SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL...Aug 25, 2011 · 20 28.7.2011 Planning (3) except where stated below, the reasons for refusal be those as outlined in the Schedule. P/029 COMPLEX

SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL South Lakeland House, Kendal, Cumbria LA9 4UQ www.southlakeland.gov.uk

You are requested to attend a meeting of the Planning Committee

on Thursday, 25 August 2011, at 10.00 a.m. in the District Council Chamber, South Lakeland House,

Kendal

Committee Membership Councillors

Alan Baverstock Brian Cooper Joss Curwen Colin Davies Philip Dixon

Sheila Eccles (Vice-Chairman) Sylvia Emmott Clive Graham Brenda Gray Tom Harvey John Holmes

Janette Jenkinson Kevin Lancaster Sonia Lawson

Ian McPherson (Chairman) Mary Orr

David Williams Mary Wilson

17 August 2011 (date of despatch) Debbie Storr, Corporate Director (Monitoring Officer)

For all enquiries, please contact:- Committee Administrator: Janine Jenkinson

Telephone: 01539 733333 Ext.7493

e-mail: [email protected]

1

http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/

mailto:[email protected]

2

AGENDA Page Nos. PART I 1. APOLOGIES To receive apologies for absence, if any.

2. MINUTES 5 - 9 To authorise the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the

meeting of the Committee held on 28 July 2011 (copy attached).

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive declarations by Members of personal and prejudicial interests in

respect of items on this Agenda.

If a Member requires advice on any item involving a possible declaration of interest which could affect his/her ability to speak and/or vote, he/she is advised to contact the Monitoring Officer at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.

4. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUDED ITEMS To consider whether the items, if any, in Part II of the Agenda should be

considered in the presence of the press and public.

5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Any member of the public who wishes to ask a question, make representations

or present a deputation or petition at this meeting should apply to do so in writing by noon on the day before the meeting. Information on how to make the application can be obtained by viewing the Council’s Website www.southlakeland.gov.uk or by contacting the Democratic Services Manager on 01539 717440.

(1) Planning Applications Planning applications for which requests to speak have been made.

(2) Agenda Items Agenda items for which requests to speak have been made.

6. REPORT OF THE INTERIM CORPORATE DIRECTOR (COMMUNITIES) 11 – 58 To determine planning applications received.

7. A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 23 MAY TO 24 JUNE 2011 59 – 66 To inform Members about enforcement activity between 23 May and 24 June

2011.

8. APPEALS UPDATE AT 12 AUGUST 2011 67 - 74 To provide Members with information about the receipt and determination of

planning appeals.

PART II Private Section (exempt reasons under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government Act (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, specified by way of paragraph number)

There are no items in this part of the agenda.

3

http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/

4

19 28.7.2011 Planning

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the proceedings at a meeting of the Committee held in the Council Chamber at South Lakeland House, Kendal, on Thursday, 28 July 2011 at 10.00 a.m.

Present

Councillors

Ian McPherson (Chairman) Sheila Eccles (Vice-Chairman)

Alan Baverstock Brian Cooper Joss Curwen Colin Davies Sylvia Emmott Clive Graham Brenda Gray Tom Harvey John Holmes Janette Jenkinson Kevin Lancaster Mary Orr David Williams Mary Wilson

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Philip Dixon.

Officers

Zaheer Bashir Solicitor Janine Jenkinson Assistant Democratic Services Officer Kate Lawson Planning Officer Barry Jackson Planning Officer

P/025 MINUTES

RESOLVED – That the Chairman be authorised to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 30 June 2011.

P/026 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

RESOLVED – That it be noted that Councillor Brain Cooper made a declaration of interest in relation to – Minute P/029 (Planning Application No. SL/2011/0324).

P/027 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUDED ITEMS

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

P/028 PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The Development Management Group Manager submitted a Schedule of Planning Applications and his recommendations thereon.

RESOLVED – That

(1) the applications be determined as indicated below (the numbers denote the Schedule numbers of the application);

(2) except where stated below, the applications be subject to the relevant conditions and advice notes, as outlined in the Schedule; and

Item No. 2

5

20 28.7.2011 Planning

(3) except where stated below, the reasons for refusal be those as outlined in the Schedule.

P/029 COMPLEX PLANNING APPLICATIONS

RESOLVED – That the following applications be determined in the manner set out:-

1.SL/2011/0034 SKELSMERGH: Red Bank Farm, Skelsmergh, Kendal. Conversion of barn to dwelling and installation of septic tank/treatment unit with drainage mound soakaway. (Mr Hans Ulrich)

The Planning Officer reported that whilst Policy CS1.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy permitted, as exception new residential development in the open countryside in the form of conversions, Policy CS6.4 required all such dwellings to be affordable. The proposed development was not affordable and was, therefore, contrary to adopted policy.

Members elected to unanimously refuse the application.

REFUSE

2.SL/2011/0067 BEETHAM: Barcaldine, Leighton Drive, Slack Head, Milnthorpe. Dwelling. (Mr and Mrs Stephen Wright)

Members raised concern regarding the form of the development, and impact on the living conditions of the adjoining householders. It was proposed that a decision on the application be deferred to allow the Planning Officer to undertake further negotiation regarding positioning and proximity of the fence to the neighbouring property.

DEFER - to allow negotiations in relation to positioning and the proximity of the fence.

4.SL/2011/0315 PRESTON PATRICK: Millness Lane, Millness, Crooklands. Erection of two storey dwelling. (Mr David Askew)

A site visit was proposed. Members felt that it would be beneficial to undertake a site visit in order to view and assess the application in relation to the locality.

DEFER – for site visit.

Note – Councillor Brian Cooper declared a personal interest in the following item of business, by virtue of knowing the owner of the company.

6

21 28.7.2011 Planning

5.SL/2011/0324 BURTON in KENDAL: Land to South of Burtlands Farm, Moss Lane / Station Lane. Extension to warehouse to form an assembly shop for Storth Ltd. (Mr Alan Looker)

Additional background information that had been submitted by the applicant was reported to the Committee. He had advised that currently he had over forty employees and estimated that the proposed extension would create an additional ten employment opportunities. In response to concern that had been raised regarding outside lighting, it was reported that the lighting had been faulty, and this had now been replaced.

The Planning Officer reported in full correspondence received from Mr Betley, a neighbouring resident. Mr Betley had raised concerns in relation to the effect of the increased traffic generation, light pollution, the boundary of industrialisation, increased noise and concern that the extension represented as change of use of the property. Mr Betley had also proposed a list of conditions to be attached to any permission granted relating to restricted working hours, tree planting, signage and the joint maintenance of the fence between the two properties.

A lengthy discussion took place and Members gave consideration to all matters raised by the application. Overall, the proposed extension to this recently erected isolated building was deemed acceptable.

GRANT – Subject to the following (suitably worded) Conditions in relation to:-

1) Working hours between 8 a.m. – 6 p.m. Monday to Friday, 8 a.m. – 1 p.m. Saturdays and no working Sunday and Public Holidays;

2) Roofing material used to be a dark sheeting;

3) Lighting detail;

4) Planting scheme to be implemented within 6 months of occupation;

5) Removal of Permitted Development Rights; and

6) Construction works to be limited to between 8 a.m. – 6 p.m. Monday to Friday, 8 a.m. – 1 p.m. Saturdays and no working Sunday and Public Holidays.

3.SL/2011/0296 KIRKBY IRELETH: Land adjacent to the Grange, Baliff Ground, Kirkby in Furness. Replacement dwelling. (Mrs Y Athersmith)

The Planning Officer reported to the Committee a letter that had been received from the applicant that set out the circumstances of the application and stated that the Grange would be too large and unfeasible to sell in the future if joined to the replacement

7

22 28.7.2011 Planning

property.

The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer had advised that upgrading of the private water supply was required to ensure an adequate provision. This was technically possible and further detail could be agreed in due course.

Consideration of the application had been deferred at the last Committee meeting for a site visit to be undertaken. Members had now had the opportunity to assess the site and locality.

GRANT

6.SL/2011/0335 KIRKBY LONSDALE: 2 Leyfield Court. Alterations and extensions. (Mr I Nicholson)

The Planning Officer advised that the extension above the garage would create a dominant feature that would be over-bearing and visually intrusive for the neighbouring resident at 1 Leyfield Court.

Members felt a site visit would be appropriate to fully appreciate the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring property.

DEFER – for site visit.

7.SL/2011/0344

PENNINGTON: Channel House Farm, Pennington, Ulverston. Erection of two wind turbines on 15m high mast. (Mr Michael Wood)

The proposal was considered to be acceptable in terms of scale, siting and overall visual impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural landscape.

GRANT – Subject to the Conditions detailed in the Schedule and an additional Condition to ensure the colour used for the turbines was an appropriate shade of grey.

8.SL/2011/0357 EGTON WITH NEWLAND: Plumpton Cottage Farm, Newland, Ulverston. Dwelling for an agricultural worker. (Mr William Case)

Members welcomed the application and wished to support the principle of constructing an agricultural workers dwelling on this established farm site.

GRANT

P/030 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 25 APRIL TO 20 MAY 2011

Members were presented with a report on enforcement activity between 25 April to 20 May 2011. Seven outstanding cases from the caseload had been resolved. Fifteen new complaints had been recorded and were being investigated, of which eight had been resolved.

8

23 28.7.2011 Planning

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

P/031 APPEALS

The Committee was provided with an update regarding the receipt and determination of planning appeals between 18 June and 15 July 2011.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

The meeting ended at 12.10 p.m.

9

10

AGENDA ITEM NO …………6………

SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

From: Interim Corporate Director (Communities) To: Planning Committee – 25 August 2011

REPORT OF INTERIM CORPORATE DIRECTOR (COMMUNITIES) PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION Page No

Index

Schedule A - Complex planning applications 15 - 58

Schedule B - Planning applications where the Interim Corporate Director (Communities) is seeking authority to determine

None

Schedule C - Applications relating to Listed Buildings None

Schedule D - Advertisements None

Schedule E - Development by South Lakeland District Council and Cumbria County Council

None

Schedule F - Straightforward planning applications None

Schedule G - All other submissions None

Background papers relating to the subject matter of the report

For all items the background papers are contained in the files listed in the second column of the schedule index. Note: The background papers may be inspected at the offices of the Interim Corporate Director

(Communities), Lowther Street, Kendal, Cumbria

11

12

1

SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE – 25 August 2011

SCHEDULE NUMBER

REFERENCE NUMBER

SECTION

SITE ADDRESS

ALDINGHAM 7 SL/2011/0490 A (42 – 46) Land adjacent to Beech Mount,

Goadsbarrow EGTON WITH NEWLAND, MANSRIGGS AND OSMOTHERLEY 2 SL/2011/0233 A (18 – 21) Britannia Inn, Oak Vale, Penny Bridge GRANGE over SANDS 6 SL/2011/0439 A (36 – 41) Pengarth, Ashmount Road HUTTON ROOF 9 SL/2011/0496 A (53 – 54) Badger Gate, Lupton KENDAL 8 SL/2011/0494

(CAC) and SL/2011/0495 (FPA)

A (47 – 52) The Mint Cake Works, Cross Lane

KIRKBY LONSDALE 1 SL/2010/1104 A (15 – 17) Former Gas holder site, Mill Brow 4 SL/2011/0335 A (27 – 29) 2 Leyfield Court 5 SL/2011/0436 A (30 – 35) Casterton Golf Club NATLAND 10 SL/2011/0541 A (55 – 58) Little Rosslyn, Barrows Green PRESTON PATRICK 3 SL/2011/0315 A (22 – 26) Millness Lane, Millness, Crooklands

13

14

SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 1 SL/2010/1104 KIRKBY LONSDALE: FORMER GAS HOLDER SITE, MILL BROW, KIRKBY LONSDALE PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF DWELLING MR and MRS S LAMB

25/08/2011 E361291 N478801

SUMMARY :

The proposed house has a larger footprint and is taller than that previously granted planning permission. The site and its setting, although prominent in view from the riverside footpath and picnic area, is capable of accommodating a building of the scale and design proposed. Grant.

KIRKBY LONSDALE TOWN COUNCIL :

Approval is recommended.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS :

No objection.

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER :

In terms of ground contamination, the site poses no unacceptable risk to human health.

The finished floor level of the dwelling should be established at 700mm above the current ground level in order to protect the property from flood risk.

Details of foul drainage arrangements need to be resolved.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY :

Having reviewed the Preliminary Risk Assessment for the former gas-holder site, the Environment Agency is able to confirm that the site can be developed with minimal risk to controlled waters.

15

In terms of flood risk, the Agency has no objections to the proposed development provided that the finished floor level is 700mm above the existing ground level.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT :

Outline planning permission for a dwelling on this site was refused in 2005 on the grounds of a lack of detail, the steep gradient and narrow width of Mill Brow and the absence of a land contamination study. A detailed application was subsequently submitted and permission for a dwellinghouse was granted in August 2008. The planning permission was subject to an Agreement restricting the property to local occupancy. Following the publication of the adopted Core Strategy, there is no longer a policy base for the concept of local occupancy.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL :

The application site was formerly occupied by a gas-holder but has lain vacant and largely unused for many years. It lies at the foot of Mill Brow close to the River Lune, the riverside footpath and the Mill Ayre picnic area. The site is within the Kirkby Lonsdale Conservation Area.

The proposed house rises, in part, to three-storeys and is larger, in terms of area and height, than that granted consent in 2008. It will contain four bedrooms and will occupy most of the site. Outdoor amenity space is in the form of a first floor deck and parking is in the form of a double garage. The majority of the living accommodation is on the first floor to allow escape in case of flooding.

There is a substantial retaining wall at the rear of the site and the house is to sit into the site with its main aspect to the north and south across public open space. Apart from the west elevation, which is largely hidden by the retaining wall, the walls are to be faced externally with natural stone. The roof is to be covered with slate.

POLICY ISSUES :

Kirkby Lonsdale is identified as a Key Service Centre in the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy; under Policy CS1.2, approximately 13% of new housing and employment development will be in the Key Service Centres of Milnthorpe, Kirkby Lonsdale and Grange over Sands. Priority is given to the re-use of buildings and previously developed land for all new housing development.

Policy CS8.6 supports the safeguarding and, where possible, the enhancing of historic environmental assets, including their characteristic settings and any attributes that contribute to a sense of local distinctiveness; such assets include Conservation areas. Saved Policy C16 of the Local Plan gives priority to the preservation and enhancement of the character or appearance of the special architectural and historic interest of Conservation Areas.

Core Strategy Policy CS8.10, on the subject of design, states that the siting, design, scale and materials of all development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with local vernacular tradition. Designs that support and enhance local distinctiveness will be encouraged.

Core Strategy Policy CS8.8 describes the criteria to be taken into account where development is proposed in areas subject to flood risk.

16

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT :

This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT :

The proposed development raises issues of land contamination and flood risk given that the site was formerly occupied by a gas-holder and is close to the river. Both the Environmental protection Officer and the Environment agency are satisfied that the site does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or to controlled waters and that the property will be protected from flood risk provided that the lower floor level is raised above the current ground level.

The house is larger and taller than that previously permitted but its size and scale is appropriate in the local context. The nearby Mill Brow house is a substantial building and the house on the opposite side of Mill Brow to the application site has been considerably extended. The land to the west (rear) of the site rises steeply and the topography will aid the assimilation of this large building into the locality, as will the materials of construction and the differing roof heights.

The property will occupy a prominent position at the foot of Mill Brow and adjacent to the riverside footpath and picnic area. It is a building of substance but its design and external materials should ensure that it contributes to, rather than detracts from, the appearance of this part of the Conservation Area.

RECOMMENDATION : GRANT subject to the following conditions -

(1) Three-year time limit.

(2) Floor level to be constructed 700mm above ground level.

(3) Sample of roofing slate to be agreed.

(4) Sample of walling to be agreed.

(5) Removal of permitted development rights.

(6) Drainage arrangements.

17

SCHEDULE A


SCHEDULE No: 2 SL/2011/0233 EGTON WITH NEWLAND: BRITANNIA INN, OAK VALE, PENNY BRIDGE, ULVERSTON PROPOSAL: CHANGE OF USE OF PUBLIC HOUSE TO DWELLING FREDERIC ROBINSON LTD

25/08/2011

E330992 N482937

SUMMARY:

Proposed change of use of public house to dwelling. Application deferred at the June meeting to enable an independent valuation of the site.

EGTON with NEWLAND PARISH COUNCIL:

The Parish Council has the following comments:

Population - The Crake Valley ward no longer exists as a political entity. Penny Bridge is continuous to Greenodd, which has a number of businesses including a small business park and the new “Armers” business. The majority of houses are not second homes.

Visitor potential - Residential villages need a public house. Shops etc. in continuous village to Greenodd are very close to the A5092. The Britannia has its own car park.

Competition - The only competition close by is the Ship Inn at Greenodd which is a very steep walk from Penny Bridge or a dangerous flatter walk along the A5092 with no pavement.

The Parish Council believe that the Britannia Inn could be a profitable public house if it was invested in and brought up to date.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS:

Recommends conditions to be attached to any consent regarding the surfacing of the access drive, surface water drainage and access gates.

18

OTHER:

Two letters of comment and one letter of objection have been received. One of the letters received is from a prospective purchaser of the site who states that he made a serious offer to buy the property as a public house in February this year. After receiving quotes of £85,000 for improvement works from a builder, the offer was rejected and the applicant did not attempt to enter into any negotiations. The other comments that the loss of the Britannia as a social centre for the village has been substantial. Reference is also made to a number of private rights of access that exist within the rear car park to adjacent properties.

The letter of objection, from a local estate manager, states that he does not consider that the applicant has made a proper effort to either find new tenants or market the property in a realistic way. Similar properties in the area have been listed at more realistic prices including the Greyhound at Grizebeck which is a much larger property in good condition with a guide price of £275,000 and the Anchor Inn at Lindale recently sold for £125,000. The listed price of the Britannia does not reflect the viability of the business and the necessary repair and refurbishment work needed to the building, and has been set to discourage a sale as a licensed premises. This motive denies the community of the possibility that the premises might reopen as a pub, providing community amenity and employment for the village.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT:

A planning application for the change of use of this public house to a dwelling was withdrawn in April last year following concerns raised about the fact that the applicants were not able to provide evidence to demonstrate that the business was no longer viable and that the site had been suitably marketed as a going concern for at least 9 months.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL:

Members resolved to defer the consideration of the application at the June meeting to enable an independent valuation of the site to be obtained, following concerns that had been raised regarding the asking price of the site.

The Britannia Inn is located on the main street within the village of Penny Bridge. It comprises of a traditional two storey building attached to a terrace of cottages to one side with access to a rear car park and residential properties to the other. The adjacent residential properties have a right of access across the car park to the rear. The pub ceased trading in February 2009.

The application relates to the change of use of the property to a single dwelling. No external alterations are proposed.

In support of the proposal, the applicants have submitted a statement which concludes that the premises have ceased to be viable as a public house and successive tenants have struggled and consequently terminated their lease. On attempting to sell the business little interest has been shown and any interest revolves around changing the premises to a dwelling. They also state that Penny Bridge is a quiet secluded village with no attractions or shops to visit. There are several other pubs in the vicinity of the site at Greenodd, Spark Bridge, Lowick

19

Green, Bouth and Haverthwaite, and the site is not accessible by public transport. The limited size of the building also gives no scope for bed and breakfast trade.

Details of the marketing of the premises have been submitted with the application. This states that the premises have been placed with a local estate agent, Ross Estate Agencies since June 2010. The premises were advertised as freehold commercial premises in the Local press and with Right Moves, as well as the applicants own website. The asking price was offers in the region of £250,000. Since that time only two viewings have been made.

POLICY ISSUES:

Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth - includes guidance for determining applications which affect shops and services in villages. Policy EC13 states that such applications should take into account the importance of the facility to the local community or the economic base for the area if the proposal would result in its loss or change of use.

Saved Policy H13 of the South Lakeland Local Plan states that proposals for the conversion of rural facilities to residential use will be permitted only where the loss of the facility would not result in the loss of village vitality; the facility is no longer viable and the property has been marketed for at least 9 months. A statement of the efforts that have been made to market it or to secure the re-use of the facility must support such an application.

Saved Policy H11 states that the conversion of buildings to residential dwellings within development boundaries will be permitted subject to satisfactory access and services and that the number of dwellings proposed is appropriate to the surroundings.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT:


ASSESSMENT:

The nature and location of the building itself is such that its conversion into a single dwelling would be appropriate.

However, the main issue in this case is whether the loss of this village facility can be justified. The Britannia Inn is the only pub in Penny Bridge and apart from the school, the only community based facility in the village. There is a bus service 200 yards from the site and it is located on a long distance cycle route. Although it is acknowledged that there is another Public House located in the adjacent village of Greenodd some quarter of a mile to the south, there does appear to be some support for the retention of the pub from the local community.

Policy H13 of the South Lakeland Local Plan states that in order to demonstrate that the facility is no longer viable, evidence needs to be submitted to show that the site has been appropriately marketed for at least 9 months.

20

The applicants supporting statement includes information about the marketing of the site since the previous application. On the one hand, the lack of interest in the site does imply that the retention of the pub or the establishment of any other business use appears to be unviable. However, Members will note that the Parish Council have expressed concerns about the details of the submission and oppose the application, and there appears to have been some interest in purchasing the site as a Public House. In response to the comments received from the prospective purchaser, the applicants have confirmed that an offer was made of £123,000 which was turned down. They state that had the offer been anywhere near the asking price they would have considered it.

Subsequent to the June meeting, an independent valuation of the site has been obtained from a specialist surveyor at the District Valuation Office, on behalf of the District Council.

In his report, the Surveyor states that the property market remains subdued due to the prevailing and financial economic climate. Rental and capital values have declined over the past three years and there has been a marked reduction in the volume of transactions in recent years. Due to market conditions, competition from supermarkets and changes in drinking habits it is well known that public houses are closing down as being unviable.

The Surveyor notes that there has been some interest in acquiring the property to run it as a local Inn but that the asking price was considered to be excessive considering the condition of the property. On the basis of the evidence available, he is satisfied that the asking price of £250,000 can only be justified on the basis that consent for a change of use to residential is obtained.

The Surveyor is of the opinion that the current market value of the freehold interest to be in the region of £150,000, assuming a restriction to the existing use.

In view of the above, it is considered that the site has not been appropriately marketed, taking into account the dilapidated condition and current Lawful Use of the building. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy H13 and ought to be refused.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below:

In the absence of evidence to demonstrate that the Public House is no longer viable or that the property has been appropriately marketed for a period of at least nine months, it is considered that the loss of this facility would harm the vitality of the village of Penny Bridge. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy EC13 of Planning Policy Statement 4, and Saved Policy H13 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

21

SCHEDULE A


SCHEDULE No: 3 SL/2011/0315 PRESTON PATRICK: MILLNESS LANE, MILLNESS, CROOKLANDS PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF TWO STOREY DWELLING MR DAVID ASKEW

25/08/2011 E353551 N483086

SUMMARY :

The proposed dwellinghouse would detract from the character and appearance of this part of Millness, would exert a harmful influence on the living conditions currently enjoyed by the occupiers of the adjacent property and, in terms of scale, massing and design, would dominate the locality. REFUSE.

PRESTON PATRICK PARISH COUNCIL :

The Parish Council is opposed to this application for the following reasons :

(1) Millness is not identified in the Council’s Local Development Framework as being suitable for additional development unless it is for affordable housing to meet a specific local need. There is no such justification in this case.

(2) The scale of the proposed dwelling is excessive in relation to the adjoining properties and would have a detrimental impact upon them.

(3) There is serious concern about flooding. The development of this site will have the effect of diverting flood waters into neighbouring dwellings and gardens and that the mitigation measures outlined in the Flood Risk Assessment would seem to be insufficient. Should the District Council be minded to approve this application, further investigation is recommended.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS :

No fundamental objections.

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER :

To be reported.

22


The access road to the dwelling is located in Flood Zone 3 which is land that has been assessed as having a 1 in 100, or greater, annual probability of flooding in any year; the dwelling itself is located in Flood Zone 1 which is land that has less than a 1 in 1000 probability of flooding in any year.

The Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the application meets the standard required by Planning Policy Statement 25 (“Development and Flood Risk”). The Agency has no objection in principle to the proposed development on flood risk grounds. The finished floor levels should be at least 600mm above existing ground levels to prevent possible flooding of the dwelling should a blockage occur in Skip Burn downstream of the development. Ground levels should not be raised as this may cause flooding of adjacent properties.

BRITISH WATERWAYS :

No objections.

WARD MEMBER (COUNCILLOR BINGHAM) :

Councillor Bingham has written to explain that he is not opposed in principle to small-scale development in a rural setting such as Millness especially where, as in this case, the applicant has strong connections with the area. Certain aspects of the application are, however, a cause for concern :

. The site is subject to flooding which would be made worse by the large area of hardstanding.

. The house is out of scale with neighbouring properties and is too large for the site.

. The access lane is narrow.

. The bridge over the beck is not strong enough to support builders’ vehicles and machinery.

. Septic tanks serving neighbouring properties are situated within the site.

. The “suburban estate” design of the proposed house is contrary to the vernacular style of most buildings in Millness.

OTHER :

Five objections have been received together with one letter of support and one e-mail expressing no objections but drawing attention to floodwater flowing onto the road.

The letter of support has been received from a resident of Millness for over 47 years. The writer explains that it would be very comforting to have a member of her family living nearby.

The main concerns of those who have written to object to the development can be summarized as follows :

23

. The site and the lane are prone to flooding.

. The access lane is narrow and inadequate to accommodate additional traffic.

. The proposed house is far larger than any neighbouring properties and would not be in keeping with the locality.

. The proposed house would be over-bearing in respect of the neighbouring house to the west and would adversely affect the living conditions of the occupants of that property.


Planning permission for a dwelling on this site was refused in 1993; a subsequent appeal was dismissed. Consideration of this current application was deferred at last month’s meeting so that Members could visit Millness to see the site and its surroundings for themselves.


The hamlet of Millness comprises a small, loosely-knit group of buildings in the open countryside, north of Junction 36 and to the west of the A65 and the Lancaster Canal. The application site, a small paddock, is located between a pair of cottages and a detached house at the northern end of the hamlet. Agricultural land extends westwards towards Milton and northwards to the canal and Crooklands. A watercourse, Skip Burn, flows along the eastern boundary of the site.

The proposed development comprises a detached, four-bedroom house with an attached double garage. Externally, the walls are to be finished with a render and some stone-facing. The house features steeply pitched roofs covered with slate. It is L-shaped in plan and measures 15.5 metres in length and 14.5 metres in depth at its maximum. The building will stand 8.5 metres high to the ridge of the roof.

POLICY ISSUES :

The South Lakeland Core Strategy was adopted in October last year. The Development Strategy (Policy CS1.2) explains that development will be concentrated in Kendal and Ulverston, then in the Key Service Centres, followed by a number of designated Local Service Centres and, finally, the smaller villages, hamlets and the open countryside. The Strategy states that approximately 11% of new housing and employment development will be in the network of smaller villages and hamlets. Development boundaries are not identified for these settlements; instead, new, small-scale development, in the form of infilling and rounding-off, will be permitted in order to satisfy local need in the smaller villages and hamlets scattered across the District.

The terms “infilling” and “rounding-off” are defined in paragraph 2.25 of the Core Strategy. Infilling is defined as building taking place on a vacant plot in an otherwise built-up street frontage; rounding-off is defined as the completion of an incomplete group of buildings on land which is already partially developed, in such a way that will either complete the local road pattern or finally define and complete the boundaries of the group.

Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy explains the spatial strategy for the east of the District and, in the context of this current application, makes provision for small-scale

24

housing development in the Local Service Centres and, to a lesser extent, in the smaller rural settlements, such as Millness in order to ensure a readily available supply of affordable housing.

Under Policy CS6.4 (the Rural Exception Policy), housing developments outside of settlement boundaries in the Service Centres and where they do not constitute infilling or rounding-off in the smaller villages and hamlets will only be considered where they provide 100% affordable housing, subject to defined criteria.

On the subject of design, Planning Policy Statement 3 (“Housing”) states that “Design which is inappropriate in its context …. should not be accepted” (paragraph 13). Policy CS8.6 of the Core Strategy requires the siting, design, scale and materials of all developments to be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with the local vernacular tradition. The policy concludes by stating that designs that support and enhance local distinctiveness will be encouraged. Saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan requires all new development to take account of the South Lakeland Design Code.

The protection of residential amenity, in one or more of its various aspects, is a recognised material consideration in deciding whether planning permission should be granted. The Government publication “The Planning System : General Principles” includes, in paragraph 12, impact on the neighbourhood as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT :


ASSESSMENT :

The main planning issues raised by this application are whether, bearing in mind the adopted planning policies for the area, this proposal would unacceptably detract from the character or appearance of this part of Millness and the surrounding countryside; whether the building would detract from the residential enjoyment of the property to the west to an unacceptable degree; and whether the design and scale of the proposed house is appropriate in this particular context.

Policy CS1.2 of the Core Strategy states that new, small-scale development, in the form of infilling and rounding-off, will be permitted in order to satisfy local need in hamlets such as Millness and it is argued in the application that the proposal represents an appropriate form of infill development. This is not, however, the case and the proposed dwellinghouse cannot be regarded as acceptable infilling. Millness consists of small groups of scattered buildings where the acceptance of infill on the application site, and other similar sites, would involve a significant amount of consolidation, which would seriously detract from the rural character of the hamlet and the appearance of the surrounding countryside. As a consequence, planning permission should be refused.

25

The second issue concerns the scale and positioning of the proposed building and its effect on the living conditions currently enjoyed by the occupants of the nearest residential property, 1 Rose Cottages. Although it is the gable end of Rose Cottages that will face the application site, the new building, by reason of its height and overall scale, would appear over-bearing and visually intrusive to the neighbouring occupants. The living conditions of the occupants of this neighbouring property would be significantly harmed by the scale, bulk and position of the proposed dwelling. In this respect, it would amount to poor design which PPS3 indicates should not be accepted.

The third issue concerns the appearance of the new building Saved Policy S2 of the Local Plan states that new buildings should take account of the distinctive local character, should relate effectively to neighbouring buildings and should be well-proportioned and in scale with their surroundings. The explanatory text to Core Strategy Policy CS8.10 indicates that new housing development will be expected to exhibit a form and character appropriate to its setting. Instead, the house will appear as a prominent building contrasting unfavourably with nearby development in terms of its massing, proportions and design. Rather than relating effectively to its surroundings, the new house will dominate this part of Millness. If built, it would have a significant and adverse effect on the appearance and character of the surrounding area, contrary to the aims and objectives of Core Strategy Policy CS8.10, Local Plan Policy S2 and PPS3.

RECOMMENDATION : REFUSE for the following reasons -

(1) The proposed dwelling cannot be regarded as an appropriate form of infilling as permitted by Policy CS1.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy. Millness is comprised of small groups of scattered buildings where the acceptance of development on the application site, and other similar sites, would involve a significant amount of consolidation, which would seriously detract from the rural character of the hamlet and the appearance of the surrounding countryside.

(2) The proposed dwellinghouse would exert an over-bearing and visually intrusive influence on the neighbouring property, 1 Rose Cottages by reason of its scale, bulk and position. As a consequence, the development would be detrimental to the living conditions currently enjoyed by the occupiers of the neighbouring house. In this respect it would constitute poor design which Planning Policy Statement 3 indicates should not be accepted.

(3) The proposed building would appear as a prominent form of development which would dominate this part of Millness. It would be inappropriate in its context and would have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the locality. Consequently, the proposal is in conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy CS8.10 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy, Saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and Planning Policy Statement 3 in respect of good design.

26

SCHEDULE A


SCHEDULE No: 4 SL/2011/0335 KIRKBY LONSDALE: 2 LEYFIELD COURT PROPOSAL: ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS MR I NICHOLSON

25/08/2011 E361269.9 N478244.3

SUMMARY :

The extension above the garage would create a dominant feature that would be over-bearing and visually intrusive when viewed from the adjoining property. REFUSE.


Approval recommended.

OTHER :

An objection has been received from an adjoining householder. The main grounds of complaint can be summarized as follows :

. The extension will be over-bearing in respect of the adjoining house.

. The proposals amount to a virtual rebuild of the property and, as such, represent a huge scale of development rather than an extension.

. The materials of construction that are being proposed clash with the other houses on Leyfield Court.

. The proposal to build up boundary walls requires the consent of all parties involved.


Consideration of this application was deferred at last month’s meeting to enable Members to visit Leyfield Court to see for themselves the position of the extension and its relationship to the adjoining property.

27


Leyfield Court is a row of four houses built in the mid-1980s and located on the west side of the Whittington road to the south of the junction with the A65. The houses are linked by pairs of garages. At the rear, the gardens rise steeply towards a woodland.

The major change proposed by this application is the addition of a first floor extension over the garage. There are also a number of more minor alterations including the introduction of cedar-boarding on the front and rear elevations, changes to the window openings and frames and the installation of rooflights. The extension will cover the full width of the garage, a distance of some 3.5 metres, and will be roofed with slate. The ridge will be 0.5 metre below the main house roof. There are no window openings in the gable elevation of the extension.

POLICY ISSUES :

The protection of residential amenity is a recognised material consideration in deciding whether planning permission should be granted. Paragraph 12 of the Government publication entitled “The Planning System : General Principles” confirms that impact on the neighbourhood is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT :


ASSESSMENT :

The main issue raised by this application is the effect of the extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property, 1 Leyfield Court, by reason of the over-bearing nature of the extension above the garage.

The extension would create a dominant feature by reason of its height and mass and its position on the boundary with No.1. The over-bearing influence of the extension would be exacerbated by the fact that the sitting-out area to the rear of the adjoining property is restricted because of the steeply rising ground that comprises the majority of the garden. In addition, the bedroom window in the gable end of No.1 will be over-shadowed by the first floor extension.

Although the extension is on the north side of the neighbouring house, its bulk and proximity to the side boundary would be oppressive when viewed from the rear garden and the bedroom window, to the detriment of the living conditions enjoyed by the occupiers of that property.

The applicant has made known his disappointment that the revised scheme for the extension is considered to be unacceptable; the extension has been reduced in scale from that originally submitted. He feels that undue weight is given to the effect of the extension on the adjoining property and that the refusal of planning permission would

28

not be consistent with the general approach locally. He cites a number of two-storey extensions built nearby which are considered to be similar to this current proposal.

The factors that have led to the recommendation to refuse planning permission are the close proximity of the extension above the garage to the adjoining house, the steeply rising rear gardens and the restricted sitting-out area. All contribute to a situation whereby the extension will have a materially adverse impact on the occupier of 1 Leyfield Court by exerting an over-bearing dominance.

Having visited the site, Members will have gained an appreciation of the effect of the extension on the adjoining property. Although the extension has been reduced in size from that originally proposed, it will, nevertheless, be visually intrusive from the rear of No. 1 and will exert a harmful influence by reason of its height and close proximity.

RECOMMENDATION : REFUSE for the reason below -

The proposed first floor extension would be visually intrusive and over-bearing because of its height and mass and close proximity to the boundary and would thereby be detrimental to the living conditions currently enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring property, 1 Leyfield Court.

29

SCHEDULE A


SCHEDULE No: 5 SL/2011/0436 CASTERTON: LAND ADJACENT TO CASTERTON GOLF COURSE, CASTERTON PROPOSAL: CHANGE OF USE OF AGRICULTURAL FIELDS TO GOLF COURSE CASTERTON GOLF COURSE

25/08/2011

E362142 N479079

SUMMARY :

Although the golf course extension is within countryside considered to be of National Park quality and is visible from Ruskin’s View, it will not have a significantly harmful effect on the local landscape. The need for the building associated with the practice range has been questioned.

CASTERTON PARISH COUNCIL :

Approve.


To be reported.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS :

The Highways Control Officer has questioned whether : there is sufficient car parking space to meet the needs of the development; vehicles are able to join the A683 in a forward direction; the access is of sufficient width to accommodate additional traffic. The course straddles a bridleway, Laitha Lane, and the rights of users of this public right of way will need to be considered.


The submitted Flood Risk Assessment is appropriate and meets the minimum requirements of PPS25 (Development and Flood Risk).

30

THE RAMBLERS’ ASSOCIATION :

If planning permission is granted, it should include a path along the edge of the golf course adjacent to the roadside hedge. The path would provide a link between the northern end of the Laitha Lane bridleway and the footpath through the grounds of Casterton Hall. The route from Devil’s Bridge, along Laitha Lane and through the Casterton Hall grounds, is well-used but currently involves walking along a stretch of the A683.

FRIENDS OF THE LAKE DISTRICT (CPRE) :

The site lies within the area currently proposed for a western extension to the Yorkshire Dales National Park. The consultation document, produced by Natural England, contains the following description : “Lunesdale is tranquil and has high scenic value with its lowland valley landscape and its many trees acting as a foil to the wider fells to the east. Around Kirkby Lonsdale the views from Lunesdale to the surrounding fells are particularly appealing. The celebrated view painted by Turner and described by Ruskin by the church in Kirkby Lonsdale has a foreground of the island in the middle of the Lune, the river and the floodplain farmland and enclosing estate woodlands of Casterton and Underley Halls.”

The importance of conserving local landscape character is recognised by Core Strategy Policy CS8.2. This policy states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, distinctive landscape character types.

Saved Local Plan Policy L7 states that golf courses will be permitted subject to six criteria, including landscape impact and enjoyment of the public right of way network. The supporting text recognises that a restrictive approach to the development of new golf courses is appropriate, in the light of the impact that this type of development can have upon the local landscape. Paragraph 6.13 states that “The Local Planning Authority will, therefore, seek to protect the district’s landscapes from insensitive golf course developments.” Paragraph 6.14 continues : “The siting of golf courses needs particular attention. An intimate landscape with small fields, prominent valley sides or exposed locations may well be totally unsuitable for the imposition of the manicured greens and fairways of a golf course.”

FoLD wish to highlight a number of concerns in regard to the above guidance :

(1) new golf courses can have a significant landscape impact through the formalisation of extensive tracts of undeveloped farmland to provide manicured fairways, tees and greens.

(2) the type and level of use will become more intensive and and recreational in nature.

(3) the golf course will formalise a large area of pastoral land in a prominent valleyside location.

(4) a section of hedgerow will be lost.

(5) a new building will be erected.

(6) the positioning of boundary markers on the practice range (although theses are not specified in the application).

The applicant’s Landscape and Visual Assessment does not mention the National Park boundary review. In FoLD’s opinion, the significance of the view from Kirkby

31

Lonsdale is key in the assessment of this proposal. The golf course and practice range are clearly visible from this point and from a notable section of the well-used public footpath. The development is likely to result in a significant visual impact. This is due to the sensitivity of the landscape, which has been adjudged to be of National Park quality, and of receptors, who have come to appreciate this landscape from a culturally renowned viewpoint.

OTHER :

Two objections have been received, one on behalf of Kirkby Lonsdale Golf Club. The main grounds of objection can be summarized as follows :

(1) There is a danger that the provision of further golf facilities, in a relatively lightly populated area such as the Lune Valley, can only have an adverse impact on the well-being of Kirkby Lonsdale Golf Club.

(2) Although it is understood that competition is not a matter into which planning can normally become involved, it is important to recognise that the protection of existing recreational facilities is a planning matter and that anything that puts the future of the well-established golf course at Kirkby Lonsdale in doubt should be carefully considered.

(3) Car parking at the Casterton Golf Course is frequently inadequate and vehicles are parked on the adjacent field. With the additional facility it seems likely that there will be a shortage of parking space.

(4) There will be a significant change to the character of Laitha Lane, the bridleway that runs immediately alongside the proposed driving range. The change is two-fold : the danger that golf balls will be hit over the top of the hedge and fence, and noise. A driving range is inevitably a quite noisy activity. The bridleway will be adversely affected in terms of its amenity as a consequence of the driving range.

(5) The application site is within an area currently proposed for inclusion in the Yorkshire Dales National Park, where landscape quality and the enjoyment of its special qualities are the prime duties of a planning authority in administering such areas.

(6) The new golf course will have a significant visual impact from Ruskin’s View; an important viewpoint enjoyed by many who visit Kirkby Lonsdale.

(7) Three of the tees are close to the A683. Being a short course it is likely to be used by inexperienced golfers who will hook or slice the ball more often than more experienced players. This will lead to an additional danger to road users but may also lead to requests for high fencing along the roadside.


Members have visited this site.


Casterton Golf Club lies in the open countryside between Devil’s Bridge and Casterton. This current application proposes the creation of a new, 9-hole, par three golf course which will operate alongside the existing course offering an alternative to

32

the traditional long game. The site comprises three fields which are currently used for grazing and which are separated from the present golf course by a bridleway, Laitha Lane. It is bounded to the north and west by the A683 and by a field and the Woodclose Caravan Park to the south. There is a small copse of pine trees at the northern end near to the golf course car park and, at the southern end, there is deciduous woodland between the caravan park and the A683. Within the site are several mature trees and managed hedgerows.

The golf course extension comprises nine holes, a practice range and a practice range building. No earthworks are proposed for the 9-hole golf course although there are some grading works alongside the bridleway associated with the practice range. The course will be created by mowing the existing grassland and by using the present landforms. The 7-bay practice range building is to be built at the northern end and adjacent to the bridleway. It is semi-circular in plan and will cover a floor area measuring 22.5 metres by 6 metres and will stand 5 metres high at the front and 3 metres high at the rear. It is to be covered with a mono-pitched sedum roofing system. The end walls are to be stone-faced and the rear wall finished with a roughcast render. Roller shutters are to be fixed to the front of the bays. A 2.7 metre high chain-linked fence is to be erected alongside the bridleway which forms the eastern boundary of the practice range.

The practice range requires the removal of a 76 metre length of hedgerow. In mitigation, a 113 metre long hedgerow is to be planted along the western edge of the practice range, the hedgerow along Laitha Lane is to be maintained at a height of three metres and a total of 1.2 ha of broadleaved woodland is to be planted.

POLICY ISSUES :

Saved Policy L7 of the South Lakeland Local Plan states that, outside the Arnside – Silverdale AONB, golf courses and driving ranges will be permitted providing that :

(a) there is no significant adverse impact on the existing landscape or nature conservation interests;

(b) appropriate new landscaping will be carried out as part of the course construction;

(c) satisfactory access and car-parking arrangements can be achieved;

(d) the proposal does not result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land;

(e) there would be no adverse impact on archaeological sites or water courses;

(f) there would be no other effect on the enjoyment of the public rights of way network.

The explanatory text to Policy L7 states that the LPA will seek to protect the District’s landscapes from insensitive golf course developments particularly in the Arnside – Silverdale AONB. Only where a developer can demonstrate that a course will make a positive enhancement to the landscape quality of an area will proposals be considered favourably. The siting of golf courses needs particular attention. An intimate landscape with small fields, prominent valley sides, or exposed locations may be totally unsuitable for the imposition of the manicured greens and fairways of golf courses.

33

Saved Local Plan Policy L10 seeks to maintain and protect existing and proposed rights of way from any development that would adversely affect their character.

The importance of conserving local landscape character is recognised by Policy CS8.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy. The policy states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive landscape character types throughout the District. The supporting text to Policy CS8.2 states that “High priority must be given to the protection, conservation and enhancement of this landscape character and new development should be well designed and help to sustain and / or create landscapes with a strong sense of place and local identity.”

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT :


ASSESSMENT :

The main issue raised by this application is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the local landscape, the quality of which is indicated by its inclusion within an area currently proposed as a western extension of the Yorkshire Dales National Park.

The application site is within the open countryside to the south of Casterton and is bounded by the existing golf course, the A683 and, to the south, the Wood Close Cararvan Park. It can be seen from Ruskin’s View at Kirkby Lonsdale although it is not central to the celebrated view which is both visually outstanding and culturally important.

Golf courses and driving ranges can alter the character of an area through the scale of the development, engineering operations, the alteration in ground contours, the introduction of grass-cutting regimes and the greater activity associated with a golf course compared to agricultural land. In this instance, the ground levels are to remain largely unchanged but the grass will be mown regularly and the driving range building, notwithstanding its sedum-covered roof, will be prominent in the landscape. The fact that the new golf course is adjacent to the existing course will assist in its assimilation into the landscape as will the broad-leaved tree planting.

Apart from the practice range building, the development will not have a significant adverse impact on, nor be seriously detrimental to, the character and appearance of the local landscape. It will not, however, make a positive enhancement to the landscape quality of the area as indicated by saved Policy L7 of the Local Plan. By virtue of the distance involved, it is unlikely that the golf course extension will detract to a significant extent from the outlook from Ruskin’s View but the practice range building will be noticeable. Overall, with the exception of the building, the golf course extension is compatible with the objectives of Policy L7 and Core Strategy Policy CS8.2. The need for the building has been queried with the applicant.

Aside from landscape impact, the development raises four other matters : the adequacy of the golf course car park; the impact of the golf course extension on

34

users of the bridleway; the provision of a footpath on the inside of the roadside hedge; and the ecological impact.

The present car park, adjacent to the club-house, together with the grass-surfaced extension will generally be of sufficient size to accommodate the vehicles generated by the expanded golf course. Special events and competitions may, on occasion, require overspill parking on the adjacent course.

Laitha Lane, a bridleway, passes alongside the current western boundary of the golf course and will form the eastern boundary of the course extension and the practice range. The extended golf course should not affect its character or recreational enjoyment. The provision of a footpath alongside the new course, suggested by the Ramblers’ Association, is being considered by the applicant.

In terms of ecology, the planting of a species-rich replacement hedgerow will provide greater species diversity and the new areas of woodland planting will introduce new habitats.

Although the golf course extension is part of a landscape considered to be of National Park quality and is visible from Ruskin’s View, the scale and nature of the development is such that it will not have a significant adverse effect on the surrounding countryside. There are no substantial engineering operations or earthworks and the ground levels are to be largely unchanged. The character of the site will change from agricultural to recreational and there will more activity in evidence but, in the context of the current golf course, the change in character and appearance can be absorbed into the wider landscape. The physical prominence of the driving range building is, however, a cause for concern and the need for this structure has been raised with the applicant.

RECOMMENDATION :

The Corporate Director (Communities) will report on the outcome of negotiations in respect of the practice range building.

35

SCHEDULE A


SCHEDULE No: 6 SL/2011/0439 GRANGE OVER SANDS: PENGARTH, ASHMOUNT ROAD, GRANGE over SANDS PROPOSAL: DEMOLITION OF DWELLING AND OUTBUILDINGS; ERECTION OF FIVE DETACHED DWELLINGS AND ALTERATION TO ACCESS DRIVE RUSSELL ARMER LTD

25/08/2011 E340097 N478097

SUMMARY:

The site is within the Development Boundary of Grange-over-Sands, where the development of large sites may be permitted if they are considered to meet local needs. In this case, the scheme fails to provide a mix of house types as required by Policy CS6.2 of the Core Strategy. The scheme proposes five large four bed detached houses. Without a mix which helps to meet the identified shortfall within the Housing Needs and market Assessment, the development of this site cannot be justified. REFUSE.

GRANGE-OVER-SANDS TOWN COUNCIL:

The Town Council objects to the proposal on the following grounds:

• The retained beech tree places severe constraints on construction works and is thus at risk of being permanently damaged.

• The proximity of the beech tree to the two adjacent houses is likely to lead to occupants seeking its removal or excessive pruning in the future.

• The proposed building work is likely to increase the flood risk to lower lying properties in the area, and surface water run-off should not be permitted to drain into the main sewer.

• The development would have an adverse impact on the ecology of the site and its immediate surroundings.

• There are shortcomings with the access and site lines.

• There are limitations regarding the capability of Ashmount Road to handle the construction traffic during development, and the additional traffic movements following completion and occupation.

36

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS:

A section of Ashmount Road leading to the site is narrow though straight and flat which aids inter visibility and there are sufficient informal places for vehicles to pass for the scale of the development proposed. The proposed five dwellings are acceptable to Cumbria Highways provided that the access drive remains privately maintained.

The Highway Authority would not support a development larger than the five dwellings proposed without the provision of additional passing places on Ashmount Road.

Conditions with regard to the visibility splay onto Ashmount Road, The Highway Boundary, provision of turning areas within the site, surfacing of the access. Surface water drainage and access gates have been requested.

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER:

Surface water drainage to a soakaway is suitable. A detailed plan is however required.

UNITED UTILITIES:

No objections provided that the surface water is not allowed to discharge to the foul/combined sewer.

NATURAL ENGLAND:

The response from Natural England refers to standing advice and the surveys have not been assessed. It is noted however, that further surveys and mitigation may be required with regard to reptiles.

CUMBRIA WILDLIFE TRUST:

There are a number of ecological constraints on the site. The ecological report details a method statement to mitigate the losses of habitat and to enhance biodiversity. If the application is approved, a condition should be placed on the planning permission which ensures that the actions within the method statement are implemented. This should ensure that there is no net loss of biodiversity when the development is carried out.

TREE OFFICER:

The proposal will require the removal of 12 trees. The applicant proposes to plant 18 replacement trees to mitigate their removal. None of the trees proposed for removal are significant enough to need protection or to constrain the development. The scheme proposes to retain a Beech tree within the site. The tree is a significant, prominent tree and a Tree Preservation Order has been made to ensure its retention and protection during the development. The tree protection measures detailed within the Pre-development Arboricultural Report for the remaining retained trees are adequate and should be enforced by the usual planning conditions.

37

OTHER:

Letters of comment have been received from three nearby residents. None of them object to the scheme but the following requests have been made:

• Disturbance during construction is kept to a minimum and Ashmount Road is kept clean;

• Ashmount Road is resurfaced and speed bumps included;

• The street lighting is enhanced.

A letter of objection has been received from one resident on Fellside Court. The reasons for objection include the loss of trees which affects the character of the area, the site can be seen from nearby footpaths, the limestone pavement may extend into the lawn, there are bats roosting in the building and other protected species in the area and Ashmount Road is a single track road which cannot sustain further traffic.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT:

Planning permission was granted in 1980 for the change of use of the dwelling to a nursing home. The building was used as such during the 1980’s and 1990’s. The use ceased and the property reverted to a house, however there was no planning permission for this change.

There have been various applications for residential development on the site in the past. Some of these applications included the limestone pavement and woodland to the southeast of the site. Planning permission was refused for these schemes.


The scheme proposes to demolish the house and erect five large detached houses within the garden. A number of trees have already been removed from the site and further trees and shrubs would need to be removed. The scheme does however propose to retain the mature beech tree on the site which is now the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. The scheme includes some minor improvements to the access drive from Ashmount Road, but the limestone pavement and woodland to the south of the drive would not be altered.

POLICY ISSUES:

Planning Policy Statements (PPS)

PPS 1 – delivering Sustainable Development

PPS1 states that good planning ensures that we get the right development, in the right place and helps to deliver homes and opportunities for all. Planning should promote sustainable development and the efficient use of land.

PPS 3 – Housing

The PPS requires Local Planning Authorities to demonstrate that appropriate measures are introduced to improve housing land supply. Paragraph 71 of PPS3 states that where Local Planning Authorities cannot demonstrate an up to date 5 year supply of deliverable sites they should consider favourably planning applications for housing of an appropriate scale and in sustainable locations.

38

The PPS states that a key characteristic of a mixed community is a variety of housing, particularly in terms of the tenure, price and mix of different households. Local Planning Authorities should plan for a mix of housing types based on Strategic Housing Market Assessments. For small sites, a mix of housing should contribute to the creation of mixed communities having regard to the proportions of households that require market housing in the locality.

PPS 9 – Biological and Geological Conservation

The PPS sets out policies for the protection of biodiversity.

The NW Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)

The RSS is still a material consideration. The RSS requires Local Planning Authorities to ensure an appropriate level of housing supply and seeks to concentrate development in Key Service Centres.

Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan

Saved Policy ST5 designates Grange-over-Sands as a Key Service Centre where development should be focused.

South Lakeland Core Strategy

Policies CS1.1 and CS1.2 promote sustainable development within Key Service Centres. Policy CS4 states that provision will be made for moderate housing development within Grange-over-Sands, prioritising developed land and sites within the urban areas. Policy CS6.6 seeks effective use of land with an average density of 30 dwellings per hectare.

Policy CS6.2 seeks a mixture of dwelling sizes taking into account the housing requirements. The Housing Needs and Market Assessment analysed the general market pressures and indicated the types of properties in short supply. The Assessment indicates that in Grange-over-Sands there is a shortage of bungalows (Table 4.27) and generally throughout the District there is a greater need for 3 bed units (Table 4.25). Policy CS6.3 seeks the provision of affordable housing on schemes of over nine dwellings within the Key Service Centres.

Policy CS8.4 states that development should protect biodiversity value and protect habitats. Policy CS8.7 states that new development should meet the Code for Sustainable Homes as required by Building Regulations.

Policy CS8.10 seeks to promote good design which maintains or enhances the quality of the area.

Policy CS10.2 promotes development which reduces the need to travel, has safe access to the highway network and where the road network can accommodate the additional traffic.

South Lakeland Local Plan

Saved Policy H5 of the Local Plan indicates that Grange-over-Sands is a settlement suitable for growth. The site is within the development boundary however the size of

39

the site exceeds the threshold for small scale development given in the accompanying text. Saved Policy H7 of the Local Plan states that exceptionally sites which would not otherwise be permitted for housing will be permitted where it will meet an identified local need, the developer or landowner enters into an agreement to provide affordable housing and local occupancy, it cannot be provided in any other way and the site is adjoining an existing settlement and the proposal is sympathetic to its scale and character.

Saved Policy C10 seeks to protect species and their habitat.

Policy S3 of the Local Plan requires a high standard of landscaping, and S18 seeks to ensure that there is an appropriate relationship between trees and buildings. Policy S10 seeks to ensure appropriate car parking provision.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT:


ASSESSMENT:

Grange-over-Sands is designated as a Key Service Centre by Policy ST5 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan where Regional and Structure Plan policies seek to focus new development. The Local Planning Authority is required to show that it is considering methods to bring forward housing development and improve land supply. Suitable sites outside Settlement Development Boundaries and larger sites within the boundaries should now be favourably considered, in order to improve supply and conform with PPS3 and the RSS.

The site is on the edge of, but within the Development Boundary of Grange-over-Sands. The land to the east of Ashmount Road is fairly densely developed but this becomes more sporadic along the eastern side adjacent to the site. While on the edge of the town, the town’s scale allows easy access to main roads and there are nearby footpath links down into the centre. Part of the site forms previously developed land. Redevelopment of this area is therefore sequentially preferable in terms of Policy CS1.1 of the Core Strategy. Development of the remainder of the garden area would result in a development which is appropriate in terms of the location. The principle of development on the site therefore conforms with planning policies.

The proposed development is however of a lower density than required by Policy CS6.6 and does not include a range of housing types as required by Policy CS6.2. Ashmount Road is narrow with substandard passing places. While the Highway Authority is of the opinion Ashmount Road is suitable to accommodate the development as proposed, the Authority would object to an increase in units without the provision of passing places. The access drive from Ashmount Road is also restricted in terms of the gradient and width. The improvements needed to create passing places on Ashmount Road, reduce the gradient and increase the width of the driveway would require removal of limestone pavement and naturally regenerated woodland. The woodland along Ashmount Road and to the south of the driveway is

40

a locally important habitat and such alterations would have a significant impact. Such alterations could not be carried out by the Developer as the woodland is not within their control. Due to the highway restrictions, the provision of a low density development is therefore justified.

The proposed dwellings are all large four bedroom units. The Housing Needs and Market Assessment indicates a shortfall of bungalows in Grange-over-Sands and a general shortfall of three bedroom dwellings throughout the District. Developers are generally reluctant to include bungalows within schemes due to the poor use of land. However, the low density development of this planning application provides an opportunity to meet some of the shortfall of bungalows. The development of five large detached four bedroom houses on this site will not meet the requirements of Policy CS6.2.

The layout is appropriate in terms of the site and surroundings. The proposals will protect the Beech tree, retain the buffer of trees around the site and will not affect the limestone pavement and naturally regenerated woodland along Ashmount Road. The design and position of the houses ensure that habitable rooms will not be adversely affected by the retention of the trees and it is therefore unlikely that consent would be granted for the removal of the protected tree in the future. Wildlife and habitat surveys have been carried out and mitigation strategies provided. The scheme will protect the habitats around the site and mitigation strategies will ensure that biodiversity and species are not harmed. The proposal will therefore meet the requirements of the Habitats Directive, PPS9 and local policies.

The layout, density and the detailed design is appropriate in the context of the surroundings. The relationship of the houses and drive with the nearby dwellings is appropriate in terms of privacy and amenity.

In conclusion, the proposed development is appropriate in terms of the additional traffic on Ashmount Road and the driveway, the low density is justified and the layout and design is appropriate. The only issue outstanding is the type of dwellings proposed and in particular the lack of bungalows in this low density development. As only large detached houses are proposed the scheme fails to provide a mixture of dwelling types as required by Policy CS6.2 and makes no effort to meet any of the shortfall identified by the Housing Needs and Market Assessment. The application should therefore be refused.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below:

The proposed scheme fails to offer a range of house sizes and types or to provide dwellings of a type that will meet the identified shortfall in market housing in the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the advice given in Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing, and Policy CS6.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.

41

SCHEDULE A


SCHEDULE No: 7 SL/2011/0490 ALDINGHAM: LAND ADJACENT, BEECH MOUNT, GOADSBARROW PROPOSAL: TWO DWELLINGS MRS CLARE WORRALL

25/08/2011 E326108.6 N468256.2

SUMMARY:

Outline application for the construction of two detached dwellings on part of a field, located on the Coast Road to the south of the small hamlet of Goadsbarrow. Does not fall within the definition of infilling and rounding off, contrary to policy. Refuse.

ALDINGHAM PARISH COUNCIL:

No objections. The plans had been presented to the Council for comment prior to the formal application and the Council has since made a visit to the site.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS:

Recommends a number of conditions to be attached to any approval including the provision of parking and turning area, gradient and surfacing of driveways, surface water drainage and gates.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER:

A condition should be attached requiring details of the foul water drainage works to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

OTHER:

Two letters of objection have been received from neighbouring residents. Their concerns are as follows:

• The development would result in an intrusion, loss of privacy and overshadowing of the adjacent dwelling.

42

• The two storey design of the houses is not in keeping with the rest of the hamlet.

• The addition of two new driveways onto a fast a dangerous road would be unwise and lead to an increased safety problem for road users and pedestrians.

• Would the bus stop require repositioning?

• The development will exceed the restrictions in the Core Strategy relating to infilling and rounding off. It will result in “ribbon development”.

• This is not a vacant plot, it is open countryside.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT:

A total of eight planning applications have been submitted and refused for residential development on this site since 1975. Two appeals have also been dismissed, most recently in 2001 for a single bungalow. The reason for refusal in 2001 was as follows:

The proposed development would be contrary to Policy H6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan which states that residential development in the open countryside will not normally be permitted unless it can be shown that it is essential to the needs of agriculture or forestry or that there are other exceptional circumstances which would warrant the grant of planning permission. The Local Planning Authority considers in this particular case no agricultural or other exceptional circumstances exist which would justify the grant of planning permission.

In dismissing the appeal, the inspector stated that he considered the land between “Beech Mount” and “Comfort Cottage” too large to be seen as a small gap or infill plot within the built up area of Goadsbarrow. He concluded that rather than infilling a gap the appeal site’s development would be a significant extension of an existing ribbon of dwellings on the roadside between the site and Long Lane.


Goadsbarrow is a small hamlet which comprises a short row of five dwellings fronting onto the A5087, known locally as the Coast Road. A further group of dwellings are located inland along Long Lane to the north centred on a former farmstead. The site forms the larger part of a rectangular shaped field which fronts directly onto the Coast Road to the south of Beech Mount, the most southerly of the dwellings. A property known as Comfort Cottage is located to the south of the site, with High Roosebeck Farm beyond. The gap which contains the application site between Beech Mount and Comfort Cottage is approximately 70metres.

This outline application relates to the construction of two detached dwellings on the site. The indicative plans show two storey, three bedroomed properties with an attached garage. These would be positioned towards the frontage of the site, each with access and turning areas directly onto the Coast Road. The properties would be served by a new septic tank although details have not been supplied at this stage.

In support of the application, the agent states that the proposed dwellings would be occupied by two members of a family who have strong local connections to Goadsbarrow and whose parents have lived in the hamlet for 30 years. The

43

applicant’s brother currently operates a landscaping business in Goadsbarrow and it would be beneficial to live closer to the business.

POLICY ISSUES:

The South Lakeland Core Strategy was adopted in October last year. The Development Strategy (Policy CS1.2) explains that development will be concentrated in Kendal and Ulverston, then in the Key Service Centres, followed by a number of designated Local Service Centres and, finally, the smaller villages, hamlets and the open countryside. The Strategy states that approximately 11% of new housing and employment development will be in the network of smaller villages and hamlets. Development boundaries are not identified for these settlements; instead, new, small-scale development, in the form of infilling and rounding-off, will be permitted in order to satisfy local need in the smaller villages and hamlets scattered across the District.

The terms “infilling” and “rounding-off” are defined in paragraph 2.25 of the Core Strategy. Infilling is defined as building taking place on a vacant plot in an otherwise built-up street frontage; rounding-off is defined as the completion of an incomplete group of buildings on land which is already partially developed, in such a way that will either complete the local road pattern or finally define and complete the boundaries of the group.

Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy explains the spatial strategy for the west of the District and, in the context of this current application, makes provision for small-scale housing development in the Local Service Centres and, to a lesser extent, in the smaller rural settlements in order to ensure a readily available supply of affordable housing.

Policy CS6.4 relates to the rural exceptions policy, whereby housing development proposals outside development boundaries and not constituting infilling and rounding off will only be considered where they provide 100% affordable housing.

On the subject of design, Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing) states that “Design which is inappropriate in its context …. should not be accepted” (paragraph 13). Policy CS8.6 of the Core Strategy requires the siting, design, scale and materials of all developments to be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and, where appropriate, should be in keeping with the local vernacular tradition. The policy concludes by stating that designs that support and enhance local distinctiveness will be encouraged. Saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan requires all new development to take account of the South Lakeland Design Code.

The protection of residential amenity, in one or more of its various aspects, is a recognised material consideration in deciding whether planning permission should be granted. The Government publication “The Planning System : General Principles” includes, in paragraph 12, impact on the neighbourhood as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT:

This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of

44

possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT:

The main planning issues raised by this application are whether the proposal can be regarded as appropriate infilling or rounding off of Goadsbarrow, bearing in mind the adopted planning policies for the area; whether the building would detract from the residential enjoyment of the property to the west to an unacceptable degree; and whether the design and scale of the proposed dwellings are appropriate in this particular context.

Policy CS1.2 of the Core Strategy states that new, small-scale development, in the form of infilling and rounding-off, will be permitted in order to satisfy local need in hamlets and small villages. The definition of infilling and rounding off is clearly set out in the Core Strategy:

Infilling: Building taking place on a vacant plot in an otherwise built-up street frontage.

Rounding off: The completion of an incomplete group of buildings on land which is already partially developed, in such a way that will either complete the local road pattern or finally define and complete the boundaries of the group. Such rounding off should not:

• change or distort the character or tradition of the group or the settlement in any undesirable way;

• extend the grouping in such a manner that, when the development has taken place, undeveloped areas remain or further land is opened up where pressure for development is likely to occur.

Goadsbarrow consists of a short row of dwellings fronting onto the coast Road and a separate grouping inland to the north. It does not form a coherent group of properties as a whole. The site itself comprises part of a larger area of open greenfield land. It is argued in the application that the proposal would be a logical rounding off of Goadsbarrow between existing dwellings fronting the Coast Road. However it is considered that the proposed dwellings could not be described as infilling of a vacant plot and would result in an undesirable extension of the settlement leading to pressure for further development on the adjacent land. It does therefore not constitute acceptable infilling or rounding off as defined in the Core Strategy.

The second issue concerns the scale and positioning of the proposed building and its effect on the living conditions currently enjoyed by the occupants of the nearest residential property, Beech Mount. This property is set back from the road frontage and is positioned close to the rear boundary of the site. The scale and position of the proposed northernmost dwelling is such that it would have an adverse impact on the privacy and amenity of the occupants of this property.

The third issue relates to the proposed scale and form of the development. Although the proposal is in outline form, the proposal involves the construction of two relatively substantial two storey dwellings. With the exception of Beech Mount which is set back from the road frontage, the other properties fronting onto the coast road are single or one and a half storeys. Saved Policy S2 of the Local Plan states that new buildings should take account of the distinctive local character, should relate effectively to neighbouring buildings and should be well-proportioned and in scale

45

with their surroundings. The explanatory text to Core Strategy Policy CS8.10 indicates that new housing development will be expected to exhibit a form and character appropriate to its setting. Instead, the houses will appear as a prominent buildings unrelated to nearby development in terms of its massing, proportions and design. Rather than relating effectively to its surroundings, the new houses will dominate this part of Goadsbarrow. If built, it would have a significant and adverse effect on the appearance and character of the surrounding area, contrary to the aims and objectives of Core Strategy Policy CS8.10.

The applicant’s local connection to the area is noted, but in this case it is considered that these personal circumstances do not outweigh the harm that this proposal would have on the character and appearance of the locality.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the following reasons -

(1) The proposed dwellings cannot be regarded as an appropriate form of rounding off as permitted by Policy CS1.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy. The development would result in a significant extension of an existing ribbon of dwellings on the roadside between the site and Long Lane, which would seriously detract from the rural character of the hamlet and the appearance of the surrounding countryside. The acceptance of development on this site could lead to pressure for further development on adjacent sites to the detriment of the locality.

(2) The proposed northernmost dwelling would exert an over-bearing and visually intrusive influence on the neighbouring property, Beech Mount by reason of its scale, bulk and position. As a consequence, the development would be detrimental to the living conditions currently enjoyed by the occupiers of the neighbouring house.

(3) The proposed dwellings would appear as a prominent form of development which would dominate this part of Goadsbarrow. It would be inappropriate in its context and would have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the locality. Consequently, the proposal is in conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy CS8.10 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy, Saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan and Planning Policy Statement 3 in respect of good design.

46

SCHEDULE A


SCHEDULE No: 8 SL/2011/0494 and SL/2011/0495 KENDAL: THE MINT CAKE WORKS, CROSS LANE PROPOSAL: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING; ERECTION OF SIX TERRACED DWELLINGS AND CONVERSION OF BUILDING TO HOUSE JE WILSON & SONS (KENDAL) LTD

25/08/2011 E351479.1 N492112.3

SUMMARY:

The proposals will provide funds for the business to relocate to more suitable premises and will enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area without adversely affecting residential amenity.

KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL:

The Town Council recommends refusal of the application as the Design and Access Statement does not include a Sustainability Statement as required by Policy CS8.7. It is also disappointed that no affordable housing is provided. Whilst appreciating that Policy CS6.3 only applies to developments of nine or more units within the town, the Town Council would like to see at least two of the seven units being offered as affordable.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS:

This is a town centre location where there is no requirement to provide parking. There may be an increased likelihood of vehicles parking on the public highway on the development side of Cross Lane in poor locations. The applicant should consider providing funds with a view to providing suitable traffic regulation orders on the pubic highway on the development site of Cross Lane.

The plans indicate a small road widening on the junction of Cross Lane and Brockbeck this is acceptable but the highway must be treated with appropriate materials. Conditions with regard to surfacing and surface water drainage have been requested.

47

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER:

To be reported.

SLDC CONSERVATION OFFICER:

Given the preserved significance of the western elevation the whole of this elevation together with the taller southern unit and the bulk of the southern gable wall should be retained. If there are material reasons why this is not practicable this must be more clearly evidenced in the supporting information.

I understand the reasons for the desire to demolish the eastern elevation and believe that a persuasive case has been made for this aspect of the proposals. With regard to the proposed design for this side of the building, and to its overall form and appearance I can confirm that in general terms this is deemed to be acceptable in terms of scale and height and that the reduced massing proposed assists in making the building’s form sit well in the area. I have greater reservations over the organisation of the main elevation and find its appearance a little too busy and over fenestrated, especially given the relatively spartan nature of other industrial buildings nearby so that it is not completely in keeping with the character and distinctiveness of this part of the Conservation Area. This seems to be a particular problem at eaves height where the series of flat roofed dormers feels a little overwhelming and I would wish to encourage design mitigation in connection with this that looks at alternate options for lighting the upper rooms.

CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL, HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER:

A condition requiring a Level 2 recording of the building before demolition has been requested.

OTHER:

One letter of objection has been received from a nearby resident. The objection relates to the lack of car parking proposed. It is stated that parking is very limited in this area with residents parking permits being withdrawn in 2009. It is already impossible to park in this area. The application acknowledges that the site is constrained, that the access road is narrow and there have been complaints about the traffic generated by the business. These problems only apply during the working day and will apply to the domestic use for the full 24 hours. The road will be blocked every time someone stops to drop or pick something up.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT:

The site has been operated by JE Wilson/Creative Confectionary for many years. The main building was constructed over 100 years ago and has undergone many alterations. The Cross Lane premises are difficult to work because there is no outdoor space adjacent to the building and loading takes place straight off the street. Emissions from the business are in close proximity to residential properties and there have been complaints about traffic generation, noise and odour over the years. The development is sought to facilitate the move away from the site to more appropriate premises at the Mainline Industrial Estate where some of the business already takes

48

place.


The site is located on Cross Lane, Kendal. The building was constructed over 100 years ago and is of a simple industrial design. It is constructed of stone and slate construction with a number of blocked up windows at ground floor but a few openings above. There are residential properties to the rear of the site, further along Cross Lane and a development of five dwellings is currently being constructed on the opposite side of Cross Lane.

The site has been used by J E Wilson and Creative Confectionary in connection with a newer building on the opposite site of Cross Lane. During the working day the operations at the factory spill out onto Cross Lane with vehicle movements and deliveries. Complaints have been received over the years with regard to noise, odours and traffic. In some cases no action has been sought and other issues have been resolved with the installation of new fans and other works.

It is proposed to demolish the main building running along Cross Lane but retain the rear wall and the three storey building adjacent to Capper Close. The three storey building would be converted into a dwelling with external alterations. A row of six terraced houses would be erected along Cross Lane. The terrace would be narrower than the factory building with the front of the houses being set back 2.5 metres from Cross Lane behind small front gardens. The eaves and ridge heights would also be reduced. Two of the dwellings would have stone gable fronts and the remainder a mixture of stone and roughcast with dormers at first floor.

POLICY ISSUES:

The site is within the Kendal Conservation Area. Policy CS8.6 of the Core Strategy and Saved Policy C16 of the Local Plan reflect the statutory duty of the Local Planning Authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character of a Conservation Area.

Saved Policy E6 of the Local Plan allows the change of use of employment premises where the existing or proposed use is unneighbourly or the firm would move to a more viable location.

Saved Policy H4 of the Local Plan supports small-scale residential development in Kendal providing it does not remove important open space.

Policies CS1.1 and CS1.2 of the Core Strategy promote sustainable development and the reuse/redevelopment of brownfield sites. Policy CS2 encourages a mix of development within Kendal to enhance the role as a Principle Service Centre.

Policy CS6.1 requires the provision of a mixture of dwelling sizes within new development and Policy CS6.3 requires that in developments of nine or more dwellings at least 35% are affordable. Policy CS8.7 requires development to meet the Code for Sustainable Homes as required by Building Regulations.

Policy CS8.10 of the Core Strategy and Saved Policy S2 of the Local Plan seek to ensure that development is appropriate in terms of the context.

Cock Beck flows into the River Kent a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which are protected by Saved Policies C6 and C7 of the Local Plan. Policy CS8.4 also seeks to protect biodiversity.

49

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT:


ASSESSMENT:

In the past the Cross Lane and adjoining Buttery Well area has had significant commercial and industrial uses most of which have now re-sited or ceased. Creative Confectionary represents the last of such uses but the modern deliveries and equipment do have an impact on the nearby houses. The proposed development is a speculative one which seeks to establish an appropriate development that would enable the sale of the building and re-location to the Mainline Industrial Estate near Milnthorpe. The modern mix of industry and dwellings is considered unneighbourly and a potential source of conflict. In these circumstances the principle of the loss of employment premises and conversion to residential use is considered acceptable.

The key aspects of the proposal for assessment are therefore whether the design is appropriate in terms of the impact on the Conservation Area and neighbouring residential property, and the impact on the highway.

The proposal retains the majority of the rear elevation including the openings and the larger building. Amendments to either retain the southern elevation of the main building or justification for its demolition have been requested. The layout of the development will reflect the historic form, however amendments with regard to the detailing to reflect the Conservation Officer’s concerns have been requested. Alterations are likely to include an increase in the eaves and ridge height. This will allow replacement of the dormers with windows which sit under the eaves. The horizontal split in the materials may also be removed and a single stone or roughcast finish used on the front elevation of each dwelling. Demolition of part of the building as proposed and the re-development, subject to changes in the design, will enhance the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area.

The reduction in the height and mass of the building will improve the relationship with Capper Close to the rear and the residential development currently being carried out on land opposite. The openings on the rear will be retained but filled in with glass blocks to prevent overlooking into the gardens at Capper Close. The scheme does however include lounge windows at ground floor which in some cases are located opposite kitchen windows within the development opposite at a distance of 7.7 metres and across Brockbeck at a distance of approximately nine metres. The architect is carrying out amendments which include handing the windows on the front elevations to provide a more acute angle between the windows and reducing the size of windows facing across Brockbeck. While, the distance between habitable room windows will still be close this is not an unusual relationship within the Yards in the Kendal Conservation Area. The dwellings opposite on Cross Lane are mainly orientated in the opposite direction. Provided that these alterations are carried out, the proposal will not adversely affect privacy and the amenity of the area will be improved.

The site is within a town centre location with the nearest public car park 150 metres away from the site at Peppercorn Lane on the opposite side of Kirkland. The

50

residential development is within a sustainable location where car parking provision would not normally be necessary. It would be possible to reduce the number of units proposed and include some parking accessed off Cross Street. However, this would result in parking in a prominent position and a less attractive development. The applicant has also advised that a reduction in the number of units may reduce the viability of the scheme and the ability to relocate. Given the sustainable location and the impact on the appearance of the development, no financial evidence has been requested to support this assertion.

The implications upon Cross Lane do however require careful consideration. There are a number of dwellings which have parking provision accessed via Cross Lane, including the new development opposite. Cross Lane is narrow with a width of only 3.9 metres at one point. If new residents were to park on Cross Lane in front of the development this would block access to other residential parking areas. The Highway Authority would not wish to see Cross Lane widened to allow for on-street parking but suggest the provision of double yellow lines across the front of the development should be provided.

The impact of parking on Cross Lane should be weighed against the current use of the building and the use of Cross Lane for deliveries. The business does block the road regularly during the day. However, at these times people are at the site and vehicles can be moved if necessary. Cross Lane is usually kept free from obstruction out of working hours. This is however due to the consideration of the current user rather than any planning or highway restrictions. The development may increase the number of private cars in the area but one cannot assume that users would be irresponsible when parking. Power is available under the Highways Act to prevent the obstruction of existing roads or footways if this were to happen. As the imposition of traffic regulations has a separate public process, conditions cannot be used to require the provision of double yellow lines. Given the existing business use, the refusal of planning permission because of the lack of yellow lines is not warranted.

The Environmental Protection Group comments are awaited. If any issues raised by that group are satisfactorily resolved then the scheme is considered acceptable in principle. The Bat Survey found no evidence of bat use and concludes the building has negligible roosting potential. The mitigation strategy is designed to have no adverse effect on the conservation status of bats in accordance with the Habitat Regulations and Directives. Any permission would need to be subject to conditions relating to Bat Mitigation Measures, Contamination Mitigation, Archaeological Recording and Surface Water Disposal as well as conditions relating to the precise specification of materials.

RECOMMENDATION:

(1) Planning permission (SL/2011/0495)

At present no written response has been received from the Environmental Protection Group. Subject to no adverse comment being received from them it is recommended that delegated authority be given to the Interim Corporate Director (Communities) to grant planning permission subject to a satisfactory conclusion to negotiations over the window detailing subject to conditions relating to the following:

51

(1) Standard time limit

(2) Amended Plan

(3) External Materials

(4) Sample of the glass brick to be used

(5) Use of wooded painted windows/doors

(6) A level 2 building recording

(7) Compliance with the Bat Mitigation Measures

(8) Contaminated Land

(9) Surface water drainage

(10) Construction Method Statement

(11) Restriction of the hours of demolition and construction

(12) Removal of permitted development rights

(2) Conservation Area Consent (SL/2011/0494) be GRANTED subject to conditions relating to the following:

(1) Standard time limit

(2) A level 2 building recording

(3) Compliance with the Bat Mitigation Measures

(4) Restriction of the amount of demolition to the areas indicated on the approved plan

52

SCHEDULE A


SCHEDULE No: 9 SL/2011/0496 HUTTON ROOF: BADGER GATE, LUPTON PROPOSAL: GARAGE AND GARDEN STORE MR and MRS H PRING

25/08/2011 E356546.5 N480054.1

SUMMARY :

A two-storey, stone-faced building in the style of a bank barn is proposed for a site outside the curtilage of Badger Gate. Although the siting will protect the setting of this listed building, it has the disadvantage of being an isolated and sporadic form of development in the open countryside.

HUTTON ROOF PARISH COUNCIL :

None received.


Badger Gate and its outbuildings have recently been refurbished and the curtilage laid out in a more formal manner.


Badger Gate, together with its attached barns and outbuildings, is a tightly knit group of Grade II listed buildings that occupies a raised site in the open countryside. A two-storey, stone-faced and slated building, reminiscent of a bank barn, is to be built outside the domestic curtilage of Badger Gate. It is to be built into an excavated hollow against the slope which separates the garden from the surrounding countryside. The lower floor is to be used for garaging and the upper floor, being at the same level as the garden, for the storage of garden equipment and machinery. The building has a floor area of 10 metres by 7 metres and it is to be sited some 60 metres to the south east of the house. A gravel apron is to be constructed in front of the garage which will be accessed by the unsurfaced track that passes at a lower level around the perimeter of the garden from the public highway. A public footpath passes close by.

53

POLICY ISSUES :

Policy CS8.6 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy supports “The safeguarding and, where possible, enhancing of historic environmental assets, including their characteristic settings and any attributes that contribute to a sense of local distinctiveness.”

Saved Policy C15 of the South Lakeland Local Plan protects listed buildings and their settings. In particular, the erection of a new building or structure is not permitted if the setting of a listed building is adversely affected.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT :


ASSESSMENT :

The character of the setting to Badger Gate is established by both the close curtilage of the building and the pastoral agricultural landscape to the east. The garden has recently been more formalised through the incorporation of a range of new hard landscaping components and extensive areas of surfacing for vehicle parking. The proposed detached garage and combined garden store would be sited some 60 metres from the house. In this position, it will be outside the formal curtilage of Badger Gate and within the surrounding open countryside.

From a heritage perspective, the proposal has the benefit of protecting the setting of Badger Gate; its disadvantage is that it would constitute an isolated form of development in the open countryside. Although screened from the public highway to the west, the new building would be plainly visible from the footpath that passes nearby and would appear as a conspicuous and sporadic form of development quite separate from the Badger Gate group of buildings. A meeting is to be held with the architect to see whether an alternative site is available that does not compromise the setting of Badger Gate and does not involve building in the open countryside.

RECOMMENDATION :

The Corporate Director (Communities) will report on the outcome of negotiations concerning the siting of the proposed garage and garden store.

54

SCHEDULE A


SCHEDULE No: 10 SL/2011/0541 NATLAND: LITTLE ROSSLYN, BARROWS GREEN, NATLAND PROPOSAL: RETENTION OF BUILDING AND CHANGE OF USE TO HOLIDAY LET ACCOMMODATION MR and MRS STEPHEN BAKER

25/08/2011 E352631 N488354

SUMMARY:

The building is of relatively recent construction rather than a traditional building or barn, the conversion is therefore in conflict with the objectives of Saved Policy T4 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. The use of the building as a holiday unit also adversely affects the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties. These adverse impacts are not outweighed by the economic benefits generated by the small holiday unit. REFUSE

NATLAND PARISH COUNCIL:

The Parish Council recommends approval.

STAINTON PARISH COUNCIL:

No comments received.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS:

No objection provided that adequate parking is allocated to both the dwelling and the holiday let, and vehicles can join the public highway in a forward gear.

OTHER:

Emails have been received from occupiers of the two other properties within the courtyard. One raises concern with regard to strangers passing their windows affecting privacy. The other lists a number of objections to the scheme, including:

• Loss of privacy because of the turnover of people walking through the driveway looking into the windows and on the small outdoor space belonging to Stable Cottage which is located adjacent to the building.

55

• The increase in the use of the access from the A65 by people who are not familiar with the area. The turning is dangerous and there have been accidents in the past.

• Holiday tenants parking in areas allocated to the neighbouring properties.

• Noise and disturbance from holiday makers.

• The use of the existing septic tank was agreed on the basis of one occupant. The use of the building by couples will potentially overload the system.

• The benefit to the local economy would be half the £50,000 indicated in the application as the average occupancy for a holiday unit is 3.7 people occupying a unit. In the absence of Little Rosslyn, local tourism would be redistributed throughout the area.

Letters of support have been received from the Punch Bowl Pub and the Station Inn. The guests at the property frequently use the pub and are leaving very positive feedback for future guests. This type of custom is essential to sustain the business.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT:

Planning permission was granted for the conversion of the garage into ancillary living accommodation in October 2008. The scheme included an increase in the eaves height of the building to provide storage space in the loft. The living accommodation proposed only included a sitting/sleeping area and a bathroom.

The building work was carried out in 2009 however the interior was not constructed in accordance with the approved plan. A sleeping platform has been provided at first floor with a staircase and kitchen facilities at ground floor resulting in a building capable of use as a separate unit. The building was initially used by the applicant’s daughter then as an unauthorised holiday unit from August 2010. The Business Rates were back dated in May 2011.


The site is located adjacent to the A65, north of Barrows Green. The site is within a small group residential dwelling, some of which were converted from barns in the 1990’s. The building in question is located at the western side of the group of buildings at the farthest extent complex. It is a modern detached building built of roughcast with a tiled roof. The application seeks retrospective planning permission to retain the structure as built and use as a holiday let accommodation.

POLICY ISSUES:

Planning Policy Statement (PPS)

PPS 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

The PPS states that the provision of self-catering holiday accommodation in rural areas should be supported where this would accord with sustainable development principles.

PPS 4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth

56

Policy EC12 of PPS4 states that the re-use of buildings in the countryside for economic development purposes will usually be preferable. Local Authorities should take account of the economic and social sustainability of the area.

South Lakeland Core Strategy

Policy CS7.6 of the adopted Core Strategy supports the enhancements and expansion of tourist infrastructure. Particular emphasis is placed on improving the quality of existing visitor accommodation and the need to broaden the range of accommodation provided.

South Lakeland Local Plan

In the Local Plan, Saved Policy T4 deals with the provision of self-catering holiday accommodation outside development boundaries. It is clearly stated that the policy applies only to “traditional buildings and barns”.

Policy CS7.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy supports the creation, enhancement and expansion of tourist attractions and tourism infrastructure in accordance with the development strategy in CS1 and the principles of tourism development in the Regional Spatial Strategy.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT:


ASSESSMENT:

The application seeks permission to retain the building as constructed and the use as a holiday unit. Saved Policy T4 of the Local Plan relates to the conversion of traditional buildings for holiday accommodation. The building is not a traditional rural building but is a modern roughcast and tile construction. The Policy states that “Outside the development boundaries, proposals for new build self-catering units will not be allowed. Proposals for the conversion of traditional buildings and barns to self-catering accommodation will be permitted” subject to defined criteria.

The proposed conversion is clearly in conflict with the objectives of Saved Policy T4 because the building is of recent construction. If permission was to be granted, it would make it more difficult for the Council to resist similar applications elsewhere in the District for the conversion of modern buildings to holiday accommodation. There would then be a significant increase in sporadic rural development which would seriously undermine long-established national and local policies designed to protect the countryside from inappropriate development.

The extension and use of the garage was approved as ancillary accommodation to the main house at Rosslyn and it was first used by the daughter of the applicant. The house at Rosslyn and the accommodation within the former garage remained as a

57

single planning unit. Facilities were to be interlinked as the approved building alterations did not include a kitchen.

The use as holiday accommodation results in new occupants on a weekly basis. It is this turnaround of people and lack of linkage with the occupants of the main dwelling which raises concern with regard to the neighbourliness. The access to this small group of dwellings runs directly beside the windows within West View Barn and Stable Cottage. The small area of external space belonging to Stable Cottage is also located directly adjacent to the building. The coming and going of a constantly changing group of people in a confined area does affect the amenity of the residents. It affects the sense of security and privacy, and inhibits the way in which other occupiers use their property. This is particularly the case with the use of the small outdoor space belonging to Stable Cottage. The use of the building as self contained holiday accommodation does therefore adversely affect amenity.

The applicant has submitted a copy of a document by Cumbria Tourist Board relating to the occupancy of self catering accommodation. The evidence shows the significant benefit that self catering accommodation has upon the economy. Copies of positive comments from users of the accommodation have been supplied and two local public houses support the application. While the benefits to the local economy are important, they must be balanced against the social impact as required by Policy EC12 of PPS4. The economic benefits generated by one small holiday unit do not outweigh the adverse effect that the use has upon the amenity of the adjacent residents.

The Highway Authority is of the opinion that the access is suitable for the holiday let. There is adequate parking and turning for the unit within the site.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reasons below:

(1) The use of the building as holiday let accommodation, by reason of the position of the unit and access within a small group of dwellings and the turnover of people, adversely affects the privacy and amenity of the adjacent residential properties. The local economic benefits derived from this small holiday unit do not outweigh the adverse social impact. The retention of the use would therefore be contrary to the advice given in Planning Policy Statement 4 and Saved Policy T4 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

(2) The conversion of this particular building into self-catering holiday accommodation would not be compatible with the aims and objectives of Saved Policy T4 of the South Lakeland Local Plan for the reason that the policy relates to older buildings of traditional stone and slate construction. If permitted, it would make it more difficult for the Council to resist similar applications for the conversion of buildings of modern construction. As a consequence, there would be a significant increase in sporadic rural development which would seriously undermine long-established policies designed to protect the countryside from inappropriate forms of development.

58

PART I Agenda Item No: 7

South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE MONTHLY ENFORCEMENT

REPORT

Meeting Date: 25 August 2011 Report Author: Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer Portfolio: Peter Thornton (Community Investment and Development) Report from: David Sykes (Interim Corporate Director, Communities) Wards affected: All Key Decision: Not applicable Forward Plan: Not applicable

A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 23

MAY TO 24 JUNE 2011

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 To inform Members about enforcement activity between 23 May and 24

June 2011. This report aims to provide a brief and informative insight into current enforcement cases. If there are any specific enforcement cases that Members would like to be updated on at the next Planning Committee meeting, please contact Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Members:-

1) note the report and attached appendix; and 2) authorise all necessary enforcement actions to remedy the identified

breaches of planning control. 3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 Enforcement cases which have been resolved: 21 outstanding cases from the enforcement caseload have been resolved

between 23 May and 24 June 2011. 3.2 New enforcement cases:

59

Between 23 May and 24 June 2011, 26 complaints have been recorded and are presently being investigated. 5 of these cases have been resolved.

3.3 Enforcement cases for which Committee consideration is sought: 11.050 131 Burneside Road, Kendal.

Planning Permission was granted for timber decking to the rear of the above property to surround an exercise pool, and construction of a canopy to the front, (Application SL/2010/452). It was brought to the attention of the Planning Enforcement officer that the owner has constructed a concrete base with retaining wall to site a large timber greenhouse. During the site visit to view the green-house it was noticed that the decking area appeared to have been built larger than that approved. It has been confirmed that the deck area has been built 0.6 metres wider and 3.1 metres deeper. The extended part of the deck incorporates a shed and storage area underneath. The additional mass to the deck, accompanied by the shed, exacerbates its prominence from a number of public viewpoints. Consequently it is considered to be in conflict with the aims and objectives of Saved Policy S2 of the South Lakeland Local Plan, and Policy CS8.10 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy. The increased projection and height of decking result in a material loss of amenity and privacy to the adjacent dwelling, allowing views from an elevated position into their garden and windows. The greenhouse and the part of the base it sits on would have the benefit of Permitted Development. However, the base extends beyond what is reasonably necessary to site the Greenhouse. The extended part of the concrete base has resulted in an elevated seating area with unacceptable overlooking. It has resulted in a material loss of amenity and privacy to the adjacent dwelling, allowing views into their garden and windows. Members are requested to authorise all necessary Enforcement Powers to reduce or remove the timber deck area, and remove the extended part of the concrete base with retaining wall.

3.4 An update on enforcement cases involving enforcement action: 08.345 Holme House Farm, Skelmergh.

Members may recall the enforcement case concerning unauthorised residential use of caravans at the above site. An Enforcement Notice was served requiring the removal of 15 residential caravans and associated storage buildings, the disconnection and sealing of the foul drainage system. The owner elected to appeal the Enforcement Notice which was heard by the planning inspectorate at a public inquiry. The appeal was dismissed and the Enforcement Notice upheld with slight variation to the compliance period. The Inspector’s decision date is the 29 of September 2010. The

60

compliance period is 12 month from the Inspector’s decision. A number of site visits have been carried out where it has been clearly explained to the owner his responsibility to the requirements in the Enforcement Notice. At the last site visit of the 23 June 2011 it was evident that the owner had not commenced any work to comply with the Notice. But he had continued with other works involving the removal of hundreds of tons of soil altering the flood plain and re-positioning some of the unauthorised caravans. The purpose of this report is to update and bring it to Members attention the options open to the Council if the owner fails to comply with the Notice. Principally there are three options commensurate with enforcement action: 1. institute a prosecution for penalties under Sc 179 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 for none compliance with the Notice; or 2. enter the land and do what the Notice requires under Sc 178 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Any cost incurred can be recharged to the owner; or 3. seek an injunction to enforce the terms of the Notice. The site continues to be monitored and every opportunity taken to encourage the owner to comply with the Enforcement Notice. An update on those cases involving formal enforcement action is attached as Appendix 1 for Members information.

4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION Not applicable.

5.0 PROPOSAL Not applicable.

6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS Not applicable.

7.0 NEXT STEPS Not applicable.

8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources Cost implications only arise if the matter ultimately requires court or

direct action in default. 8.2 Human Resources The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing

implications.

61

8.3 Legal See report. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact This report does not have any registered significant environmental

effects.

9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT Risk Consequence Controls required The failure to

have an effective investigative compliance and enforcement system.

Result in inappropriate forms of development, which would have an adverse impact on the character, and appearance of the District’s rural landscape.

To maintain sufficient resources in planning enforcement and prioritise and co-ordinate the investigation of breaches of planning control.

10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY The Draft Statement of Community Involvement takes account of the equalities

issues in seeking to define South Lakeland’s community and interests relevant to the Local Development Framework, which will influence the determination of individual planning applications.

11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS This report links to the objective of Improving Environmental Quality across

South Lakeland, of the Corporate Plan. Having an effective robust planning enforcement regime, involving people, will help make South Lakeland the best place to live, work and visit. Dealing with unauthorised development in an efficient, firm and fair manner fosters strong links with the community, increases public confidence in the Council and provides value for money.

12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 See report in appendix. APPENDIX ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT A report on enforcement cases that Committee authorisation to take enforcement action has been sought. CONTACT OFFICERS Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer, Tel: 01539 797566 email: [email protected] BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Various planning files. TRACKING

62

mailto:[email protected]

Assistant Director Portfolio Holder Solicitor to the Council CMT Admin 11 Aug 2011 D Leather

63

64

A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 2006 TO 24 JUNE 2011 – APPENDIX The purpose of this appendix is to provide a summary of the enforcement cases in which Committee authorisation was sought.

REF NO. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH/CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS 06/068 ALDINGHAM

Low Sunbrick Farm Aldingham

Installation of uPVC windows in Listed Building

Listed Building Enforcement notice, requesting windows are replaced after 10 yrs.

07/025 LOWER ALLITHWAITE

Priory Close Cartmel

Internal alteration to Listed Building

Drafting instructions to enable Legal services to draft a Listed Building Enforcement Notice.

07/156 KENDAL Bridge View Burton Road

Creation of extra dwelling unit Enforcement Notice served and appeal lodged with Planning Inspectorate. Inquiry date 16

August 2011.

07/283 GRANGE over SANDS 2 Methven Terrace Extensions not built as per plan and breach of conditions

New owners have submitted a retrospective application.

08/144 KENDAL Beech House Hotel 40 Greenside

Unauthorised uPVC windows in Conservation Area

Site visit confirms that windows to the front elevation have been replaced with timber framed windows in accordance with the Enforcement Notice. Monitoring further compliance for the side windows.

08/345 SKELSMERGH Holme House Garth Row Lane

Unauthorised development involving the construction of caravan / chalet structures and business uses

Inspector has dismissed appeal but made slight variation to allow an extra 6 months for planting and landscaping following removal of structures etc.

65

REF NO. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH/CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS 09/352 URSWICK Beckside Holdings, between

Scales and Stainton Unauthorised use of land -storage of equipment not ancillary, unauthorised buildings

Most of the unauthorised buildings have been removed. Awaiting removal of remainder.

10/022 ALDINGHAM Lime Kiln, Low Sunbrick Lane Baycliff

Erection of unauthorised agricultural building

Retrospective planning application refused. Instruction sent to legal services for service of Enforcement Notice.

10/124 EGTON with NEWLAND

Woodbine Cottage Penny Bridge

Erection of extensive timber decking with sauna and jacuzzi

Appeal dismissed and Enforcement Notice upheld. Compliance deadline to remove the decking structure 23 Oct 2011.

10/208 LOWER ALLITHWAITE

Blenkett Wood caravan park Laying new 300m access track Instructing legal services to serve Enforcement Notice.

10/209 KENDAL Boundary Bank Unauthorised use of site for the storage of machinery and hardcore

Proceeding with enforcement action. Serving Planning Contravention Notice.

10/289 BEETHAM Fern Bank Hale

Unauthorised siting and residential use of caravan

Instructing legal services to serve Enforcement Notice.

10/311 CASTERTON Chapel House Farm Unauthorised removal of hedge

Hedge Replacement Notice served 12/7/2011. Received appeal to Notice.

11/061 HINCASTER Cherry Hill Unauthorised erection of tree house in TPO tree

Enforcement Notice served 17/6/2011. Effective 1/8/2011 with 6 month compliance period.

11/086 MILNTHORPE Dallam Barn Haverflatts

Unauthorised erection of building

Section 330 Notice served and returned. Drafting instruction to serve Enforcement Notice.

66

PART I Agenda Item No: 8

South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE

Meeting Date: 25 August 2011 Report Author: Mark Shipman

Development Management Group Manager Portfolio: Peter Thornton (Housing and Development) Report from: David Sykes (Interim Corporate Director, Communities) Wards affected: All Key Decision: Not applicable Forward Plan: Not applicable

APPEALS UPDATE AT 12 AUGUST 2011

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To provide Members with information about the receipt and determination of planning appeals.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Note the report.

3.0 BACKGROUND Appeals as set out in Appendix 1.

4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION Not applicable.

5.0 PROPOSAL

Not applicable.

6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Not applicable.

7.0 NEXT STEPS

Not applicable.

67

8.0 IMPLICATIONS

8.1 Financial and Resources The recommendations in this report do not have any cost implications. 8.2 Human Resources The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 8.3 Legal Not applicable. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact This report does not have any registered significant environmental

effects. 9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT

Not applicable.

10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY

The Draft Statement of Community Involvement takes account of the equalities issues in seeking to define South Lakeland’s community and interests relevant to the Local Development Framework which will influence the determination of individual planning applications.

11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

This report links to the objective of Improving Environmental Quality across South Lakeland, of the Corporate Plan. National Indicator BVPI 204 sets a target of a maximum number of appeals allowed as 33%. The current performance is 26.9%.

12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES

12.1 It is anticipated that targets and objectives will continue to be achieved at the year end.

APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix 1 Appeals table including new appeals and appeal decisions received

between 15 July and 12 August 2011.

CONTACT OFFICERS Mark Shipman, Development Management Group Manager - Tel: 01539 797564 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Various planning files. TRACKING

Assistant Director Portfolio Holder Solicitor to the Council CMT Admin

11/08/11 D Leather

68

APPENDIX 1 Site

Appellant

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

Planning Inspectorate Decision

KENDAL: 17 Windermere Road

Alterations and extension to form 5 dwellings with associated car parking and access

Refused 29/7/10 (Committee) PO Recommend: Gracon

APP/M0933/A/10/2135626 7/9/10 SL/2010/0343

DISMISSED 17 Dec 2010

ULVERSTON: Birdlands Old Hall Road Ulverston

Two dwellings Refused 11/6/10 (Committee) PO recommend: DTR

APP/M0933/A/10/2136328 20/9/10 SL/10/0327

ALLOWED CONDITIONALLY 3 Feb 2011

ULVERSTON: 43 Urswick Road

Lean-to structure (retrospective) Granted 5/8/10 (Committee) PO recommend: Gracon

APP/M0933/D/10/2136321 13/10/10 SL/10/0447

ALLOWED 28 Jan 2011

BEETHAM: 3 Chapel Close, Storth

Dwelling Refused 20/5/10 (Delegated)

APP/M0933/A/10/2138605 SL/2010/0149

DISMISSED 27 Jan 2011

MIDDLETON: Smailthorn Low Fellside

Conversion of barn to form dwelling, installation of septic tank and reinstatement of access

Refused 24/5/10 (Delegated)

APP/M0933/A/10/2139106 1/11/10 SL/2010/0258

ALLOWED CONDITIONALLY 28 Feb 2011

69

Site

Appellant



GRANGE over SANDS: Flat 1, Belvedere The Esplanade

Remove section of front wall and create additional car parking


APP/M0933/E/10/2139812 8/11/10 SL/2010/0120 (FPA) & SL/2010/0121 (CAC)

DISMISSED 18 Feb 2011

KENDAL: 63 Scafell Drive

Alterations and extension to provide additional first floor bedroom


APP/M0933/D/2138876 9/11/10 SL/2010/0346


MILNTHORPE: Firs Road

Dwelling Refused 5/7/10 (Delegated)

APP/M0933/A/10/2140365 12/11/10 SL/2010/0397


MIDDLETON: Barn at High Fellside

Conversion of barn to form dwelling including installation of septic tank


APP/M0933/A/10/2141152 24/11/10 SL/2010/0270


KENDAL: 31 Silver Howe Close

Removal or variation of Condition 3 Refused 5/11/10 (Delegated)

APP/M0933/A/10/2141044 24/11/10 SL/2010/0743


EGTON with NEWLAND: Woodbine Cottage Penny Bridge

Appeal against Enforcement Notice Erection of decking to rear of garden

Enforcement APP/M0933/C/10/2137528 30/11/10 SL/2010/1057

DISMISSED 23 June 2011

70

Site

Appellant



LOWER ALLITHWAITE: The Pastures Holiday Park, Templands Lane, Cartmel

Variation of occupation period Condition on planning permissions: SL/2003/1624, SL/2009/0469, SL/2008/0785, SL/2007/0934 and SL/2005/0771


APP/M0933/A/10/2140458 6/12/10 SL/2010/0169

DISMISSED 21 Mar 2011

GRANGE over SANDS: Oriel House, 12 Priory Lane

Conversion of dwelling into two self contained flats and dormer extension (revised scheme SL/2009/0819)


APP/M0933/ A/10/2142128 10/12/10 SL/2010/0917


ULVERSTON: Salusbury House

Erection of 2 Log Cabins Refused 4/11/10 (Committee) PO Recommend: DTR

APP/M0933/A/10/2142566 23/12/10 SL/2010/0595

ALLOWED CONDITIONALLY 18 Mar 2011

PRESTON PATRICK: The Mill, Crooklands, Millness

Extension of time condition on planning permission SL/2005/0497 (conversion of offices into three self- catering holiday units)

Refused 30/7/10 (Committee) PO Recommend: Refuse

APP/M0933/A/10/2141940 10/1/11 SL/2010/0405

ALLOWED CONDITIONALLY 31 Mar 2011

OLD HUTTON AND HOMESCALES: Little Eskrigg End Farm, Old Hutton

Storage and animal treatment building

Refused 14/10/10 (Committee) PO Recommend: Refuse

APP/M0933/A/11/11/2144733 17/1/11 SL/2010/0089

DISMISSED 16 May 2011

71

Site

Appellant



KENDAL: Grass Island Meadowbank Business Park, Shap Road

Erection of office building Refused 18/11/10 (Delegated)

APP/M0933/A/11/2144785 17/1/11 SL/2010/0831

DISMISSED 14 Apr 2011

ARNSIDE: Hampsfell House, Flat 3, Loft O’er the Bore

Formation of balcony and external staircase


APP/M0933/A/11/2145099 20/1/11 SL/2010/0423


KENDAL: Land at Bridge View, Burton Road, Oxenholme

Appeal against issuing of enforcement notice

Enforcement APP/M0933/ C/11/2145284 24/1/11 Public Inquiry 16/8/11 SL/2011/0066

STRICKLAND ROGER Land adjacent to Tenement Tarn

Staff accommodation building and car parking


APP/M0933/A/11/2145103 28/1/11 SL/2010/0277

ALLOWED CONDITIONALLY 18 May 2011

KENDAL: Meadowbank House Meadowbank Business Park, Shap Road

Demolition of existing building and erection of new office building


APP/M0933/A/11/2146150 28/1/11 SL/2010/0830

DISMISSED 14 Apr 2011

GRANGE over SANDS: Grange Bakery Kents Bank Road

Directional sign Refused 20/10/10 (Delegated)

APP/M0933/H/11/2143818 15/2/11 SL/2010/0771


72

Site

Appellant



OLD HUTTON AND HOMESCALES: Eskrigg End Barn Old Hutton

Conversion of redundant barn to holiday let and installation of sewage treatment plant


APP/M0933/A/11/2149508 28/3/11 SL/2010/1016

DISMISSED 2 Aug 2011

PENNINGTON: Lindal Cricket Club Lindal

Erection of Wind turbine Refused 23/12/10 (Committee) PO Recommend: Refuse

APP/M0933/A/11/2149683 30/3/11 SL/2010/0928

ALLOWED CONDITIONALLY 20 July 2011

HEVERSHAM: The Stables, High Haverflatts, Haverflatts Lane

Erection of detached garage to front of dwelling


APP/M0933/D/11/2149987 5/4/11 SL/2010/1074


MILNTHORPE: OS Field 7684 Haverflatts Lane

Agricultural building for hay storage and shelter for lambing sheep


APP/M0933/A/11/2151146 26/4/11 SL/2010/1011

DISMISSED 22 July 2011

LOWER ALLITHWAITE: The Pastures Templands Lane Allithwaite

Erection of ancillary domestic accommodation


APP/M0933/A/11/2151793 24/5/11 SL/2010/0662

ALLOWED CONDITIONALLY 11 Aug 2011

73

Site

Appellant



KENDAL: 110 Oxenholme Road

Detached dwelling Refused 25/2/11 (Delegated)

APP/M0933/A/11/2154465 14/6/11 SL/2011/0024

KENDAL: 8 West Street

First floor rear extension Refused 20/6/11 (Delegated)

APP/M0933/A/11/2154465 11/7/11 SL/2011/0351

74

Documents

SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL...Aug 25, 2011 · 20 28.7.2011 Planning (3) except where stated below, the reasons for refusal be those as outlined in the Schedule. P/029 COMPLEX