted passes over 3 to 6 month is more likely to get people to use the bus and should be provided. 4.5 - Who will be responsible for producing the Travel Plan Packs? 4.6 - Who will be responsible for producing the walking and cycling maps that will be distributed by the TP Co-ordinator? And what is the website address for the Journey Planner stated in Paragraph 4.6? 4.7 – The promotion of events within the site would be more related to workplace travel plans rather than residential travel plans, unless examples of these events can be given? A site website is mentioned, would this be a website for the development site? 4.10 - Who will provide the cycle training and cycle maintenance? And how will the health benefits of walking and cycling be promoted in paragraphs 4.9 & 4.11? Chapter 5 - With regard to the surveys, no information is given as to what will be included in the household surveys. No examples are given. We would expect to see examples of these As the end user is known, and trip generation estimates are given within the Transport Assessment, these figures should be used as the baseline. Targets can then be set for the duration of the TP to reduce the number of trips to and from the development by 10%. The main target of the TP should therefore be to achieve at least a 10% reduction in AM and PM peak hour total car trips within 5 years, based on the TRICS rates provided in the Transport Assessment submitted with the application. This should be clearly set out and the targets stated. A contribution can then be calculated for the 5 years of the TP, which will be linked to achieving the targets set out in the TP. Traffic Counters will be used to determine the final traffic figures after 5 years rather than a household survey. It should also be noted that it is unrealistic that residents will take over the TP after 5 years. An additional bus shelter (with agreement for long term maintenance) should be provided at the Southbound stop at Netherhall corner with appropriate bus stop signage, as this is likely to be the main direction of travel from the site (towards Workington) There is a Voluntary Social Car Scheme in Maryport, which is short of drivers. It could bne worthwhile including something in the travel pack encouraging/inviting (not compelling) residents to consider getting involved to help others in the area. The Travel Plan should not be accepted until they have made the necessary amendments. The end user is known, and as the site is on the edge of town the TP will need to be robust.

UDrainage There are major concerns from a highway point of view regarding the drainage arrangements for the site. Pre application discussions took place with the developer and their consultant, and the Highway Authority requested a positive drainage system be put in place due to the physical constraints on the site, the large retaining wall adjacent to the highway and the flooding issues on the A596. The Highway Authority stated that soakaways would only be considered if evidence is

provided that positive drainage cannot be achieved. This evidence has not been provided. This evidence is required to determine that positive drainage is not possible on the site before soakaways as a way of draining the highways within the site are considered. The outcome from early discussions with the developer was that improvements could be carried out to existing highway drainage in order to provide a positive outfall. The Site Investigation report submitted as part of the planning application states that the site is low in terms of drainage characteristics and shallow trial pits were used to determine permeability on the site. The geotechnical report does not provide permeability tests at the correct depth for the soakways. The impact of the proposed soakaways on the retaining wall has not been assessed for location suitability Though no guidance has been produced for England regarding the use of SUDS for highway purposes, the document produced by the Scottish SUDS Working Party has been deemed appropriate by the Highway Authority in the interim period. This document provides the recommended infiltration coefficients that are required at the base of any soakaway, which needs to be below the adjacent retaining wall base. The plans indicate 4 soakaways to accommodate highway drainage, all close to the retaining wall and one impacting on a footway, which is not acceptable. The size of pipes to carry highway surface water from the highways within the site to the soakaways also appears inadequate. The developer is required to provide sufficient evidence that these can be achieved, and that there will be no adverse impact on the retaining wall adjacent to the A596 due to the soakaways. The location of the proposed soakaway closest to the entrance to the site is not suitable due to its interference with the proposed footway. The drainage design model output would need to be submitted for assessment with the drainage model having been based on the suggested soakaways calculated in accordance with BRE 365 guidance. The BRE 365 calculations must also show the drain down time for the soakaway to empty. The information contained within the application therefore does not satisfy the Highway Authority that this form of drainage is suitable for the site. URetaining Structures It is unclear what the details will be for the retaining structures on the site. The retaining wall supporting the private road will not be adopted by the Highway Authority, however, details are required for the ones adjacent to the public highway at plots 85-90.

For all structures supporting the highway an AIP (Approval in Principle) form needs to be submitted for consideration and agreement. For any structures being adopted by the highway authority, the design of the walls will need to be to current Eurocodes and DMRB guidance. These would also attract a commuted sum

USite Layout and General Comments 3BAny proposed changes to the local highway network including the proposed junction arrangement and the site layout should be subject to a stage 1 / 2 Road Safety Audit which has been submitted along with a designers response. The issues raised in this have already been addressed in the comments raised on drainage and in the designers response. The height of the fence at plots 4-7, the wall at plot 54, the retaining walls at plots 85-91, 131-138, and 118-125 may interfere with visibility splays. The height of these should be revised to ensure visibility can be achieved. Forward visibility at plot 25 should be secured. There are gullies shown in the parking area outside plots 8-11. As the highway authority does not

adopt parking areas, these gullies should be relocated to within the highway limits. The garages at plots 63, 65, 144 & 146 are detached from the dwellings they serve. This may result in vehicles parking on the main road through the estate leading to the proposed Roman Visitor Attraction. Where the footway to the north of the site access joins the A596 a suitable pedestrian barrier should be provided to guide pedestrians to the crossing point. SWMH1 should be relocated outwith the carriageway if possible. The developer should note at this stage that the highway authority will not adopt the link footpath within the site where the steps are situated. As this footpath is not suitable for access by all users, it will be unsuitable for adoption and maintenance at public expense. The future maintenance of the trees and planting should be confirmed and contained in a Section 106 Agreement. The developer will also need to be aware of the requirement to enter into a Section 278 Agreement with regard to the new access junction with the A596, and any other works to be carried out within existing highway limits, in addition to the Section 106 Agreement for the Travel Plan contribution and highway contributions for waiting restrictions and traffic signal improvements.

Until the above points are addressed and the information is supplied as requested for review by the Highway Authority, there is insufficient information to give full consideration to this application.

Regards Dawn Evans