south lakeland district councildemocracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/data/planning...

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, 27 October 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

19 October 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]

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

2. MINUTES 5 - 11 To authorise the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the

meeting of the Committee held on 29 September 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) 13 - 48 To determine planning applications received.

7. APPEALS UPDATE AT 14 OCTOBER 2011 49 - 60 To provide Members with information about the receipt and determination of

planning appeals.

8. A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 1st AUGUST TO 2nd SEPTEMBER 2011

61 - 70

To inform Members about enforcement activity between 1st August and 2nd September 2011. (Please also see Part ll Agenda Item No.9)

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)

9. ENFORCEMENT REPORT 71 -75 Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be

maintained in legal proceedings (Paragraph 5).

2

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

Information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime. (Paragraph 7).

To inform Members of possible criminal proceedings and to seek Committee authorisation to progress these proceedings.

Part ll Appendix 2 relating to Part l Agenda Item No.8

3

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the proceedings at a meeting of the Committee held in the Council Chamber at South Lakeland House, Kendal, on Thursday, 29 September 2011 at 10.00 a.m.

Present

Councillors

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

Alan Baverstock Joss Curwen Colin Davies Philip Dixon Sylvia Emmott Clive Graham Brenda Gray John Holmes Janette Jenkinson Kevin Lancaster Mary Orr David Williams Mary Wilson

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Brian Cooper, Sonia Lawson and Tom Harvey.

Officers

Zaheer Bashir Solicitor Kate Bellwood Planning Officer (part) Barry Jackson Planning Officer (part) Janine Jenkinson Assistant Democratic Services Officer Mark Shipman Development Management Group Manager

P/040 MINUTES

It was noted that Councillor Sonia Lawson was recorded as in attendance at the meeting, but had not been present.

RESOLVED – That, subject to the amendment as detailed above, the Chairman be authorised to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 25 August 2011.

P/041 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

RESOLVED – That it be noted that the following declarations of interest were made:-

(1) Councillor Joss Curwen - Minute P/045 (Planning Application No.SL/2011/0490);

(2) Councillor Clive Graham – Minute P/044 (Planning Application No.SL/20110440);

(3) Councillor John Holmes - Minute P/045 (Planning Application No.SL/2011/0379);

(4) Councillor Mary Orr - Minute P/045 (Planning Application No.SL/2011/0647); and

Item No. 2

5

(5) Councillor Mary Wilson - Minute P/045 (Planning Application No.SL/2011/0379).

P/042 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUDED ITEMS

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

P/043 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

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

Note - Councillor Clive Graham declared a personal interest in the following item of business, by virtue of being the local Ward Member.

P/044 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Planning Applications

RESOLVED – That the following applications, for which representations have been received from members of the public, in accordance with Minute 1810 (1996/97), be determined in the following manner:-

SL/2011/0440 KENDAL: Land at North East Sandylands. Variation of Condition 5 (surface water drainage) on SL/2005/0976. (Russell Armer Ltd)

Ian Woodburn spoke in objection to the application. He raised concerns regarding flood risk on site and in the areas of Ann Street and Jenkins Crag Court. A full copy of his representation has been placed on the Democratic Services file.

Debbie Ingram spoke in objection to the application. She stated that there were a number of anomalies within the calculations of the Flood Risk Assessment and some of the modelling had been worked out using the wrong equations. She urged the Committee not to vary Condition 5. A full copy of her representation has been placed on the Democratic Services file.

Brian Smith, from Russell Armer Ltd responded. He stated that the technical flooding matters were being address by specialist engineers. He reassured the Committee that discussions with the Environment Agency were taking place to resolve the flooding matter and Russell Armer Ltd would not take any action that would exacerbate the situation. He asked the Committee to

6

approve the scheme.

The Planning Officer outlined the historical context of the application. Members were advised the applicant had been unable to reach agreement with the owners of the land through which the pipeline was originally intended to be constructed. As a consequence, an alternative drainage system was proposed whereby surface water from the development be drained into the adjacent drainage system that connected to Stock Beck.

Members were advised that technical negotiations between the applicant, the Environment Agency and specialist technical advisors were on-going. The applicant was keen to begin foundation works. Therefore Members were requested to approve the application, subject to a condition that would prevent the erection of a super structure or any works commencing above ground, until a copy of a Surface Water Drainage Strategy agreed by United Utilities, the Environment Agency and the Council’s Environmental Protection had been submitted to the Council for formal discharge.

Some discussion took place and Members were keen to ensure that the provision of affordable housing was retained. It was also suggested that the applicant considered incorporating a rain harvesting device into the drainage scheme.

The Interim Corporate Director (Communities) be authorised to issue the planning permission varying Condition 5 following the completion of the Deed of Variation to the Agreement, with the amended condition relating to surface water drainage and all other conditions as required as a result of re-issuing the outline planning permission.

SL/2011/0633 PENNINGTON: Erection of replacement light industrial building. (Mr D Rigg)

Peter Winter, Head of Planning Services at PFK Planning, spoke in objection to the application on behalf of the owners of three residential properties that were situated immediately adjacent to the application site. He stated that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents by reason of noise, traffic generation, parking and general disturbance. A full copy of his representation has been placed on the Democratic Services file.

Neither the applicant nor the agent was in attendance to respond to the points raised.

Members were advised of an additional letter of objection from a nearby resident. Concern raised in the letter related to the safety of horses, cyclists and pedestrians that used the highway.

The Committee felt it would be unreasonable not to allow the damaged building to be replaced.

7

GRANT – Subject to the conditions detailed in the Schedule and an additional condition relating to construction methods used to improve BREEAM score rating.

Note - Councillor Mary Orr declared a personal interest in the following item of business, by virtue of being the local Ward Member.

P/045 COMPLEX PLANNING APPLICATIONS

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

SL/2011/0647 LEVENS: Land at High Sampool, Levens. Erection of Poultry Unit with Manure Store. (Mr J Mason)

The Development Management Group Manager reported that an outstanding consultation response from Natural England had not yet been received. Members were requested to defer consideration of the application to allow this information to be presented at a future Committee meeting.

DEFER – To allow further information to be received.

Note - Councillor Joss Curwen declared a personal interest in the following item of business, by virtue of knowing a number of people in the area.

SL/2011/0490 ALDINGHAM: Land adjacent Beech Mount, Goadsbarrow. Two dwellings. (Mrs Clare Worrall)

Consideration of this application had been deferred at the last Committee meeting to enable Members to view and assess the site and its surroundings. The main issue for consideration was whether the proposal could be regarded as appropriate infilling or rounding off of Goadsbarrow.

The Committee felt the application was inappropriate in this context and contrary to planning policy.

REFUSE – for the following reasons:-

(1) The proposed dwelling cannot be regarded as an appropriate form of infill or 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

8

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; and

(3) The proposed dwelling 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.

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

Consideration of this application had been deferred at the July Committee meeting to allow for negotiations on repositioning of the new dwelling.

In the interim the applicant had since appealed against non-determination of the application and as such the Council could not issue a decision.

Members were requested to reach a resolution about the likely decision that they would have made.

The Committee endorsed the reason for refusal as detailed in the Schedule.

Note Councillor Mary Wilson declared a personal interest in the following item of business, by virtue of knowing an objector to the application.

Councillor John Holmes declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item of business, by virtue of knowing an objector to the application. He left the Council Chamber during the discussion and voting thereon.

SL/2011/0379 LOWER ALLITHWAITE: The Pheasant Inn, Flookburgh Road, Allithwaite. Entrance verandah, roofed over rear yard, car park extension and enclosed secondary access. (Mr and Mrs Keith Jones)

The Committee was advised that amended plans, reducing the height of the roof had been received.

The residents of the neighbouring property had been consulted on the amended plans and they had confirmed that they were content that the alterations made addressed their original

9

objections.

GRANT- Subject to suitable conditions relating to amended plans received.

SL/2011/0496 HUTTON ROOF: Badger Gate, Lupton. Garage and garden store. (Mr and Mrs H Pring).

Members were advised that although the siting would protect the setting of the listed building, the development was located in an isolated area and would appear intrusive within the open countryside.

REFUSE- for the following reason:-

The proposed garage and garden store would appear as a separate and isolated structure in relation to the Badger Gate group of buildings and would be clearly visible from the nearby public footpath. It would intrude into the countryside and would seriously detract from the attractive open rural character and appearance of the area.

In this case it is equally important to protect both setting of the listed building and the character of the countryside. Locating the building either in or out of the curtilage is unacceptable.

SL/2011/0575 BEETHAM: Silver Ridge Caravan Park, Hale, Milnthorpe. Extension of open season on Planning Permission 5/00/0481. (Holgates Caravan Parks Ltd)

The Development Management Group Manager advised that the main issue for consideration was whether the alternative conditions would encourage use of the caravans as a main permanent home and whether the conditions could be suitably enforced.

A lengthy discussion took place and Members gave full consideration to the relevant issues raised by the application. Overall it was felt that the application would support business growth and the local economy and that appropriate alternative conditions could be used to prevent occupation of the caravans as permanent residences.

GRANT – Subject to Conditions (1) and (2) as detailed in the Schedule and an amended Condition (3) to refer to the requirement of the owner/operator of the site to make available a licence to the local planning authority upon request.

SL/2011/0576 ARNSIDE: Holgates Caravan Parks Ltd, Middlebarrow Plain Cove Road, Silverdale. Variation of Condition 2 on 5/94/1931. (Holgates Caravan Parks Ltd)

GRANT – Subject to Conditions (1) and (2) as detailed in the Schedule and an amended Condition (3) to refer to the requirement of the owner/ operator of the site to make available

10

a licence to the local planning authority upon request.

SL/2011/0577 ARNSIDE: Far Arnside Caravan Park, Silverdale. Variation of Condition 2 (Seasonal Occupancy) on Planning Permission 5/94/1915. (Holgates Caravan Parks Ltd)

GRANT – Subject to Conditions (1) and (2) as detailed in the Schedule and an amended Condition (3) to refer to the requirement of the owner/ operator of the site to make available a licence to the local planning authority upon request.

P/046 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FROM 27 JUNE TO 29 JULY 2011

Members were presented with a report on enforcement activity between 27 June to 29 July 2011. Seven outstanding cases from the caseload had been resolved. Forty-nine new complaints had been recorded and were presently being investigated, of which four had been resolved.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

P/047 APPEALS

Consideration was given to a report that detailed the receipt and determination of planning appeals as at 16 September 2011. It was noted that the National Indicator BVPI 204 set a target of a maximum number of appeals allowed as 33%. The Council’s current performance, calculated from those decisions received since 1 April 2011 was 23 %.

It was anticipated that targets and objectives would continue to be achieved at the year end.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

The meeting ended at 12.20 p.m.

11

AGENDA ITEM NO ………6…………

SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

From: Interim Corporate Director (Communities) To: Planning Committee – 27 October 2011

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

Index

Schedule A - Complex planning applications 17 - 44

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

None

Schedule C - Applications relating to Listed Buildings 45 - 48

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

13

SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE – 27 OCTOBER 2011

SCHEDULE NUMBER

REFERENCE NUMBER

SECTION

SITE ADDRESS

ALDINGHAM 4 SL/2011/0699 A (37 – 40) Garden of Flosh Fields, Scales KENDAL 6 SL/2011/0384

(EXNT) & SL/2011/0400 (LBC)

C (45 – 48) Former Insurance Hall, Sand Aire House, Stramongate

KILLINGTON 1 SL/2011/0583 A (17 – 26) Land adjacent to Crooks Plantation LOWER ALLITHWAITE 5 SL/2011/0730 A (41 – 44) Blenkett Wood Lodge Park, Jack Hill MIDDLETON 3 SL/2011/0682 A (32 – 36) Land adjacent to Jordan Lane, South of

Holme Farm WHITWELL AND SELSIDE 2 SL/2011/0598 A (27 – 31) Longwell, Selside

15

SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 1 SL/2011/0583 KILLINGTON: LAND ADJACENT TO CROOKS PLANTATION, KILLINGTON, LA6 2HB PROPOSAL: SITING OF SINGLE WIND TURBINE AND ASSOCIATED CONTROL BOX MR JOHN BRAITHWAITE

27/10/2011 E359446 N488943

SUMMARY:

The proposed turbine is unacceptable because of its harmful effect on the landscape. Secondly, the noise information submitted with the application is not site-specific. As a consequence, it is not possible to reach a reasoned conclusion on whether or not the noise from the turbine would unacceptably worsen living conditions for nearby residents. REFUSE.

KILLINGTON PARISH MEETING:

Planning permission should be refused.

• There is no evidence of set-aside funds, a requirement to remove the turbine and reinstate the landscape.

• The rotational speed of the turbine (41 rpm) will draw the eye compared to the larger neighbouring installation at Lambrigg which are a relatively tranquil 15 rpm.

• There will be an adverse cumulative landscape impact in combination with the Lambrigg and proposed Old Hutton wind farms, made worse by the differential in rotational speed.

• The predicted noise levels are not only theoretical they are misrepresentative.

• There will be serious disturbance during the construction phase and damage to the public highway.

OLD HUTTON AND HOLMESCALES PARISH COUNCIL:

Object on the grounds of the visual impact it will have not only on the local environment but also from further afield in such a prominent and isolated site in the open countryside.

17

NEW HUTTON PARISH COUNCIL:

Planning permission should be refused.

• The site is on top of a prominent hill and there will be a significant change in the landscape when viewed from footpaths in the New Hutton parish and elsewhere.

• The site will be only 600 metres from the proposed new western boundary of the Yorkshire Dales National Park.

• An access track will need to be constructed to enable the turbine to be constructed.

• A wind farm at Sillfield, near Gatebeck, was dismissed on appeal because of the proximity of the Lambrigg wind farm and the proposed turbines at Old Hutton. As the current proposal is for a turbine between the Lambrigg and Old Hutton wind farms, the same reasoning should be applied and planning permission refused.

• The power generated and the income derived from the turbine would not add to the local economy and would not help any local business.

• As the turbine would be 54.5m high a flashing red light might be needed to warn aircraft.

• Should permission be granted, a condition should be imposed requiring the removal of the turbine when it has become disused.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS:

The access should be improved to a main farm access standard.

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER:

The noise information submitted with the application is not site-specific. The background noise levels at the nearby Ecclerigg Hall farm are not known and a noise survey of the impact of the turbine should be undertaken. The survey is needed to establish the background noise level at differing and appropriate wind speeds in comparison with the noise levels predicted with the turbine to establish if a statutory nuisance is likely to be caused.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE:

No objection but, in the interests of air safety, the Ministry requests that the turbine is fitted with aviation lighting.

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY:

The CAA has no responsibilities for safeguarding sites other than its own property. Councils should consult with NATS (En Route) plc and the Ministry of Defence over planning applications for wind turbines.

18

NATS (EN ROUTE) plc:

No safeguarding objection to the proposed turbine.

NATURAL ENGLAND:

In terms of landscape issues, the proposal does not meet Natural England’s criteria for involvement with sites outside of protected areas. The proposal does not appear to have a significant impact on the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales designations.

If the Local Planning Authority is aware of, or representations from other parties highlight the possible presence of a protected species on the site, the authority should request survey information before determining the application.

RSPB:

The submitted desk-based bird survey results indicate that there are no significant numbers of bird species sensitive to wind farm developments or (a) within a likely disturbance / displacement buffer of the turbines or (b) overflying birds recorded.

FRIENDS OF EDEN, LAKELAND AND LUNESDALE SCENEY (FELLS):

FELLS object to the turbine for the following reasons :

• The size of the turbine (54.5m to the blade tip) cannot be considered small or domestic and will produce considerable cumulative impact from certain viewing directions. The applicant’s photomontages do not provide views from significant locations that would illustrate the proximity to Lambrigg (4.5km) and Armistead at Old Hutton (2.4km).

• The increase in “clutter” that this turbine (and others in the pipeline) will bring to the M6 corridor in South Lakeland.

• The Cumbria Wind Energy SPD identifies the Kendal Low Fells area capable of accepting “- - - up to a small group” which is defined as 3 - 5 turbines. The Armistead Wind Farm already exceeds this threshold and any additional medium-sized turbines cannot be allowed if the SPD is to have any credibility.

• The turbine would be very close to the proposed extension to the Yorkshire Dales National Park.

• In this case, the electricity is to be fed into the national grid and not used locally. Hence, although there is a very small national benefit there is no local benefit but significant local impact and the planning balance has to be weighted significantly against this proposal.

In summary, agreeing to this application would go one more step to changing the nature of the landscape of South Lakeland for at least a generation without contributing any local advantages.

FRIENDS OF THE LAKE DISTRICT (CPRE):

The turbine is sited in a prominent, isolated open countryside location. There are no other structures in the vicinity of a comparable height and nature. The turbine would

19

be clearly visible in the wider landscape. The Cumbria Wind Energy SPD highlights the importance of appropriate siting and the sensitivity of views towards the designated landscapes that surround the area. The turbine will break the skyline as viewed from a number of currently open perspectives towards the fells. The ZVI diagram indicates that the turbine will be visible across a wide area. The visual impact of the turbine will be significant, given the multitude of minor roads and rights of way in this area, which are popular with walkers, cyclists and horse riders.

INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATIONS:

One letter of support has been received from the nearby Ecclerigg hall Farm. The writer has no concerns about the visual appearance of the turbine from his property and feels that it would fit well within the landscape.

16 objections have been received. The main grounds of objection can be summarized as follows :

• The site is prominent and isolated and the turbine would be clearly visible in the wider landscape. The turbine will have a significant and harmful impact.

• The turbine will be harmful to the setting of the Yorkshire Dales National Park, being sited on a hill 2.9km from the current Park boundary and 0.65km from the proposed extended boundary.

• The turbine will produce a negligible amount of power but will cause significant harm to the landscape.

• The turbine will be clearly visible and significantly intrusive for the occupants of the nearby residential properties.

• It will have a cumulative visual impact being located between the Lambrigg and Old Hutton wind farms.

• Not only is the turbine in a visible place it is not likely to be the only one for which planning permission will be sought in this area. It is likely to be followed by similar applications for individual turbines which are likely to turn the area between the Lune and Kent valleys into an industrialised landscape if this type of development is not halted at this point.

• Taken together, smaller multiple applications will have a serious cumulative and damaging impact on the landscape of South Lakeland.

• Noise from the turbine will have a severe impact on local residents. Whereas inaccurate and misleading information has been used in the application as a justification for stating that there will be a low noise impact.

• The turbine will be close to the Burns Beck Moss SSSI. The tranquillity of the site will be seriously compromised by the Armistead wind Farm and the experience of wildness and isolation will be further diminished by the proposed turbine.

• The evidence of wildlife impact, in particular birds and bats, is inadequate.

• The vehicular access to the site is poor and there will be extensive damage to the road network caused by the transportation of materials and equipment.

20

• The development will produce no community benefits.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT:

None.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL:

The proposed three-bladed wind turbine is to be mounted on a tower 40 metres high. At their highest, the tips of the blades would be 54.5m above ground level. The tower is in the form of a tapered steel structure painted white. It is to be sited on the top of a hill in the open countryside approximately 2.5 miles south of Junction 37 and the Lambrigg Wind Farm. The turbine will be positioned approximately 430m to the south of Ecclerigg Hall, where there are three houses and some 640m to the north west of Three Mile House, where there are also three dwellings. The site of the six turbines to be erected at Old Hutton lies about two miles to the south east.

The applicant owns 40 acres of land adjacent to the application site which is used to graze 100 sheep. There is no dwelling associated with the farmland and the applicant lives in Heysham. The purpose of the turbine is to generate and supply electricity to the national grid. It is a form of farm diversification in that the income generated will allow the applicant to invest in the farm. In the Supporting Statement that accompanies the planning application it is stated that “- - - by installing the proposed wind turbine, the objectives of reducing the farm’s carbon footprint, becoming more self-sufficient and producing a secure diversified income onto the farm will be achieved”.

POLICY ISSUES:

National Policy

Government policy in respect of renewable energy is contained in Planning Policy Statement 22 : Renewable Energy (PPS22) and the climate change supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development). It is a key principle of PPS22 that small-scale projects can provide a limited but valuable contribution to the overall output of renewable energy and local planning authorities are urged not to reject planning applications simply because the output is small. PPS22 also requires significant weight be given to the wider environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy projects. It is, however, recognised that of all the renewable technologies, wind turbines are likely to have the greatest visual and landscape effects. In assessing planning applications, local authorities are advised that they should recognise that the impact of turbines on the landscape will vary according to the size and number of turbines and the type of landscape involved and that these impacts might be temporary if conditions are attached to planning permissions which require the future decommissioning of turbines. The Supplement to PPS1 states that “An applicant for planning permission to develop a proposal that will contribute to the delivery of the Key Planning Objectives set out in this PPS should expect expeditious and sympathetic handling of the planning application.”

The draft National Planning Policy Framework, published in July, explains that the Government’s objective is that planning should fully support the transition to a low-carbon economy in a changing climate. One of the aims of the planning system to

21

achieve this objective is the delivery of renewable and low-carbon energy infrastructure.

The draft Framework advises LPA’s to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development and :

• Not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low-carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

• Approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

Regional Policy

Policy EM17 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for North West England (RSS) specifically promotes renewable energy sources and states that significant weight should be given to the wider environmental, community and economic benefits of renewable energy schemes. It lists wide-ranging criteria which should be taken into account when assessing renewable energy proposals, including the effects on local amenity, visual impact and nature conservation. The visual impact of such schemes is a matter to be taken into account but should not be used to rule out or place constraints on the development of all, or specific types of, renewable energy technologies.

RSS Policy EMI(A) states that priority should be given to conserving and enhancing areas, sites, features and species of international, national, regional and local landscape, natural environment and historic environment importance.

RSS Policy DP7 promotes the protection and enhancement of environmental quality, including green infrastructure, but at the same time respecting the character and distinctiveness of landscapes and the maintenance and enhancement of the tranquillity of the open countryside.

Structure Plan Policy

Saved Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan states that outside the Lake District National Park and the AONB proposals for renewable energy will be favourably considered if :

(1) there is no significant adverse effect on the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage of the area either individually or cumulatively through their relationship with other utility infrastructure;

(2) there is no significant adverse effect on local amenity, the local economy, highways or telecommunications;

(3) the proposal takes all practicable measures to reduce any adverse impact on the landscape, environment, nature conservation, historical and local community interests.

In considering applications for planning permission in relation to the above criteria, and other policies in the Structure Plan, the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight.

Saved Structure Plan Policy E37 requires development to be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types. It requires proposals to be assessed in relation to :

22

(1) locally distinctive natural or built features;

(2) visual intrusion or impact;

(3) scale in relation to the landscape features;

(4) the character of the built environment;

(5) public access and community value of the landscape;

(6) historic patterns and attributes;

(7) biodiversity features, ecological networks and semi-natural habitats; and

(8) openness, remoteness and tranquillity.

Local Plan Policy

Saved Policy C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan covers wind energy proposals and states that their acceptability will be judged according to whether a number of defined criteria can be satisfied. One of the criteria is that the proposal’s energy contribution and other benefits outweigh any significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape, the amenity of residential properties, nature conservation, archaeological or geographical interests.

Saved Policy C31 is concerned with the cumulative impact of renewable energy projects and states that : Assessments of new proposals for renewable energy developments shall take account of the cumulative effect of the development on the area if other similar renewable energy projects have been permitted within the same area.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy

Policy CS7.7 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy supports, in principle (where the protection of the environment is assured and designated areas are safeguarded), appropriately located schemes which will increase energy production from the full range of renewable sources, including wind energy.

Policy CS8.2 (Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character) states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive landscape character types identified in various documents, including the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area.

Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit

This document was published in March 2011 by the County Council. It reflects the principles of the European Landscape Convention by identifying and assessing landscape types and by providing a strategic framework and guidelines to help protect, manage and plan changes to maintain and enhance landscape distinctiveness.

The site lies within a landscape sub-type described in the Guidance as “rolling farmland and heath”. It is a landscape which is medium to large scale and open. Attention is drawn to the expansive views to the Yorkshire Dales, Lakeland Fells and Morecambe Bay which are sensitive to poorly sited and scaled development, including large scale infrastructure development. The Guidance goes on to state that only development which is of high quality and which can be contained by the natural

23

rolling topography will be accepted in order that the uncluttered natural character of the rolling farmland and heath might be conserved. Finally, the Guidance recommends : Avoid siting large scale wind energy, other vertical structures such as telecommunications masts, pylons and overhead transmission lines in open and prominent areas where it could degrade the rural character of the area and affect sensitive areas.

Cumbria Joint Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

The SPD states that it is important to look favourably on wind energy development that does not cause unacceptable harm to the built and natural environment.

The application site is within a landscape type defined as having a “moderate” capacity to accommodate turbine development. Whilst the landscape in which the application site is located has a moderate to high value it is unlikely to be significantly compromised by wind energy development. The distinctive character is mainly attributable to simple moorland forms. Natural and cultural features and striking views are recognised under this designation but, for the most part, are localised and should influence siting and design rather than reduce capacity in the landscape as a whole. A key constraint, however, is the potential for turbine development to erode what the SPD describes as “a peaceful backwater character.” The SPD also draws attention to the particular sensitivity of the view from the western Howgills towards the rolling farmland and heath near Kendal and back towards the Yorkshire Dales from the A684, M6 and Killington Reservoir.

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 main issues raised by this application are, firstly, the effect of the proposed wind turbine on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural landscape; and, secondly, its impact on the living conditions of nearby residents, with particular reference to noise.

The first issue : character and appearance

The hub height of the turbine is 40m and the height to the blade tip is 54.5m. It is to be located on an elevated site close to the top of a slope. It is within the open countryside to the south of Killington Reservoir in a landscape of rolling hills and fields. The site is elevated, prominent and isolated and the Zone of Theoretical Visibility diagram, submitted as part of the application, indicates that the turbine will be visible across a wide area. Also, the submitted photomontages indicate that the turbine will break the skyline when viewed from a number of perspectives. The fact that the turbine will be silhouetted against the exacting background of the sky will accentuate its height and prominence. If permitted, the turbine will exert a visual dominance; such is its height and verticality and the movement of the blades that it could not be otherwise. Both the visual impact and the effect on landscape character would be strongly adverse.

24

Apart from electricity line poles and a TV transmission mast (to the south east), there are no other structures in the vicinity of the application site of a comparable height or nature. It is a landscape in which man-made structures do not dominate. For instance, the M6 motorway passes to the west but it is generally well concealed by landforms and is not a strong detractor in landscape terms.

The site is between the Lambrigg and Old Hutton wind farms and the latter turbines will be clearly visible in the same frame of reference when seen from certain viewpoints to the north : from the Killington motorway service are, for example. The cumulative impact would further detract from the sense of tranquillity and the general absence of intrusive man-made development.

Although Key Principle 9 iv) of PPS22 requires that significant weight needs to be given to the wider environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy projects, the fact remains that this particular turbine would be an isolated and highly conspicuous vertical feature and one that would be incongruous in its surroundings. The turbine is clearly in conflict with development plan policies that seek to safeguard the character and appearance of the countryside, notably RSS Policies EM17, EM1(A) and DP7; saved Policies R44 and E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan; saved Policy C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan; and Policies CS7.7 and CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.

The second issue : living conditions

The nearest residents are those living at Ecclerigg Hall Farm (about 430m away) and Three Mile House (approximately 640m away). Information submitted with the application indicates that, at the garden boundary of Ecclerigg Hall, the noise from the turbine would “produce less than 35dB(A)”. In terms of the nearby residents’ living conditions, much depends on the prevailing background noise levels. The application does not, however, include any site-specific survey data and, as pointed out by the Environmental Protection Officer, the background noise levels at Ecclerigg Hall are not known. A properly conducted noise survey is needed to establish the background noise level in comparison with the noise levels predicted with the turbine. The survey will establish if a statutory nuisance is likely to be caused. In the absence of site-specific survey data it is not possible to reach a reasoned conclusion on whether or not the noise from the turbine would unacceptably worsen living conditions for neighbouring residents.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reasons below -

Reason

(1)

The proposed turbine on this prominent and elevated site would have a substantial and adverse visual impact and would thereby cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the landscape and its surroundings. The turbine is, therefore, in conflict with the objectives of Policies EM17, EM1(A) and DP7 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for North West England; saved Policies R44 and E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan; saved Policy C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan; and Policies CS7.7 and CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.

Reason (2) There is not sufficient evidence included in the submitted planning application to prove that the turbine will not cause harm to the living

25

conditions currently enjoyed by nearby residents by reason of noise nuisance. In particular, there is an absence of site-specific survey data and, as a consequence, it is not possible to establish the background noise level and to compare it with the noise levels predicted with the turbine. The proposal is, therefore, not compatible with the objectives of saved Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and saved Policy C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

26

SCHEDULE A


SCHEDULE No: 2

SL/2011/0598

WHITWELL AND SELSIDE: LONGWELL, SELSIDE, KENDAL LA8 9LD PROPOSAL: CONVERSION OF BARN TO DWELLING AND SUB-DIVISION OF EXISTING FARMHOUSE INTO TWO HOLIDAY LETTING UNITS MR and MRS GIBSON

27/10/2011

E353708 N499519

SUMMARY:

The principle and detail of the proposed two holiday letting units is acceptable and the relocation of the farmhouse in the attached barn does not appear contentious in planning terms.

WHITWELL and SELSIDE PARISH COUNCIL:

No comments received.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS:

Vehicle access is acceptable. The Public Right of Way through the site should be protected.

SLDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER:

No concerns in relation to drainage.

The building range adjoins a poultry unit. If that unit and the residential use were in separate ownership there could be conflict because of odour and noise. Suggest a condition requiring the properties remain in one ownership while the poultry unit remains in operation.

There should be assessment that the existing oil store shown in the building range should not have a negative impact on future occupants.

Clarification is needed on the intended water supply.

27


The existing farmhouse of Longwell and associated farm buildings are sited in the countryside to the north of Selside Church but the vehicle access is from the A6 to the north. The farmhouse which is the only dwelling on the farm is pre-twentieth century and has no occupancy condition attached to it. After the loss of the farm’s dairy herd in the Foot and Mouth outbreak the farm diversified into free range egg production based on a new poultry building to the north and west of the subject of this application: the farmhouse and its attached traditional bank barn.

The farmhouse range is only one room deep and shows every sign of once having been two houses with two front doors and two staircases. It lacks a farm office with associated file storage. The attached stone barn is broader than the farmhouse range and nearer to the poultry unit. The applicants wish to provide two holiday letting units to boost the farm income and to provide improved farmhouse accommodation. The application proposes the conversion of the existing farmhouse to two x two-bedroomed holiday lets with the division following the probable original division and no significant external changes. It is proposed to convert the attached barn to a replacement three-bedroomed farmhouse with an integral farm office. The external design minimizes new openings on the main walls of the barn and re-uses existing openings.

The application is accompanied by a Structural Report, a Bat and Barn Owl Report with Mitigation Proposals and Drainage details for a proposed mini sewage treatment plant. The site has sole use of a private water supply which in the past served both the farmhouse and the water demands of the dairy herd. The oil store referred to by the Environmental Protection Officer is merely the outhouse which houses the oil tank for the domestic heating system. This is unaltered by the proposal.

The route of the public footpath which passes through the farmstead is outside the application site itself.

POLICY ISSUES:

Saved Policy T4 of the South Lakeland Local Plan permits the conversion of traditional buildings and barns outside development boundaries to self-catering holiday accommodation subject to criteria specific to that policy but also subject to the criteria of Saved Policy H12 of the South Lakeland Local Plan which include the criterion that the building should be within a building group containing at least one dwelling.

In relation to the principle of the conversion of barns outside settlements the policies of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy are of importance:

Policy CS1.2 “The Development Strategy” concentrates development in Kendal and Ulverston but apportions approximately 13% of the remainder to other towns, 21% to within the development boundaries of named larger villages and 11% to smaller villages and hamlets. While priority is given to the re-use of existing buildings and previously developed land the Development Strategy limits development in the smaller villages and hamlets to infilling and rounding-off. It states “exceptionally new development will be permitted in the open countryside” in a number of cases including “the appropriate change of use of an existing building.”

28

Policies CS6.1 – CS6.6 provide specific housing policies for use in association with Policy CS1.2. Policy CS6.4 states that housing not in service centres, villages or hamlets will only be considered when it provides 100% affordable housing.

Saved Policy L10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan protects public rights of way from disruption.

The Planning System: General Principles gives advice on other material planning considerations.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT:


ASSESSMENT:

The proposal meets the detailed design criteria of Saved Policies T4 and H12.

There is no policy objection to the conversion to create two holiday letting units subject to the imposition of the standard conditions relating to holiday units. While such units could be created by the conversion of the barn and the needs for more office and other space for the farmhouse could be met by the extension of the latter, more suitable accommodation, of better appearance with no addition or extensions, could be provided by converting the existing farmhouse to two holiday lets and creating a replacement farmhouse in the barn. This arrangement would also have the advantage that it would be the farmers residing nearest to the poultry unit and other farm buildings and the holiday-makers who were furthest from these agricultural buildings with their impacts in terms of noise and smell. The scheme as submitted with this arrangement would not result in an additional permanent dwelling within the group nor give rise to any different pattern of domestic journeys or service demands. In these circumstances, attaching an occupancy condition to the replacement farmhouse does not appear to be justified by policies framed to deal with additional dwellings but a condition is recommended requiring that once the new dwelling is occupied the existing farmhouse range is only occupied in accordance with the holiday letting conditions. A further condition is recommended linking the occupation of the converted barn to the operation of the adjoining Poultry Unit while the latter is in use so as to avoid unneighbourly conflict between the uses.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to:

Condition (1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date hereof.

Reason To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

29

Condition (2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 405-3; 405-4 and 405-5.

Reason For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Condition (3) The two eastern units created by the subdivision of the existing farmhouse shall not be used at any time as sole or principal residences or as second homes.

Reason To safeguard the local tourist economy in accordance with Policy CS7.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.

Condition (4) The two eastern units created by the subdivision of the existing farmhouse shall not be let to any person or connected group of people for a period exceeding eight weeks in any one calendar year.


Condition (5) A bound register shall be maintained at all times of all occupants of the two eastern units created by the subdivision of the existing farmhouse and this register shall be made available for inspection by the Local Planning Authority on request and shall consist of consecutively numbered pages, which shall be kept in order, and each entry shall contain the name and address of the principal occupier together with the dates of occupation.


Condition (6) Whilst the building owned by the applicants to the west and north of the application site is in use as a working Poultry Unit the dwelling hereby permitted to be formed by the conversion of the barn on the site shall only be occupied by someone engaged in the operation of that unit and any resident family or the widow or widower of such a person.

Reason To avoid an unneighbourly conflict between the operation of the Poultry Unit with its attendant noise and smell and the occupation of the dwelling.

Condition (7) After the new dwelling hereby permitted to be formed by the conversion of the existing barn is first occupied the existing farmhouse at the eastern end of the building range shall only be occupied for holiday letting purposes in accordance with Conditions 3, 4 and 5 attached to this grant of planning permission.

Reason The conversion of the barn to a dwelling would be contrary to Policy CS6.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy other than in substitution for the original dwelling and the conversion of the latter to holiday letting use.

30

Condition (8) This permission authorises no greater extent of reconstruction than that described in the submitted plans and structural survey report.

Reason To safeguard the traditional agricultural building in accordance with Saved Policy H12 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Condition (9) The development shall not proceed except in accordance with the mitigation strategy described in the Bat and Barn Owl Report prepared by Envirotech and deposited with the Local Planning Authority with the planning application.

Reason For the avoidance of doubt and to prevent harm to protected species in accordance with Policy CS8.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.

Condition (10) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development of the type described in Classes A, B, C and E, Part 1 of Schedule 2 of that Order shall be undertaken without the express permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason To conserve the character of this traditional building range in accord with Saved Policies T4 and H12 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

REASON FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION: The proposed conversion of the existing house and attached barn to one dwelling and two holiday letting units is acceptable as a comprehensive scheme of farm diversification in accordance with Saved Policies T4 and H12 of the South Lakeland Local Plan. That the proposed dwelling is in substitution for the existing dwelling rather than in addition to it avoids conflict with Policies CS1.2 and CS6.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy. The development would accord with Saved Policy L10 of the South Lakeland Local Plan by avoiding detriment to the adjoining Public Right of Way. There are no other material considerations which indicate that planning permission should not be granted.

31

SCHEDULE A


SCHEDULE No: 3

SL/2011/0682

MIDDLETON: LAND ADJACENT TO JORDAN LANE TO THE SOUTH OF HOLME FARM, MIDDLETON, LA6 2NF PROPOSAL: AGRICULTURAL LIVESTOCK BUILDING MR and MRS K BOOTH

27/10/2011

E363350 N489880

SUMMARY:

A modern, utilitarian agricultural building is proposed for an isolated site in an area of considerable scenic value which is proposed for inclusion in the Yorkshire Dales National Park. Advice is being sought over whether there is a substantive and material operational needs requirement for the building.

MIDDLETON PARISH COUNCIL:

Comments to be received by 16 September 2011.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS:

To be reported.

FRIENDS OF THE LAKE DISTRICT (CPRE):

To be reported.

INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATIONS:

Three objections have been received. The main grounds can be summarized as follows :

• The animal unit will spoil a beautiful area of countryside where there are no buildings.

• If planning permission is granted, more buildings will be needed as the proposed building is not large enough to house stock, implements, animal feed and waste.

32

• The access road (Jordan Lane) is not a quiet lane as suggested in the application. It is a busy through-road from Dent to the A683 and provides access for many businesses.

• The exit has a restricted view onto Jordan Lane.

• The building will generate a considerable increase in traffic.

• The building will be visually intrusive on this isolated site in unspoilt countryside and will be clearly visible from the surrounding area. It will be more visible in the landscape than that refused planning permission at nearby High Fellside.

• There is no indication in the application that the building can be supplied with water nor are there any details explaining the arrangements for effluent disposal.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT:

Although there have not been any previous applications for agricultural buildings on the application site, a similar proposal on the same holding was refused planning permission in July last year on an elevated site near High Fellside, approximately 0.5 mile to the south east. Members visited the site before refusing planning permission for the following reason :

The proposed building will occupy an exposed, elevated site where, because of its prominence, size and utilitarian nature, it will detract from the character of the surrounding countryside and intrude into its open appearance. The development would thus harm both the character and appearance of the landscape and, in the absence of an overriding operational need, would conflict with the aims and objectives of Saved Policy S23 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.


The proposed agricultural building is to be used for accommodating stock and the storage of feed and implements. Cattle will be housed during the winter and it is to be used for lambing during the spring. It is not associated with any group of buildings and it will occupy an isolated, roadside position in a field alongside Jordan Lane. There are no buildings of any kind in the vicinity of the application site. The applicant lives at Marthwaite, about one mile to the north west, and the nearest farmsteadings, both named Holme Farm, are located about 0.5 mile to the north. Jordan Lane itself is a narrow, country lane with few passing places. From its junction with the A683 it runs in a northern direction to both Holme Farms and from there it turns eastwards towards Dentdale.

The application site is within an area proposed for inclusion within the Yorkshire Dales National Park.

The building is a portal-frame structure that will cover a ground area measuring 22.5m by 13.5m and will stand 5m high to the ridge (3.5m to the eaves). It is to be constructed of timber boarding over concrete panels and the roof is to be covered with grey sheeting.

33

POLICY ISSUES:

Policy EC6 of Planning Policy Statement 4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth) states that local planning authorities should ensure that the countryside is protected for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and to ensure it may be enjoyed by all.

Annex E of Planning Policy Statement 7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) contains advice on the siting of new agricultural buildings and states that “The siting of a new agricultural building - - - can have a considerable impact on the site and the surrounding landscape. Developments should be assimilated into the landscape without compromising the functions they are intended to serve. New buildings should normally form part of a group rather than stand in isolation, and relate to existing buildings in size and colour - - - Sites on skylines should be avoided if possible. To reduce their visual impact buildings should be blended into the landscape or, on sloping sites, set into the slope if that can be achieved without disproportionate cost.”

Saved Policy S23 of the Local Plan seeks to avoid significant adverse impact of new farm buildings on the character and appearance of the local area whilst at the same time having full regard to agricultural need.

The Policy states that new agricultural buildings will be acceptable only where the proposal has no significant adverse impact on :

(a) the visual amenity of the local area, in terms of siting, profile, roof-pitch and colour, taking into account the need for additional landscaping;

(b) the amenity of any nearby residential properties; and

(c) local nature conservation interests.

Policy S23 concludes by stating that : “In considering proposals, the District Council will also have full regard to the operational needs of agricultural businesses.”

The following policies from the recently adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy are of relevance to the application :

Policy CS7.4 – encourages and supports sustainable farming and food production.

Policy CS8.2 – requires development proposals to demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area.

Policy CS8.10 – 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 - - -.”

THE APPLICANTS’ CASE FOR THE BUILDING:

1. The applicants rent 190 acres of land on an eight-year Farm Business Tenancy. The stock comprises 26 head of cattle and 500 sheep.

2. Mrs Booth is the third generation of farmers who have farmed the land at High Fellside. Following her parents’ retirement in 2002 the farmhouse was retained by the landlord and thus ceased to function as the farmhouse. The traditional stone-built barns at High Fellside have recently been removed from

34

the tenancy agreement. The barns whilst the applicants no longer use them do not provide for adequate modern stock accommodation in terms of animal welfare and husbandry and do not allow for direct access for feed deliveries. There is currently no building in which to house stock.

3. The applicants live at Marthwaite, which is approximately 1.5 miles away from their farmed land.

4. The proposed building is needed to serve the functioning and viability of the farming enterprise. It is to be used for accommodating stock and the storage of feed and implements. It will allow direct access for animal feed delivery from Jordan Lane which will reduce the man-hours currently required to bring feed which in turn supports the sustainability of the farm.

5. The previous application for an agricultural building near to the original farmhouse was refused because of its visual impact on the Lune Valley. The current site is sheltered and minimises any visual intrusion.

6. The applicants conclude their case for the building as follows : “We are a family who wishes to continue farming and are prepared to invest in the future of our tenanted farmland with a building to allow modern farming accommodation. We feel this building is critical to the future sustainability of our farming business.”

THE ADVICE RECEIVED FROM THE COUNCIL’S AGRICULTURAL CONSULTANT:

To be reported.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT:


ASSESSMENT:

The main issue raised by this application is the effect of the building on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape.

The application site lies to the south west of Sedbergh near to the confluence of the Lune and Rawthey. Between Sedbergh and Kirkby Lonsdale, the floodplain of the Lune is flanked to the west by low fells while to the east the fells of the Yorkshire Dales rise steeply above the valley. The proposed building is to be erected in a field lying between the junction of Jordan Lane and the A683 and the two Holme Farms. Overall, the area has considerable natural beauty and a high scenic value. The quality of the landscape is recognised by its inclusion within an area proposed as a western extension of the Yorkshire Dales National Park.

There are no buildings in the vicinity of the application site and, if built, it would be readily visible in this unspoilt area of countryside. Because of its bulk, isolated position and materials of construction, the building will not only be conspicuous in this

35

outstanding landscape but severely intrusive. It is an entirely utilitarian structure which, if permitted, would be materially harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

Saved Policy S23 of the Local Plan requires the District Council to have full regard to the operational needs of agricultural businesses. In order to ascertain whether there is a material needs argument to weigh against the intrusive nature of the building, specialist advice is being sought from the Council’s agricultural consultant. At the time of writing, a response has not been received.

Whether or not there is a genuine need for the building, the fact remains that the building would be a prominent, isolated and intrusive form of development within an area of countryside of considerable natural beauty. By introducing an additional built form into the landscape, the proposal would both detract from its appearance and intrude into its open character. Unless there is a compelling and substantive operational needs requirement to weigh against this adverse effect, planning permission should be refused.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Corporate Director (Communities) will report the advice received from the Council’s agricultural consultant over whether there is a material and substantive operational needs requirement for this building to weigh against the significant harm the building would cause to the surrounding countryside.

36

SCHEDULE A


SCHEDULE No: 4

SL/2011/0699

ALDINGHAM: GARDEN OF FLOSH FIELDS, SCALES, ULVERSTON LA12 0PF PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF NEW DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE MR & MRS T and L DOUGLAS

27/10/2011

E326909 N472510

SUMMARY:

Outline application for the construction of a dwelling. Main issues relate to whether the proposal constitutes infilling or rounding off, relationship to neighbouring properties and impact on trees.

ALDINGHAM PARISH COUNCIL:

Parish Council Members have raised a couple of points of concern. The first is that the proposed plans lie outside the development boundary and it is debatable whether it constitutes a rounding off of the village. The second is that the area is covered with mature trees, many of which will need to be removed to accommodate the building and access route. It isn’t clear from the plans how many trees will be retained.

CUMBRIA HIGHWAYS:

The proposal is acceptable to Cumbria Highways.


The outline application relates to the construction of a new single storey detached dwelling and garage on an area of land adjacent to the applicants house on the northern side of the village of Scales. The site incorporates part of the applicants garden land and part of an adjacent separate parcel of orchard and woodland which contains a number of mature trees. The southern boundary of the site adjoins the garden of a neighbouring detached dwelling known as Hollow Stones.

Access to the site is via a private lane which serves the village hall, a farm and two residential properties including the applicants house.

The submitted plans indicate that the proposed dwelling would be positioned towards the southern boundary of the site and would be in the form of an ‘L’ shaped single

37

storey bungalow. A new access drive would be created to serve the development off the private lane adjacent to the farm which would cut through the woodland area. A detached garage, parking and turning areas are also proposed.

The applicants, who are retired, currently live in Flosh Fields House which is now too large for their requirements. They wish to stay in the village and the new dwelling will provide more suitable single storey accommodation.

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. 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.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT:


38

ASSESSMENT:

The main planning issues raised by this application are whether the proposal can be regarded as appropriate infilling or rounding off of Scales, bearing in mind the adopted planning policies for the area; whether the building would have a harmful impact upon the mature trees and shrubs on the northern part of the site.

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.

Scales consists of two main building groups centred upon the highway which runs east/west through the village. The site is located to the north of the western building group and outside the previously established development boundary. Although there is a substantial farmstead to the east of the site, it is considered that the proposed dwelling would be poorly related to the other dwellings in this part of the village in that it would extend the building group northwards and would not result in a coherent group of properties. There is also concern that by allowing a development in this location, it could set a precedent for further similar proposals. As such it is considered that the proposed development could not be described as infilling or rounding off as defined in the Core Strategy.

The second issue relates to the impact of the development upon a number of mature trees and shrubs on the northern and western part of the site, particularly where the proposed access and garage would be built. Although none of the trees individually are of special interest, and the land is somewhat overgrown, they do form an attractive grouping which contributes to the amenity of the area. The proposed siting of the dwelling itself will not affect any of the trees, but the access and garage will result in the removal of a number of these trees and the desire to create a manageable garden associated with the dwelling could also result in pressure for the removal of additional trees and shrubs.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reasons below:

Reason (1) The proposed dwelling 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 an undesirable extension of the village, which would detract from the rural character of Scales and the appearance of the surrounding

39

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 development would result in the removal of a number of mature trees and shrubs which 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.

40

SCHEDULE A


SCHEDULE No: 5

SL/2011/0730

LOWER ALLITHWAITE: BLENKETT WOOD LODGE PARK, JACK HILL, ALLITHWAITE, GRANGE over SANDS LA11 7RL PROPOSAL: USE OF LAND FOR SITING ONE STATIC HOLIDAY CARAVAN MR DAVID KHAN

27/10/2011

E338968 N475773

SUMMARY:

The proposal will extend the caravan park outside the natural confines of the landscape and reduce the open space between the caravan park and the agricultural buildings to the west. There is no justification for a caravan to be sited within the Flood Zone 3b in this location. REFUSE

LOWER ALLITHWAITE PARISH COUNCIL:

Comments to be received by 10 October 2011.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY:

The details provided by the Local Planning Authority demonstrate that parts (a) and (b) of the Exception Test have not been passed and therefore the Agency recommends refusal.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT:

Planning permission was granted for a caravan park consisting of 13 static caravans in 2006. Caravans within the site were not sited in accordance with the approved plans and the landscaping has not been implemented in accordance with those plans. An application is currently under consideration which seeks to regularise these matters. It is likely that additional planting will be required around the northern side of the site.

A caravan was previously located on the site for the occupation of an employee. Planning permission was refused for the retention of the caravan in October 2010. There was no functional need for a member of staff to be available on site at all times and the caravan itself extended beyond the natural confines of the original caravan park thus adversely affecting the landscape.

41

An application for a holiday caravan on the site was submitted in April 2011. The application was withdrawn following publication of the Committee Report which recommended refusal.


It is proposed to install an additional caravan at the entrance to the main caravan site. The caravan would be set further back into the plot of land than the caravan previously refused or subject to the withdrawn application. The caravan would be for holiday accommodation.

A letter in support of the application has been submitted. The letter asserts that the proposal would blend in as part of the original scheme and would be screened from the Cumbria Coastal path by Castle Haw and the large farm buildings. It is stated that the proposal will enhance tourism and that the maintenance and management of the park has already generated local jobs and the proposal would help sustain them thereby according with planning policy and supporting local enterprise. The applicant states that there is no alternative site available for the proposed caravan.

POLICY ISSUES:

Planning Policy Statements:

Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable development in Rural Areas

Sustainable tourism should be supported where this will benefit business. The PPS states that Local Authorities should carefully weigh the objective of providing facilities with the need to protect the landscape and the need for locations away from sites prone to flooding.

Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk

The PPS and various supplements seek to ensure that planning delivers sustainable development in the right places, taking full account of coastal change. The proposed development is designated as “more vulnerable” and within a high risk flood zone (Flood Zone 3a). The PPS states that in such cases development should pass an exception test. For an exception test to be passed it must be demonstrated that the proposal provides wider sustainability benefits to the community which outweigh the flood risk. It also requires that development should be on previously developed land or, if not there are no reasonable alternative sites available and that a Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that the development will be safe.

North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy:

Policy W6 encourages sustainable tourism which will strengthen and diversify the economic base. Development should be of an appropriate scale and be located where the environment and infrastructure can accommodate the visitor impact.

Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan:

Saved Policy E37 states that development should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of the landscape.

The South Lakeland Local Development Framework – Core Strategy:

Policies CS1.1 and CS1.2 promote sustainable development and require a sequential approach to the location of new development.

42

Policy CS4 states that the strength of tourism across the areas should be maintained and strengthened.

Policy CS7.6 states that tourism development should be of an appropriate scale and be located where the environment infrastructure can accommodate the impact. Where a proposal is not readily accessible by public transport, then it will be permitted where it relies on a specific resource.

Policy CS8.2 requires that proposals are sympathetic to the landscape.

Policy CS8.8 states that in flood risk zones 3b development will only be acceptable where it is compatible with the sequential and exception tests.

South Lakeland Local Plan:

Saved Policy T6 allows for small scale extensions to caravan parks subject to no adverse impact on the landscape or wildlife and the road system being adequate.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT:


ASSESSMENT:

The permitted caravan site is set within a natural enclosure of woodland and higher land. Additional tree planting was to take place at the southern and northern ends of the site, ensuring that it was well contained within the landscape. The layout differs slightly from the original plan and the approved landscaping scheme was not implemented. However, an application has now been received to regularise these matters and negotiations are taking place with regard to suitable planting at the northern end of the site.

The proposed new caravan would be located outside the original permitted site adjacent to the entrance. It will not be contained within the natural form of the landscape and will extend the site to the west out into the open land between the site and the agricultural buildings belonging to Blenkett Farm. While views of the site are limited and the agricultural buildings have greater impact within the landscape, the proposal will reduce the gap between the developed areas. The site would no longer be contained within the landform and would affect the landscape in this area. Trees and hedging have been planted around the site and it is proposed to plant more trees in front of the proposed caravan. The planting will enclose the proposed additional caravan. This will however take a considerable amount of time to become effective. This is evidenced by the poor growth of trees planted a few years ago at the northern end of the site. The planting will not prevent encroachment outside of the former contained landscape. The proposal would also set a precedent for further encroachment to the west of the site.

The site is within a Flood Zone 3b where the development of new holiday caravans should only be granted subject to an “Exception Test” as required by PPS25. The Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the last application is still relevant. The Assessment acknowledges the Flood Risk and confirms that the habitable floor level

43

would be located at 8.00m above Ordnance Datum as required by the Environment Agency. During the last application the Environment Agency confirmed the Flood Risk Assessment satisfied part “c” of the Exception Test required by PPS25.

Part “a” of the test requires that the development provides wider sustainability benefits that outweigh the flood risk. The supporting information submitted with the application points out that parts of the permitted caravan site are within the flood zone. However at the time of that application, the site was above the flood zone. The flood maps have been altered since that permission. Flood Zone 3b now encompasses a much larger area inland. The changes take into account rising sea levels, the channel changes and increased silt within Morecambe Bay, and the Coastal Management Plan. There is a tidal flap to the south of the site which is no longer maintained by the Environment Agency which has resulted in increased ponding in the area to the south and west. While the site would only flood in an extreme event, this situation will worsen with increased silt levels in the bay. PPS25 was published in December 2006, after the original planning permission. These changes must therefore be taken into account. While the proposal will support the applicant’s business, a single additional caravan will not significantly improve or benefit the local economy to such a level that the risks to occupiers would be outweighed.

The final test requires that development either be located on previously developed land or if not where there is no reasonable alternative site. The locations of caravan sites are not restricted by fixed factors. While it is in the applicant’s interest to extend this site, it is not the case that caravans cannot be located elsewhere. The current site is still unfinished and the applicant is also developing a site at The Pastures to the north of Allithwaite. The Exception Test as required by PPS25 has therefore not been passed.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reasons below -

Reason (1) The location of the proposed caravan would extend the caravan park beyond the natural confines of the landscape and intrude into the open space between the caravan park and the agricultural buildings to the west. A caravan in this location would have greater prominence and adversely affect the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Saved Policy E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan, Policies CS1.1, CS1.2, CS7.6 and CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and Saved Policy T6 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Reason (2) The proposal would locate a caravan within a Flood Zone 3b where development should only be permitted where the Exception Test has been passed. There is no evidence that the proposal would provide wider sustainability benefits to outweigh the flood risk or that caravan development could not be located elsewhere. The proposal therefore fails to accord with the advice in Planning Policy Statement 25 – Development and Flood Risk and Policy CS8.8 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.

44

SCHEDULE C

Applications relating to Listed Buildings

SCHEDULE No: 6

SL/2011/0384 and 0400

KENDAL: FORMER INSURANCE HALL, SAND AIRE HOUSE, STRAMONGATE, KENDAL LA9 4UA PROPOSAL: EXTENSION OF TIME CONDITION ON SL/2007/0948 (CHANGE OF USE TO FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE INCORPORATING BOWLING, POOL AND FOOD / DRINKS BAR) MRS C BOLGER

27/10/2011

E351842 N492838.9

SUMMARY:

The proposed use is comparable to an existing permitted use and remains acceptable in planning terms for this town centre site subject to the imposition of the original conditions. The advice of the Council’s Solicitor is awaited as to whether the original planning permission and listed building consent have become legally void and hence incapable of extensions in their time limits.

KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL:

Approve.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GROUP (SLDC):

No comments or observations.

OTHER:

6 letters of objection and 6 letters of negative comment have been received from neighbouring residents of Sand Aire House. All refer to inadequate parking and the impact of the potential loss of parking on New Road. All the objectors and two of those commenting refer to the use as being incompatible with the adjoining residential uses especially in terms of noise, disturbance and hours of operation. Four refer to security fears. Five refer to the deterioration of the building’s condition since the grants of permission. One refers to loss of the beneficial use of nearby balconies.

One letter raises a legal query about the validity of the grant of planning permission and listed building consent (SL/2007/0948 and 0947) in 2008 and thus queries whether it is therefore possible to extend the time conditions on them. The basis of

45

the query is that all the residential and commercial leaseholders of Sand Aire House have a responsibility for the fabric of the building and therefore all of them should have been given legal notice of those original applications by the applicant. While the agent was asked to do this in relation to the current extension of time applications it was not done in 2007 but no other leaseholder raised this as an issue at the time.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT:

Following the cessation of the use of the whole of Sand Aire House as insurance company offices, planning permission and listed building consent were granted for the change of use of the building in 2001 from office/commercial to a bar/restaurant on the ground floor and apartments on the upper floors. In 2003 planning and listed building consent were granted for a public house with Manager’s flat in the bar/restaurant location. Those 2003 permissions remain valid until March 2008 and the earlier permission will remain permanently valid because the remainder of the permission has been implemented. The permissions granted had conditions attached requiring approval of sound insulation and kitchen exhaust ventilation. The premises were only to be open to the public until 23.20 hours Monday to Saturday and 22.50 on Sundays and Bank Holidays. There was a requirement in 2001 for sound insulation to be installed between this area and the flats above.

Following a Committee site visit and the submission of further details, planning permission and listed building consent were granted on 10 June 2008 for the conversion of the former Insurance Hall area into a Family Entertainment Centre incorporating Bowling, Pool Tables and Food/Drinks Bar (SL/2007/0948 and 0947).


These applications for extensions of the time limits on the SL/2007/0948 and 0947 planning permission and listed building consent relate to the former Insurance Hall and adjoining space. The Hall was a double height area fronting New Road and forming part of the traditionally-designed but modern, stone building range between the road and the twentieth century tower and additions to the rear and side.

The main entrance to the proposed leisure use would be through what was a former walled garden area fronting New Road. This would involve modifying the existing long windows to the Hall into doorways. Four bowling lanes are proposed on the ground floor of the Insurance Hall with another 4 on a re-formation of the mezzanine level above. To the side of the bowling lanes on the ground floor 4 pool tables are proposed and gaming machines. Also on the ground floor a 28 metre (301 square foot) bar and preparation area with a pizza oven are proposed and at the mezzanine level two family party rooms are proposed of 25 square metres (270 square foot) and 31 square metres (333 square foot). To the south-east of these mezzanine areas and outside the application site are shown two flats which were part of the original 2001 conversion scheme. No access is shown at this level between the application site and the remainder of the building range. A second, ground floor entrance to the proposed Centre is shown from the service entrance to the south-east which serves the apartments. New keypad entry gates are shown on the routes to this service entrance.

46

POLICY ISSUES:

Sand Aire House is a listed building. The original three-storey house of 1827 is that fronting New Road with a major extension in facsimile design on to the Stramongate frontage and the twentieth century blocks to the rear. The site is within the Kendal Conservation Area.

Saved Policy C15 of the South Lakeland Local Plan has regard to preserving a Listed Building, its setting or any features of special architectural or historic merit.

Saved Policy C16 of the Local Plan reflects 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.

Policy CS8.6 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy seeks to safeguard and where possible enhance historic environment assets. Such assets include listed buildings and their settings and Conservation Areas.

There is a statutory duty for the Local Planning Authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character of a Conservation Area.

Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment gives advice on this subject.

Policy CS7.5 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy gives support to maintaining and enhancing the vitality and viability of Kendal Town Centre.

In judging whether it is appropriate to extend the time limit on the planning permission and listed building consent it is relevant to consider any change in circumstances or policy since the original decisions.

ASSESSMENT:

The proposed Centre is in a different category of use (D2) to the bar/restaurant (A4/A3) and public house (A4) previously granted permission, hence the need for the submission of the applications in 2007, but the impact of the use is very similar in terms of traffic generation, opening hours, cooking smells, potential alcohol consumption and impact on the listed building and the residents above. In respect of the latter, the amount of people coming and going and the hours of operation will be very similar. While the permissions for the public house have now expired the permissions for the bar/restaurant are still valid and will continue to remain so. The site is within the town centre. Councillors will be aware that for many years there have been discussions and consultations in relation to the potential for reversion of the New Road Car Park to open space but Sand Aire House is close to other town centre parking including the multi-storey car parks at New Bank Yard and Blackhall Road.

Thus, in terms of policy, the detail of the scheme and the circumstances of the site and town centre, the scheme can still be considered acceptable for this town centre location and the extension of the time limits can be considered acceptable in planning terms subject to the retention of the other previously imposed conditions especially those relating to sound insulation and extraction systems.

The Council’s Solicitor has been asked to consider the legal issue raised as to whether the grant of planning permission and listed building consent under references SL/2007/0948 and 0957 was invalidated or made void because all the leaseholders in the building complex were not notified by the applicant. No

47

leaseholders of other parts of the building range claimed in 2007/2008 to have a legal interest in the application site such as would require notification. If the original permissions were held to be void or invalid on the basis of the current claim then it would not be possible or permissible to extend the time limits. If the original permission and consent are valid then there is no planning reason not to extend the time limits.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT:


RECOMMENDATION:

Subject to no adverse comment -

At present no written response has been received from the Council’s Solicitor in relation to the validity of the original grant of planning permission (SL/2007/0948) and listed building consent (SL/2007/0947). If his advice is that those grants remain valid and that there in no legal reason preventing an extension of the time conditions, then, it is recommended that delegated authority be given to the Interim Corporate Director (Communities) to extend the time conditions on the planning permission, as sought by SL/2011/0384, and listed building consent, as sought by SL/2011/0400 subject to the retention of all other of the originally imposed conditions.

48

PART I

Agenda Item No:7

South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE

Meeting Date: 27 October 2011 Report Author: Mark Shipman

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

APPEALS UPDATE AT 14 OCTOBER 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.

49

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, calculated from those decisions received since 1 April 2011, is 28.5%.

12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES

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

APPENDIX ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix Appeals table updated to include new appeals and appeal decisions

received between 16 September and 14 October 2011.

CONTACT OFFICERS Mark Shipman, Development Management Group Manager - Tel: 01539 797564

50

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Various planning files. TRACKING

Assistant Director Portfolio Holder Solicitor to the Council CMT Admin

14/10/11 D Leather

51

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

53

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

54

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

55

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

DISMIISED (upheld Enforcement Notice - with variation) 5 Sept 2011

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


56

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 Corrected 19 August 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

57

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

DISMISSED 15 August 2011

BEETHAM: Land at Barcaldine Leighton Drive Slack Head

Dwelling Non-Determination

APP/M0933/A/11/2158993 24/8/11 SL/2011/0067

PRESTON PATRICK: Moss End Farm Crooklands

Erection of wind turbine of 15M high mast

Refused 30/6/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2159458 2/9/11 SL/2011/0363

KIRKBY LONSDALE: 2 Leyfield Court

Alterations and extensions Refused 25/8/11 APP/M0933/D/11/2160070 9/9/11 (Householder) SL/2011/0335

ULVERSTON: Priory view camping and caravan club Sandhall

Erection of portable shower cabin (retrospective)

Refused 7/7/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2160453 15/9/11 SL/2011/0269

58

Site

Appellant



MILNTHORPE: Crosby House Ackenthwaite

Detached dwelling Refused 29/7/11 APP/M0933/A/11/2160508 15/9/11 SL/2011/0318

KENDAL: 131 Burneside Road

Extended area to previously approved garden deck together with garden shed (part retrospective)

Refused 15/7/11 APP/M0933/D/11/2160844

21/9/11 (Householder) SL/2011/0345

BARBON: The Old Post Office

Two storey extension Refused 1/7/11 APP/M0933/D/11/2161333

28/9/11 (Householder) SL/2011/0330

59

PART I Agenda Item No:8

South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE MONTHLY ENFORCEMENT

REPORT

Meeting Date: 27 October 2011 Report Author: Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer Portfolio: Not applicable 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 1st AUGUST TO 2nd SEPTEMBER 2011

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 To inform Members about enforcement activity between 1st August and

2nd September 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 1. It is recommended that Members note the report and appendices.

2. Authorise all necessary enforcement actions to remedy the identified Breach of Planning Control.

3. In respect of case 08.345 – consider and approve the course of action as proposed in Part II Appendix 2.

3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 Enforcement cases which have been resolved: 10 outstanding cases from the enforcement caseload have been

resolved between 1st August and 2nd September 2011. 3.2 New enforcement cases: Between 1st August and 2nd September 2011, 32 complaints have been

61

recorded and are presently being investigated. 4 of these cases have been resolved.

3.3 Enforcement cases for which Committee consideration is sought: Holme House Farm, Skelmergh, Kendal 11.078

The above site is the subject of a major enforcement case involving the siting of 15 unauthorised residential caravans and a number of commercial units which were the subject matter of a Public Inquiry in 2010 and an Inspector’s decision letter of 29 September 2010. The case is on-going and the non-public Part II, Appendix 2 sets out further details. Please note that in accordance with Section 100B(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, copies of this appendix are excluded from inspection by members of the public as it contains information as described in Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, namely:-

• Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings (Paragraph 5).

• Information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime. (Paragraph 7).

14th April 2011 Complaint received and prioritized

14th April 2011 Site visit

15th April 2011 Informed Environment Agency and Natural England

15th April 2011 Site visit with officer from Natural England and to serve Temporary Stop Notice and affix Notice at site entrance

23rd June 2011 Dual purpose site visit to check if the 2009 Enforcement Notice has been complied with and to check if the more recent engineering works have ceased

Description of Breach The carrying out of operational development on the land at Holme House Farm. The carrying out of an engineering operation, namely the movement of large quantities of earth to form earth mounds within a flood zone and alteration to the flood plain and river bank and excavation of public footpath / track to the eastern boundary of the site. Harm caused by the construction of the earth bund and removal of earth from public footpath. PPG 18 guides Local Planning Authorities on how it should go about its Enforcement activities. It states, where attempts to persuade an owner or occupier to remedy harmful effects of unauthorised development fails, negotiations should not be allowed to delay any enforcement action that

62

is deemed necessary. Accordingly where an owner refuses to submit a planning application which would enable the grant of conditional Planning Permission, the authority would be justified in serving an Enforcement Notice. Furthermore, the Council has a general discretion to take enforcement action when it is regarded expedient. The tenant of the site has carried out extensive engineering operations to the river bank and adjacent land. Because of the harm caused as stated in this report, it is regarded not expedient to enforce against the works adjacent to the river to be reversed. However, it is regarded expedient to enforce against the excavation to the track at the eastern boundary. On site, the unauthorised works adjacent to the river do not cause a significant adverse visual impact as the area has been graded and seeded. The main concerns are the impact of the mounding and bunds on flooding from the river and disturbance to protected species. With regard to flooding, the Environment Agency has responded as follows:-

“In relation to the flood defence earthworks and rock revetment that have been constructed by Mr Steele, the Environment Agency has assessed these unconsented structures as not increasing downstream flooding. We are therefore not pursuing any enforcement action under our legislation or seeking any remedial works to these structures. However, because the flood defence banks have not been built to our standards we do not consider that they have reduced flood risk at the site. The high flood risk therefore remains for the residents of the site and as this is the case we support South Lakeland District Council’s ongoing enforcement action to remove unconsented residential development from the site.”

The River Kent and its tributaries are designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Approximately 250m of riverbank has been adversely affected, including a 50m landslip at the northern end. Natural England has advised that the work in question along the River Sprint at Holme House Farm has damaged the river bank and riparian zone vegetation. This together with major earthworks will be contributing to elevated levels of suspended solids and siltation. Where extensive earthworks have been carried out on the sheer, steep section of river bank in an attempt to re-profile the river bank there is also the potential for the river bank to slump into the river causing downstream siltation. Without remedial action to restore this damage, the river will return to “unfavourable condition.” Remediation recommended by Natural England includes:-

• Sowing a quick non-native grass seed mix to help stabilise exposed topsoil.

• Fencing-off the river along the affected areas.

• Implementing a professional river restoration plan for the 50m wide landslip area.

• Planting a hedge of native species along the river bank to help stabilise the bank and to help restore the site in the longer term.

63

Verbal advice from both the Environment Agency and Natural England is that the carrying out of further work to “undo” the unauthorised earthworks is not recommended because it could cause further damage to the river. It is further considered that the excavation of the track to the Eastern boundary presents a risk of land slip and potential hazard to the public using the footpath. Remedies Suggested Taking into account the damage already caused and the further damage that would be caused if attempts were made to “reverse” the unauthorized earthworks to the river area it is recommended:- not to enforce the unauthorised earth works to the river area and to enforce against the removal of earth to the public footpath to the eastern boundary. Members are requested to authorize enforcement action to replace the earth removed from the footpath / track and carry out the works recommended by Natural England. The Bothy, Rigmaden, Mansergh 11.212

22nd August 2011 Complaint received, acknowledged and prioritized.

22nd August 2011 Requested Conservation Officer to visit site visit.

24th August 2011 Conservation Officer site visit.

26th September 2011

Verbal response from Conservation Officer. Complainant informed of this. Wrote to the offender to inform that they have carried out unauthorised works and the matter is being investigated, and will write further with the Council’s decision.

6th October 2011 Received written report from Conservation Officer.

Description of Breach It was brought to the Council’s attention that the owner of a listed building had erected a stone ball finial to the gable end ridge of their property. Harm Caused The Conservation Officer’s view is that the added feature is a modest addition to the building that has a relatively neutral impact on its significance. It is accepted that decorative features such as this are scarce on this site, which was designed with a largely functional purpose in mind, but the feature is very small and not totally out of keeping with the traditional verge detailing that is used on the building. On this basis I would suggest that it is not unduly harmful to the building's architectural or historical interest and it would broadly comply with Policy HE 9.4 of PPS 5. 64

Comments from neighbour

• the finial changes the appearance of the building;

• there are no other such features on buildings in the local area. This cannot be confirmed as no survey of the area has been carried out by the Council. The Conservation Officer does say that it may not be a common feature but not out of keeping on such a range of buildings. Officer comment on representations The addition of the ball finial, as stated by the Conservation Officer, has little effect on the building’s setting as a architectural valued building. Under Section 7 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 it is only an offence if the works would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest. Therefore, there are no grounds to commence proceedings to prosecute. Section 38 of the above Act provides the power to issue a listed building Enforcement Notice only if the works are such as to involve a contravention of Section 9 of the Act and that the Council feel it is expedient to do so. Section 9 states that any person who contravenes Section 7 of the Act shall be guilty of an offence and therefore the Council could serve a listed building Enforcement Notice. The Conservation Officer has effectively stated that Section 7 of the Act has not been breached. Therefore the Council is not in a position to take enforcement action under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Considering the matter under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the first consideration is:- does the work constitute development as defined by Section 55 of the Act. It can be described as operational development and therefore the Planning Act would apply. The next consideration is:- does it benefit from Permitted Development Rights as defined by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. Because the alteration is higher than the highest part of the roof of the dwelling house, it does not benefit from Permitted Development Rights, therefore requires the submission of a planning application and a listed building consent application. The owner will be invited to submit an application. Recommendation: for the reasons stated in this report it would not be expedient to take enforcement action. The owner can be invited to submit an application but they are under no obligation to do so.

3.4 An update on enforcement cases involving enforcement action: An update on those cases involving formal enforcement action is

attached as Appendix 1 for Members information.

4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION

65

Natural England and the Environment Agency. Council’s Conservation Officer

5.0 PROPOSAL Not applicable.

6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS Not applicable.

7.0 NEXT STEPS Continue dealing with cases listed in the priority table in Appendices 1,

receiving and prioritising all new cases, and taking appropriate action where necessary in accordance with the relevant Acts and guidance.

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. 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 aim of providing a “High Quality Environment”

enhanced local environmental quality and supports national performance 66

indicators. 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, increased public confidence in the Council and value for money.

12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 See report in appendix. APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No.

1 A report on enforcement cases that Committee authorisation to take enforcement action has been sought - 2006 to 2 September 2011.

2 Part II appendix – Holme House Farm.

CONTACT OFFICERS Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer, Tel: 01539 797566 email: [email protected] BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Various planning files. TRACKING

Assistant Director

Portfolio Holder

Solicitor to the Council

CMT Scrutiny Committee

Development Management Group

18/10/2011 18/10/2011 17/10/2011

67

mailto:[email protected]

A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY - FROM 2006 TO 2 SEPTEMBER 2011. APPENDIX 1 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/NEXT STEP

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

Outcome of a site visit with the Conservation Officer reveals the works can be considered by the submission of a Listed building Application.

07/156 KENDAL Bridge View Burton Road

Creation of extra dwelling unit Enforcement Notice served and appealed. Inspector at inquiry dismissed the appeal and upheld the Notice. Pursuing compliance with Notice.

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. Decision imminent.

09/352 URSWICK Beckside Holdings, between Scales and Stainton

Unauthorised use of land -storage of equipment not ancillary, unauthorised buildings.

Most of the other unauthorised building has been removed. Awaiting removal of remainder.

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. 68

REF NO. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH/CONTRAVENTION PROGRESS

08/345 SKELSMERGH Holme House Garth Row Lane

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

Compliance date for parts 1-7 is the 29th September 2011. They have not been complied. Considering prosecution.

09/377 ULVERSTON 22 Hallfield Use of dwelling for the running of Taxi business.

Further compliance monitoring. Recent information indicates circumstances may change.

10/022 ALDINGHAM Lime Kiln, Low Sunbrick Lane Baycliff

Erection of unauthorised agricultural building.

Enforcement Notice served. Effective date 23 Nov 2011.

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 decking structure - 23 Oct 2011.

10/208 LOWER ALLITHWAITE

Blenket wood caravan park Laying new 300m access track.

Notice served effective date 2nd Nov 2011.

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.

Enforcement Notice served effective date 22 sep 2011.

10/311 CASTERTON Chapel House Farm Unauthorised removal of hedge.

Hedge Replacement Notice served 12 July 2011. Received appeal to Notice.

11/061 HINCASTER Cherry Hill, Hincaster Unauthorised erection of tree house in tree that has Tree Preservation Order.

Enforcement Notice served 17 June, effective 1 Aug 2011 with 6 month compliance period.

11/086 MILNTHORPE Dallam Barn, Haverflats Unauthorised erection of building.

Section 330 Notice served and returned. Considering further information prior to Enforcement Notice.

69

south lakeland district councildemocracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/data/planning...

Documents