Planning Committee 20th October 2009 by f0r5g0g3

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 48

									                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                             20th October 2009
PLAN NUMBER:                    APPLICANT:                      AGENT:

2007/0902                       Mr M Charnley                   Acorus Rural Property
                                                                Services

WARD/PARISH:                    CASE OFFICER:                   DATE RECEIVED:

Lindal and Marton Parish        Charles Wilton                  19/07/2007
Council                         01229 876553                    STATUTORY DATE:
                                                                12/09/2007

LOCATION:

Crooklands Nursery, Ulverston Road, Dalton-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Erection of a dwelling associated with nursery enterprise at Crooklands Nursery
(Outline , but with means of access not reserved for subsequent approval)

LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY B10

Outside the settlements of Barrow, Dalton and the development cordons of villages listed
in Policy B13, new residential development will only be permitted where it can be justified
in accordance with Annex A of Planning Policy Statement 7 or revisions thereof. In
addition the conversion of agricultural and other rural buildings to residential
accommodation will not be permitted, unless the accommodation is to be occupied by
those whose primary employment is in agriculture or forestry where a dwelling is essential
for the working of a farm or woodland and there is no other suitable accommodation
already available at the holding: or

a)      The applicant has made every reasonable attempt to secure suitable business re-
        use and the applicant is supported by a statement of the efforts which have been
        made, the minimum of which must include the premises being advertised, at a
        realistic price, for a minimum of 12 months, that no reasonable offer has been
        refused and that evidence is provided to show the property has been advertised
        on the open market at four times in local media at roughly equal periods over the
        year; or

b)      Residential conversion is a subordinate part of a scheme for business re-use; and

c)      The building is served by satisfactory access; and

d)      The scale of the conversion is appropriate to the building, its character and
        location.




                                       Page 1 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009
SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Dwelling meets exception criteria for agricultural workers dwellings (horticulture).
Nurseries are included in definition of agriculture (Section 336 of Act).

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:


REPRESENTATIONS:

                   Development advertised on site and in local press

Dalton Motor Breakers, Neil Price Ltd and the occupiers of 5 Hall Street and Maidenlands
Farm, Dalton in Furness all informed. No representations received.

Email dated 28th September 2007 Acorus Rural Property Services

“Following our telephone conversation of earlier I have spoken to the Charnleys and I can
confirm as follows:

   i)     a usable floor area of 160m² would be acceptable, and
   ii)    there are concerns about the delay and cost implications of a section 106
          agreement (regarding the nursery element of the site), however, if seen to be
          necessary there would be no objection”.

CONSULTATIONS:

Dalton with Newton Town Council (adjoining parish) – No response received.

Cumbria Highways

“There are no objections to the principle of the proposal though details concerning access,
parking, turning and treatment of surface water will be required at reserved matters stage
and these should conform to Manual for Streets/Cumbria Design Guide”.

Lindal and Marton Parish Council

“The Clerk indicated that notification of this application had originally gone to Dalton Town
Council, presumably because of confusion over the boundary between Dalton and the
parish of Lindal and Marton, such boundary being on the footpath which forms the south-
western edge of the nursery. He also suggested that it might be useful, and appropriate, if
an opinion was forthcoming from Dalton Town Council, given the close proximity of the
application site to other commercial and residential sites in that part of Dalton.
Accordingly, it was PROPOSED by Councillor Lord and SECONDED by Councillor Mrs
Kelly that the Parish Council accept that Dalton Town Council should express their own
views on the application and that this Parish Council, mindful of the extensive
developments already in that area, including a motor-breaker‟s yard, confirm that it had no
objection in principle to the proposal. Carried unanimously”.




                                        Page 2 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009

Network Rail
“Thank you for the letter dated 24th July 2007 in regards to the above planning application
for the erection of a dwelling at Crooklands Nursery, Ulverston Road. Please note that
Network Rail does not have any objection in principle to the application and has no
comment to make.”
H Gee - Environmental Health

“Due to the site‟s close proximity to potentially contaminating land uses, such as a motor
breakers and historic mining infrastructure, I would recommend a desk study be
undertaken to produce a risk assessment addressing the potential for on-site
contamination and that this should accompany any application for full planning consent.

If the desk study identifies the need for further study, a detailed site investigation should
be carried out to establish the degree and nature of the contamination and its potential to
pollute the environment or cause harm to human health. If remediation measures are
necessary they will be implemented in accordance with the assessment and the
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and will be followed by a validation report,
which will be agreed upon before development commences”.

Highways Agency

“The application is for a single dwelling at the back end of Crooklands Nursery for the
purpose of housing a worker for the nursery. There shall be no amendment to the existing
access on to Ulverston Road which junctions about 250m to the North with the A590(T).

This development shall have no material impact on the traffic levels of the A590(T). I
would therefore like to confirm that the Highways Agency has no objection to this current
planning application”.

United Utilities

“I have no objection to the proposal”.

OFFICERS REPORT:

At your meeting in October 2007 you resolved to grant conditional planning permission for
a dwelling associated with the nursery enterprise at Crooklands Garden Centre and
Nursery. This was on completion of a 106 obligation which sought to protect the
functioning area of the nursery from any expansion of the garden centre.

The limit of 6 months placed on the completion of the 106 has been exceeded and
therefore the matter needs to be considered afresh. The key issue is whether the
proposed dwelling meets the relevant functional and financial tests. With this in mind an
update of the original assessment was sought which forms appendix A. This report
confirms the arguments in favour of granting planning permission have actually increased
since the matter was last considered.

The 106 has now been signed.

My original report forms appendix B.
                                         Page 3 of 48
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                             20th October 2009
RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that:

   Following the completion of the 106 Obligation that:

   Outline planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration limits and
   the following conditions:

Condition No. 3

This permission permits a dwelling of a gross floor area not exceeding 160m2.

Reason

In order to ensure the dwelling is of a size commensurate with the established functional
requirement and is not unusually expensive to construct in relation to the income that can
be sustained in the long term.

Condition No. 4

The occupation of the dwelling hereby approved shall be limited to a person solely or
mainly employed, or last employed, in the locality in agriculture, as defined in Section 336
of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or in forestry, or a widow or widower of such
a person, or a dependent of such a person residing with him or her.

Reason

The site is within an area where, based upon national guidance and local plan policies,
permission for a dwelling unconnected with agriculture or forestry would not normally be
permitted.

Condition No. 5

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 modifications), nothing in Article 3, or Schedule 2 to that Order, shall operate so as
to permit, within the area subject to this permission, any development referred to in Part 1
of the Second Schedule to the Order and no such development shall be carried out at any
time within that area without the prior grant of permission by the Planning Authority.

Reason

In order to ensure the dwelling remains of a size commensurate with the established
functional requirement and is not unusually expensive to construct in relation to the
income that can be sustained in the long term.




                                        Page 4 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009
Condition No. 6

Prior to the commencement of any development a landscape scheme for the site, showing
the trees, shrubs and hedgerows, including verges and other open spaces, together with
details of any phasing of such a scheme must be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Planning Authority. The scheme shall be submitted on a plan not greater that 1:500 in
scale and shall contain details of numbers, locations and species of plants to be used. All
planting and subsequent maintenance shall be to current British Standards. The
approved scheme must subsequently be implemented by the end of the first planting
season following initial beneficial occupation of the development or by such a programme
as may be agreed in writing. Any trees or shrubs removed, dying being severely damaged
or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by the
landowner with trees or shrubs of a similar size and species to those originally required to
be planted.

Reason

In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

Condition No. 7

Prior to the commencement of the development, a desk top study/Phase 1 report, in
accordance with a methodology subject to prior agreement with the Planning Authority,
shall be carried out by the developer to establish if the site contains contaminants, and to
assess the degree and nature of the contaminants present. The report shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the
development.

Reason

To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and
neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and
ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without
unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with
saved policy D56 of the former Local Plan Review 1996-2006.

Condition No. 8

If the study referred to under condition no. 7 above identifies any potential for
contamination, then a site investigation/Phase 2 report based upon the study shall be
implemented. The site investigation and risk assessment must be completed in
accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the
site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the
written approval of the Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be
undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The report must include:

I) A survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;

ii) An assessment of the potential risks to:


                                         Page 5 of 48
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                             20th October 2009
             -human health
             -property (existing or proposed)
             -adjoining land
             -groundwaters and surface waters
             -ecological systems

iii) An appraisal of remedial options and proposal of the preferred option(s)

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's "Model
Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR11"

Unless otherwise agreed by the Planning Authority, development other than that required
to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until
the phase 2 report has been approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the
following conditions (nos 7-8) have been complied with.

Reason

To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and
neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and
ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without
unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with
saved policy D56 of the former Local Plan Review 1996-2006.

Condition No. 9

If the report detailed in condition 8 above identifies a potential for contamination, a
detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use
by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the
natural and historical environment must be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed
remediation objectives, remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management
procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land
under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of
the land after remediation.

Reason

To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and
neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and
ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without
unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with
saved policy D56 of the former Local Plan Review 1996-2006.




                                        Page 6 of 48
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                             20th October 2009
Condition no. 10

The remediation scheme referred to in condition no 9 must be carried out in accordance
with the approved details prior to the commencement of any development, other than that
required to carry out remediation, unless agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a
verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the
effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Planning Authority.

Reason

To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and
neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and
ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without
unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with
saved policy D56 of the former Local Plan Review 1996-2006.

Condition No. 11

In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved
development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to
the Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in
accordance with the requirements of condition no.8 and where remediation is necessary a
remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition
no.9, which is subject to the written approval of the Planning Authority. Following
completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification
report must be prepared, which must be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Planning Authority in accordance with condition no.10.

Reason

To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and
neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and
ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without
unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with
saved policy D56 of the former Local Plan Review 1996-2006.

The reason(s) for the grant of planning permission are as follows:

The development, subject to conformity with the stated conditions, will not cause any
material harm to an interest of acknowledged importance and will not conflict with Barrow
Borough Local Plan Review 1996-2006.




                                       Page 7 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009
PLAN NUMBER:                     APPLICANT:                       AGENT:

2009/1198                        Standard Life Investments        Indigo Planning
                                 Ltd

WARD/PARISH:                     CASE OFFICER:                    DATE RECEIVED:

Hindpool                         Charles Wilton                   24/07/2009
                                 01229 876553                     STATUTORY DATE:
                                                                  22/10/2009

LOCATION:

Unit B (Formerly Barrow Superbowl), Hollywood Park, Hindpool Road,
Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Change of use from leisure (D2) to non-food retail (A1) and proposed mezzanine floor
(1,509 sqm gross) resubmission of 2009/0122

SAVED POLICIES OF THE
FORMER LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY C1

All new and redeveloped retail facilities will be expected to:

      achieve high design standards, taking into account the character of the surrounding
       area and the requirement to maintain or enhance Conservation Areas and their
       settings;
      where practicable, provide adequate access for people whose mobility is impaired;
      result in no loss of or detriment to: important areas of amenity open space;
       interests of wildlife, landscape or nature conservation importance; or trees or
       landmarks of importance to local character; and
      provide an acceptable level of car parking in accordance with the Cumbria Parking
       Guidelines, except in cases of redevelopment where present levels must at least be
       maintained.

POLICY C2

New retail development will be permitted in town centres. Where it is demonstrated to be
justified for any retail development to be located out of a town centre the first alternative
should be an edge of centre site, defined as within 300 metres of the town centre, with an
out of town site being the least preferred option. Any retail development outside the town
centre, whether it be edge of centre or out of centre, must be justified by the applicant on
grounds of need. In the case of Barrow an edge of centre area has been allocated under
Policy C4 although other edge-of-centre developments will be permitted provided they
comply with the criteria of Policy C3.

                                        Page 8 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009
POLICY C3

Developments creating new retail floorspace (including conversions) outside the town
centres that do not serve a local need or a special one, such as vehicle sales, that cannot
be met in the town centre:

a)    Must be accompanied by a Retail Impact Assessment and a statement from the
      proposed retail operator of that development stating their firm intention to occupy
      that space subject to planning permission being granted;

b)    Will be refused if they appear likely to prejudice the vitality or viability of the town
      centre as a whole; and

c)    Subject to (b) will only be permitted if they are situated in a location which is, or can
      be made accessible by a range of means of transport other than the private car and
      which will not add excessively to the need to travel by private car, as well as
      satisfying other planning requirements, particularly with regard to the protection of
      residential amenity;

POLICY C4

The area shown on the Proposals Map along Walney Road, Hindpool Road and the
Strand is allocated as an „Edge of Centre‟ area for retail developments, which for the
purposes of Policy C2 are accepted by the Local Planning Authority as being incapable of
being physically fitted into the town centre. The Highways Agency would consider any
significant development of land along this length to have a material effect on the A590
trunk road and as such would require a Traffic Impact Assessment to be undertaken as
part of any development proposal. This should be undertaken in accordance with current
IHT guidelines and Highways Agency Policy. The TIA should identify any improvements
to the trunk road and any other roads in the area that may be required in order to mitigate
the effects of the development proposal, the costs of which would have to be met by the
developer.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Further retail analysis demonstrates a need for additional comparison goods retailing.
Other retail tests also met.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:




                                         Page 9 of 48
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                             20th October 2009
REPRESENTATIONS:

               Development Advertised on site and in the Local Press

The Occupiers of Units A-G, J-M Hollywood Park, 122-138 (evens) Hindpool Road, The
Owl and the Pussycat, Flat The Owl and the Pussycat, Walney Road, 1-9 (odds),
Wheatsheaf Hotel, Anson Street, 2-12 (evens) Clive Street, Barrow in Furness, Playshak
Ltd all informed

CONSULTATIONS:

Cumbria Highways

“Taking into account the existing use of the property and the information submitted, it is
considered that the proposal will be unlikely to have a material affect on existing highway
conditions. I can therefore confirm that the Highway Authority has no objection to the
proposal.”

Barrow Retail Action Group

Cumbria Fire & Rescue                          No response received.

Furness Enterprise


OFFICERS REPORT:

This is a resubmission of an application refused planning permission at your March
meeting under reference 2009/0122 (refusal notice forms appendix C). It involves the
change of use to non-food retail and the erection of a mezzanine floor. The intended
occupier is Dunelm Mills. Both local policy (C2) and national policy guidance (PPS 6)
require any retail development outside a town centre (and not serving a local need) to be
justified on the grounds of need. This is a rather complex process and involves
calculating the likely expenditure generated within the area and comparing this with an
estimate of the turnover of existing stores and new developments which are seen as
commitments. After reasonable allowance is made for internet sales, leakage etc. any
shortfall demonstrates need. I was not convinced by the calculations contained in the
retail assessment which accompanied the original application hence the first reason for
refusal.

Following the refusal, WYG (a firm of planning consultants specialising in retail) were
appointed to advise the Council on the robustness of its reasons for refusal. The advise
(WYG dated 23.6.09 – appendix D) concluded:

“Based on the evidence presented to date, WYG does not consider that a clear
quantitative need for the proposed development has been demonstrated. In particular,
although informed by the findings of the BRS, the assessment undertaken by Indigo
(applicants agent) is based on out dated population and expenditure data and retail
forecasts. WYG would recommend that this assessment is updated to reflect the latest
information produced by MapInfo”.

                                      Page 10 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009
Similar conclusions were reached by WYG on the applicant‟s other assessments including
the sequential test and the likely impact on the town centre. These related to reasons for
refusal numbers 2 and 3. This led to WYG advising:

“Without further justification being provided by the applicant to address the issues outlined
above, WYG considers that there are reasonable grounds to refuse the application on
retail planning grounds”.

Following these criticisms the applicant has re-visited the retail assessment and produced
an updated set of figures to accompany the current application. Some elements of the
calculation have changed substantially however the assessment continues to demonstrate
the need for additional comparison goods retailing. WYG were again consulted and their
lengthy analysis forms appendix E. Their advise is summarised at page 7 with the
following being key:

       “ .. it can be seen that the quantitative need case is marginal and finely balanced.
       However, even though the need arguments are finely balanced, we do not believe
       that there is a sequentially superior site that is available, suitable and viable and
       that the scheme would not have a material adverse impact on the established
       centre of Barrow (subject to conditions). Therefore, in applying the appropriate
       „planning balance‟ we believe that the development should not be refused on retail
       planning grounds.‟

While faults were found in the applicant‟s original assessment it seems clear from careful
consideration of the updated case that the retail arguments favour approval. In addition to
the three retail reasons for refusal there were reasons which related to the benefit of
retaining the unit as leisure use. For such an argument to be sustained it would be
necessary to demonstrate that there was a reasonable prospect of a leisure use re-
opening.

At the time of the previous application the applicant had marketed the unit with other
bowling operators. None came forward. Subsequently the equipment and fittings were
auctioned. In the circumstances it seems highly unlikely that the unit would re-open as a
superbowl type venue.

Also, at the time of the previous application there had been interest shown by another
leisure operator (Playshack). The applicant stated that the two had been unable to agree
terms. While Playshack objected to the previous application there have been no response
from them in relation to the current application. The application is accompanied by a
statement which shows the extensive marketing which the applicant has undertaken. It
would not be possible in my view for the Council to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of
the unit re-opening as a leisure use.

Conditions

Were committee to agree my recommendation that permission be granted it would be
necessary to impose certain conditions. In terms of the range of goods to be sold the
applicant‟s retail assessment at paragraph 4.3 states:


“The main goods offer is home textiles - curtains, bed linen, bath linen, cushions, fabrics,


                                       Page 11 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009
quilts, rugs and soft kitchen furnishings - which account for the majority of sales. In
addition, most stores offer a range of other homewares products such as kitchenware,
tableware, lighting, storage solutions, gifts and other seasonal products. Dunelm also
offers customers a made-to-measure curtain service. Accordingly, unrestricted non-food
consent is sought”.

While unrestricted non-food retail is sought the retail assessment is based upon the range
of goods that are sold by Dunelm. Paragraph 9.26 of the applicant‟s retail assessment
comments:

“In order to assess the likely impact of the proposal upon the vitality and viability of the
town centre it is necessary to consider the range of goods that will be sold by Dunelm and
then identify the existing retailers in the town centre that may lose trade to the proposed
Dunelm store. In this regard, surveys of the town centre identify few retailers that primarily
offer a similar range of homewares as Dunelm”.

WYG advises as follows:

       „ .. it is fundamental that appropriate conditions are attached to any decision,
       relating to the maximum net sales area, future subdivision and the range of goods
       permitted to be sold to ensure that the Council has control over the future use of
       the store.‟

I have therefore drafted suitable conditions. While this would permit the sale of a greater
range of goods than would be sold by Dunelm, the sale of such a range should not impact
adversely on the town centre. Similarly conditions preventing sub-division and an increase
in retail sales are also included.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration
Limit and the following conditions:

Condition No. 2

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the application dated 24/07/09
and the plans accompanying the application and comprising:

Drawing No. 7678 04 C
            7678 17 C
            7678 18 B
            7678 19 B

Reason

In order to keep the development within the form of the permission granted.




                                       Page 12 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009
Condition No. 3

Nothing within Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (or any legislation
revoking or re- enacting the Act with or without modification), shall operate so as to permit
the internal sub division of the retail unit hereby approved, without the prior written express
consent of the Planning Authority in writing.

Reason

It is important to ensure that the individual internal floorspace of the unit remains of a size
that could not be accommodated on any sequentially better location, and to allow proper
consideration of the potential impact of any such change upon the vitality and viability of
established retail centres.

Condition No. 4

The sale of goods from the retail unit hereby approved shall be restricted to the following:
building materials and equipment; home improvement and DIY products including
plumbing and hardware goods, paint and wallpaper; garden supplies and plants; electrical
goods; furniture, carpets and other floor coverings; soft furnishings, fabric and textiles; gas
appliances, motor parts, cycles and accessories, computers and I.T. goods, office
equipment and supplies, pets and pet products; together with ancillary seasonal goods,
and shall not be used for any other purposes including those set out in Class A1 of the
Schedule for the Town and Country Planning Use Classes (Amendment) Order 2005 (or
any Order revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order with or without modification),
unless prior express consent has been granted by the Planning Authority.

Reason

A general retail outlet in this location would not normally be permitted, as it would be
potentially detrimental to the viability of established shopping centres.

Condition No. 5

The gross internal area of the unit including the mezzanine floor shall not exceed 3,655
sqm. Of this gross area, the net sales area shall not exceed 73% or 2,678 sqm
(whichever is the greater) unless prior express consent has been granted by the Planning
Authority.

Reason

To allow proper consideration of the potential impact of any such change upon the vitality
and viability of established retail centres.

Condition No. 6

A plan showing the net sales area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the use hereby approved. The
development must then proceed in accordance with the approved details.



                                        Page 13 of 48
                          PLANNING COMMITTEE
                            20th October 2009
Reason

For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure compliance with Condition no. 5.




                                     Page 14 of 48
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                             20th October 2009
PLAN NUMBER:                    APPLICANT:                        AGENT:

2009/1355                       Mr D & B Clark                    Stephens Associates

WARD/PARISH:                    CASE OFFICER:                     DATE RECEIVED:

Dalton North Lindal and         Jason Hipkiss                     13/08/2009
Marton Parish Council           01229 876485                      STATUTORY DATE:
                                                                  07/10/2009

LOCATION:

Anchor Hotel, Ulverston Road, Lindal-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Outline residential development comprising five 2 storey houses (amended
description).

SAVED POLICIES OF THE
FORMER LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY B3

Applications for residential development on unallocated sites will be permitted where they
accord with the sequential approach of the Structure Plan and also satisfy the following
criteria:

i)      The site is located within the built up area of existing settlements or the
        development cordons identified in Policy B13; and

ii)     The siting, scale, layout and design (in the materials and form of the buildings) of
        the development is sensitive to the local environment, it promotes the principles of
        „Secure by Design‟ and adequate parking provision is made; and

iii)    Adequate access arrangements can be provided, including servicing the site by
        the public transport and by cycle routes; and

iv)     The development is laid out in a way that maximises energy efficiency; and

v)      The development will not result in the loss of land which has a recognised or
        established nature conservation interest; and

vi)     The development must not cause an undue increase in traffic passing through
        existing residential areas such as to be detrimental to residential amenity or
        highway safety; and

vii)    Adequate water supplies, foul and surface water sewers and sewerage treatment
        facilities exist or can be provided; and


                                       Page 15 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009
viii)   'A risk-based approach will be adopted for development in or affecting flood risk
        areas to minimise the risk of flooding associated with the site and the potential
        effect development of the site might have elsewhere through increased run off or
        a reduction in the capacity of flood plains. This shall be in accordance with the
        sequential characterisation of flood risk set out in Table 1 of Planning Policy
        Guidance Note 25 'Development and Flood Risk; and

ix)     Where contamination is suspected, a desk study is undertaken and if necessary a
        site investigation is undertaken and remediation strategy submitted.

POLICY B4

For unallocated sites the Authority will expect a density of 30 dwellings per hectare though
lower densities will be accepted where this is in the interest of the economic regeneration
of the area. However, within the area covered by Central Barrow Inset and Dalton
Conservation Area, fairly high overall net development densities (around 70 dwellings per
hectare) will be favoured on residential sites, consistent with primarily two or three storey
development and good standards of amenity.

POLICY B13

In the following villages, residential development and the conversion of existing buildings
for residential purposes will be allowable within the residential cordon, especially if it
contributes to the maintenance of that community, subject to conformity with the criteria of
policy B3 and the principles of Structure Plan Policy ST13:

Askam & Ireleth, Biggar Village, Lindal, Marton, Newton, North Scale, Rampside, Roa
Island.

POLICY C11

Applications for the change of use of retail outlets, post offices and public houses that
serve a recognised local need in rural areas and suburban residential neighbourhoods
must include evidence that the retail use is no longer viable. This would include the
premises being advertised, at a realistic price, for a minimum of 12 months, that no
reasonable offer has been refused and that evidence is provided to show the property has
been advertised on the open market at least four times in local media at roughly equal
periods over the year.

POLICY D21

In determining all applications submitted to it the local planning authority will have regard
to the General Design Code set out in paragraph 5.4.27 of this plan.

In towns and villages, proposals shall relate to the context provided by buildings, street
and plot patterns, building frontages, topography, established public views, landmark
buildings and other townscape elements. Proposals that do not respect the local context
and street pattern or the scale, height, proportions and materials of surrounding buildings
and development which constitutes over development of the site by virtue of scale, height
or bulk will not be permitted, unless there is specific justification, such as interests of
sustainability, energy efficiency or crime prevention.

                                        Page 16 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009
Development proposals in the countryside shall respect the diversity and distinctiveness of
local landscape character. New farm buildings will, in general, be required to be sited
within or adjacent to an existing farm building complex or in other well screened locations
and to be subject to a complementary design and use of materials, with, where necessary,
a „planting‟ scheme.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Outline consent is sought for redevelopment of the Anchor Hotel site, which is considered
to be no longer a viable business concern, with 5 houses shown as the potential
replacement.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:


REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupiers, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 38 Ulverston Road, 1, 2, 3, 4 Railway Terrace, 1-15
(odds) Low farm Close, Lindal in Furness all informed.

The Occupier, The Railway Inn, 6 London Road, Lindal-in-Furness

“With regards to the Anchor Inn in Lindal-in-Furness, due to the decline in the trade over
the last 10 years we have no objection to the public house been closed on a permanent
basis and changed into houses.

39 pubs a week are closing due to the drinking culture and smoking ban and high cost of
beer due to tax duty.

For a public house to survive you have to be doing at least 150 barrels a year to cover
your costs.

Lindal-in-Furness has three drinking houses, The Railway Inn, bowling club, cricket club at
the moment and the Anchor has struggled for the past 10 years and now with the trade as
it is now there is just no room in a small village for four drinking houses. One or the other
will suffer as the trade is just not there anymore and I feel it will never come back to what it
used to be as the drinking culture has changed.

Lindal-in-Furness is short of good housing and it would also bring new people into the
village which would help keep the local village pub – The Railway Inn and the other
drinking establishments survive in this day and age.”

The Occupier, 23 Ulverston Road, Lindal in Furness

“I am writing to raise a few points regarding the redevelopment of the Anchor Pub, Lindal
in Furness.

I am concerned that me and my family will loose any sunlight we now get to the back
windows and garden due to the proximity and alignment of the planned development. I
also feel that this may be outside the existing building lines used on Ulverston Road on
past developments encroaching on the field and gardens behind.

                                        Page 17 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009
We are also concerned about the increase in traffic not decrease as stated in the
application. There is already a shortage of parking in this area with a number of people
already parking in the green and bowling club car park. If seven houses are built is there
provision for parking for extended families and visitors to these premises? If these cars
are forced to park on the A590 it would block vision for me leaving my house onto an
already very busy main road.

I would also like to seek clarification on who will be responsible for the up keep of the
existing boundary walls that adjoin my house. As at the moment the owner of the Anchor
pub is responsible for their upkeep and they are in desperate need of some maintenance,
and as I have a young family and pet dogs I would like to feel they can go into the garden
safely.

I would also like to know what height this wall will be taken too to afford me and my family
some privacy due to the development overlooking my property.

My property is not only at the side of the Anchor pub but also right along the back of the
Anchor Pub as well”.

The Occupiers, 25 Ulverston Road, Lindal in Furness – dated 3.9.09

“Where as we do fully understand the Anchor is no longer financially viable as a public
house, we do have objections/concerns regarding the proposed development of the site.

1,     We object strongly to the number, height and position of the houses proposed,
due to the fact that we will loose sunlight and privacy to our property:

In Mr Clark's statement he states 'The houses on the east side of the development will be no
higher than that of the pub' from this we can assume the 2 story houses will be the same
height as the roof ridge an the east side of the pub(the highest point). According to the plans
this will move the existing highest point back (North) by approximately 9-10 metres and
towards my property (East) by approximately 3 metres. Which will remove any afternoon sun
coming from the west side of my property which at present, l enjoy all afternoon and
evening.

Assuming the buildings will have windows in the east gable my house and garden will be
overlooked. Regarding the density of the houses, as Mr Clark stated 'The development is
twice the minimum, 30 dwellings per hectare that is specified in local plan policy B3', on that
assumption, a reduction to 4 dwellings would be acceptable to yourselves and preferable to
us.

As I recall, any residents an the north side of Ulverston Road applying to yourselves for
extensions to the rear of their properties are restricted by the so called `Building Line' which
the Anchor development would quite clearly breach.

It also states 'the development will be set back between 10 and 20 metres from Ulverston
Road'. Unfortunately it doesn't state at which point, which makes this statement
somewhat meaningless.

                                         Page 18 of 48
                             PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               20th October 2009
2,     We also have concerns regarding some of the claims on the Design And Access
       Statement.

A,     Mr Clark claims `There will be a reduction in the traffic generated compared to the
pub with its 20 car park spaces and beer deliveries etc.

Due to the current predicament of the pub it is obvious the pub rarely if ever had 20 ears in
the ear park and beer deliveries etc. were rare.

Whereas the 7 houses could potentially increase traffic generated by 14 car plus visitor
movements everyday plus bin wagons and deliveries parked on the AS90 due to the lack of
access to the development

B,     It is stated 'There will be no increase in traffic passing through existing residential
areas'. Ulverston Road is a residential area and an the above theory there will be an
increase in traffic. It also states `Vehicular access arrangements are satisfactory'

From our own experience accessing the A590 at peak times can be a nightmare and getting
worse annually. Exiting the A590 particularly on a right hand turn is the cause of most
vehicular accidents on the A590 in Lindal.

C,     As for the letter from the landlord of the Railway Arms Public House, `He would say
that wouldn't he!'

I hope you seriously consider our objections and our concerns regarding the proposed
development to the Anchor Hotel as we feel in its present form it will have a detrimental
effect to us and our near neighbours”.

The Occupiers, 25 Ulverston Road, Lindal in Furness, Ulverston – dated 6.10.09

“We live in a terraced house 20 metres (next door + one) to the east of the Anchor Hotel.

As stated in our previous letter of objection, the afternoon and evening sun shines across
the Anchor car park on to my back garden and kitchen before setting over Lindal Green.
My family, and no doubt countless previous occupants of my house for the last 130
years have enjoyed this sun.
Mr Clark, with total disregard to his neighbours, has submitted revised plans (that appear to
have been plucked out of thin air) to appease the planning department but totally ignoring
his neighbours' concerns regarding sunlight and loss of privacy, by changing the design of
the property and extending north, he will be in effect building a 7.5 m high and 20 m long
wall to the west of my house. Blocking out the sun and casting a shadow over my property.

I suspect the first "back of a fag packet " plan was a ploy to make way for elaborate first
revision plans, which will perhaps be a more profitable option to himself, irrespective of
previously submitted objections,
Even though the new plan appears to be a courtyard like design, I still see no room for
vehicle manoeuvring or overflow parking. Ulverston road residents constantly struggle to
                                         Page 19 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009
park on the main road parking bay, some even resorting to parking an the end of Railway
Terrace, Lindal Green, London road and the Bowling Club car park:
It may be seen as a simplistic solution but if the house northeast of the development was
omitted and the remaining properties realigned it would alleviate a lot of the above
concerns.
As stated in my previous letter to yourselves we have no objection to the demolition of the
Anchor hotel and subsequent development of the site. But not to the detriment to ourselves
and other close neighbours.
If Mr Clark is struggling to appreciate my concerns regarding the sunshine, he is welcome to
call at my house for a practical demonstration, --- preferably around 3pm on a sunny
afternoon!”

The Occupier, 27 Ulverston Road, Lindal, Ulverston.

“With reference to the above application I would like to lodge an objection to this as
it is completely out of character with the immediate local surroundings and contrary
to your Local Policy D21.‟

The Occupier, 13 Low Farm Close, Lindal-in-Furness.

„First of all I have no objection to the land being used for the development of tasteful and
appropriate housing. The Anchor never really was viable. The comment that the
development would be quieter because of less traffic and no beer deliveries I rather think
conflicts with the reality that a pub with no drinkers, therefore requiring few beer deliveries;
being closed or empty for the majority of the 21 years I have lived here is a joke. It is going
to be considerably noisier. The pub was at least 30 metres from my back wall. The new
development will be considerably closer to our quiet little patio and rear lounge. As things
stand the terraced block overlooking my property is listed as a three storey development,
which is far too high especially given the gable end is very close to my property and will
therefore, in my opinion, deprive us and our neighbour at number 15 of a great deal of
light. The plans show no front, or more importantly no side elevation, so I cannot tell if
there are to be windows on the side elevation significantly affecting our privacy. As the
Anchor was set forward on the far end of the plot we have never been overlooked in the
slightest before and I wouldn‟t appreciate the loss of privacy now. Neither would I be
happy with a vertical gable end without windows, which would also be stark and
featureless. If the elevations were linear, which is not possible, or have sloping roofs in
both directions making the facing wall less sheer it would be more acceptable. So in short
I strongly object to the proposed development. We simply need more space between the
properties. If the density were reduced with better access to the rear for the residents
everyone would benefit and the development would remain in keeping with the adjacent
properties on either side. As an alternative I would propose either; A) A maximum of two
detached houses, or; B) A maximum of one detached house and one pair of semi-
detached houses. There are simply too many houses of the wrong design. My ideas
would make life richer for residents new and old, but perhaps not for the builder. We live
here; he doesn‟t and he can change ideas much easier than we can change homes.‟

The Occupiers, 15 Low Farm Close, Lindal in Furness

“I am in receipt of documents in relation to the above planning application. As you will no
doubt deduce from the application my home is immediately adjacent to the proposed site.
                                        Page 20 of 48
                             PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               20th October 2009
Whilst I have no issue with the development of the site and would be pleased to see the
now unused public house “tidied-up”, I am a little concerned as to the apparent open-
endedness of the application. For instance there appears to be no “front elevation”
amongst the plans and it is therefore difficult to see to what extent the proposed properties
will encroach on existing buildings. i.e. my property. Nos. 13 and 15 Low Farm Close only
have small gardens and it will be very easy for the new builds to interfere with light, etc.
Especially when the application is to build seven, three story blocks, which may tower over
existing houses.

The applicant includes a letter from the landlord of the Railway Inn in which he comments
that “Lindal in Furness is short of good housing”. May I point out that currently there are
23 unsold houses in Lindal – hardly a shortage? Although I will not criticise Mr. Ward for
protecting his own interests.

Looking at the proposed entrance and egress from the site I am a little concerned as to
the safety of the proposals. Although now retired, I speak with some knowledge of the
subject as I am a former commander of the local police road traffic unit and as such have
traffic management qualifications. If this had been a commercial enterprise I doubt if it
would be allowed under the direct exit onto a main trunk road requirements. The A590
through Lindal is an extremely busy main route, which is fast reaching saturation point as
evidenced by the performance of traffic attempting to join it at the Green junction. If seven
units are built here each will have at least one and often more than one vehicle attempting
to join the traffic flow at various times, on a blind junction, at the top of a hill, next to a bus
stop. I shudder to think of the consequences.

My final concern is the intensity of the site. The proposal appears to be an attempt to
cram as many housing units as possible into an area restricted by existing housing.
Realistically, the applicants should be aiming for four or five medium quality units, which
will enhance the area and provide realistically priced family homes with a single-track
access onto the A590. This will mitigate to some extent my previous point about road
safety.

In your preamble to the application, I note your remarks regarding speaking to any
hearing. I am quite willing to do so should you so require it. Perhaps you will let me
know”.

CONSULTATIONS:

United Utilities - (Dated 16/08/09)

“Thank you for your planning consultation of 18 August 2009.

I must object to the proposal.

A public sewer crosses the east of this site and we will not permit building over it. We will
require an access strip width of 6 metres, 3 metres either side of the centre line of the
sewer which is in accordance with the minimum distances specified in the current issue of
"Sewers for adoption".




                                         Page 21 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009
Therefore a modification of the site layout, or a diversion of the affected public sewer at
the applicant's expense, may be necessary. To establish if a sewer diversion is feasible,
the applicant must discuss this at an early stage with our Wastewater Adoptions Engineer,
Eric Keasberry (0161 608 0527) as a lengthy lead in period may be required if a sewer
diversion proves to be acceptable. Deep rooted shrubs and trees should not be planted in
the vicinity of the public sewer and overflow systems.

The culverted watercourse that crosses the site is not a United Utilities Asset and contact
should be made with the riparian owner who is responsible for the watercourse.

This site must be drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected into the
foul sewer. Surface water should discharge to the soakaway/watercourse/surface water
sewer and may require the consent of the Environment Agency. If surface water is allowed
to be discharged to the public surface water sewerage system we may require the flow to
be attenuated to a maximum discharge rate determined by United Utilities.

A separate metered supply to each unit will be required at the applicant's expense and all
internal pipework must comply with current water supply (water fittings) regulations 1999.
Should this planning application be approved, the applicant should contact our Service
Enquiries on 0845 7462200 regarding connection to the water mains/public sewers.

The Electricity Distribution Network Operator for your area is now Electricity North West
(Tel No 0800 195 1452 and our response is for United Utilities Water the statutory water
and sewerage utility undertaker. Please send all consultation for Electricity Distribution
Network Matters to Eric Roberts, Commercial Manager, United Utilities Electricity
Services, Oldham WwTW, The Mill Building, The Causeway, Oldham Broadway Business
Park, Chadderton, Oldham, OL9 9XD.

United Utilities offers a fully supported mapping service at a modest cost for our electricity,
water mains and sewerage assets. This is a service, which is constantly updated by our
Map Services Team (Tel No: 0870 7510101) and I recommend that the applicant give
early consideration in project design as it is better value than traditional methods of data
gathering. It is, however, the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate the exact
relationship on site between any assets that may cross the site and any proposed
development”.

United Utilities – (Dated 23/09/09)

“Further to United Utilities letter dated 19th August 2009, I am prepared to remove my
objection, however, if it is proven that the public sewer runs within the boundary of the
„Anchor Hotel Public House‟ a satisfactory agreement must be reached between United
Utilities Building Control section & the developer. However, if the public sewer runs within
the boundary of No. 23 Ulverston Road then United Utilities would have no objection to
the proposal and the requirements to contact our Building Control section would no longer
be necessary.”




                                        Page 22 of 48
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                             20th October 2009
Environmental Health

“There is no objection to the application in principle. However, due to the sensitive end
use, I would recommend that a Phase One Desk Study, Site Walkover and Preliminary
Risk Assessment be undertaken to identify and asses the potential of any contamination,
possibly associated with the construction and use of the man made surface (car park).

If the Desk Study identifies the likelihood of contamination, a detailed Phase Two Site
Investigation and Detailed Risk Assessment should be carried out to establish the degree
and nature of the contamination and its potential to pollute the environment or cause harm
to human health.

If remediation measures are necessary, they will be implemented in accordance with the
assessment and satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and will be followed by a
verification report, which will be agreed upon before development commences.”

Cumbria Highways

“This site fronts the A590 Trunk Road therefore your Authority should seek the views of
the Highways Agency on this proposal.

It is however noted that the properties are proposed to access off a new road, this new
road arrangement does not meet current design requirements and should therefore be
refused for this reason; this comment should not be taken in place of any
recommendations and advice given by the Highways Agency on this proposal.”

Lindal & Marton Parish Council

“A widespread discussion took place, including the floor, over the proposal to demolish the
closed-down Anchor public house and for a total of seven houses to be erected in its
place. All concerned accepted the economic realities of the situation leading to the pub‟s
closure and it was noted that there still remained in Lindal Village one other pub together
with licensed premises at the cricket and bowling clubs. However, there was concern over
the numbers and potential height of the houses suggested for the site and the
consequential parking and road safety considerations, as well as privacy requirements for
existing properties.

It was proposed by Councillor Waite and seconded by Councillor Mrs. Glover that the
Parish Council should:

      express its dismay at the prospect of a permanent loss of such a substantial and
       handsome building (noting that it was not a listed building);
      accept with reluctance the loss of yet another village amenity (a pub) whilst
       recognizing the economic problems leading to this situation;
      support the application in principle as a practical way of increasing the supply of
       what could be reasonably-priced (relatively speaking) new houses;
      decline to support the proposal to provide seven houses in total, on the basis that
       this would be an over-intensive development of the site, with some houses being of
       an excessive height, dominating the adjacent properties; off-road parking would be
       probably be inadequate, despite the applicant‟s claims, leading to more parking
       problems on an already-congested main highway; and road safety would be

                                      Page 23 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009
       compromised by the number of vehicles which would need to manoeuvre on and
       off the very busy trunk road. (The applicant‟s reference to a potential reduction in
       such traffic as compared to the amount generated by the pub was misleading,
       given that the pub had not generated traffic in any measurable sense for many
       years.)
      recommend that Barrow Borough Council take all necessary steps to ensure that
       one or more of any new houses are categorized as “low-cost” houses, suitable for
       first-time buyers”.

Lindal & Marton Parish Council – dated 7.10.09 (in response to revised scheme of 5 units)

“It was, therefore, AGREED that the Parish Council inform Barrow Council that it remained
supportive of the principle of a housing development for this site but that serious concerns
still remained as to the appropriateness of the numbers involved, for the following
reasons:-
 It would seem reasonable to assume that the 5 houses would have an average of 2
     vehicles each and, notwithstanding what is proposed regarding garages/parking, the
     space available in the “courtyard” would be insufficient for the manoeuvring which
     would inevitably be required on a day-to-day basis for that number of vehicles.
 The result would mean that vehicles would need to be parked outside the complex, the
     difficulty being that on-road parking in the vicinity is already inadequate for residents of
     Ulverston Road, with many of their vehicles having to be parked in other parts of the
     village.
 This problem would be exacerbated by visitors to residents of the new complex.
 There is a bus stop and lay-by immediately adjacent to the site on the western side
     and, for motorists leaving the site, the main road bends to the right on the same
     (western) side: this means that vehicles leaving the complex would at times have
     limited visibility, a potentially hazardous situation on a very busy trunk road.
 The pair of semi-detached houses proposed for the eastern side of the site will have a
     greater impact on the immediate neighbours (numbers 23 and 25, Ulverston Road) as
     compared with the original design. The new design suggests that the rear building line
     will be more towards the rear of the site, which will have an impact on the amount of
     afternoon and evening sun currently enjoyed by the neighbours. This is an un-
     neighbourly development which could be ameliorated by a reduction in numbers.

The Borough Council will be requested to give due consideration to the points made
above, with a view to a lesser number of houses being built on this site.

OFFICERS REPORT:

The Anchor Hotel sits to the east side of Lindal on the north side of the A590 Ulverston
Road. It is constructed in traditional materials with a sandstone frontage, painted render
finish to the remaining three sides, and a slate roof. The building is located in the eastern
corner of the site, set back only slightly from the rear of the footway. At the front it is
equivalent to 2.5 storeys with rooms in the roof space, whilst the rear of the property is 2
storey due to the rise in ground level towards the rear of the site. To the side and rear of
the hotel is the customer car park, with its access in the middle of the site frontage, and a
narrow driveway alongside the eastern flank boundary. On either flank boundary there are
two storey houses whilst at the rear are extended domestic gardens. On the opposite side
of the A590 is a paddock that forms a green space between Railway Terrace and London
Road.

                                        Page 24 of 48
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                             20th October 2009
The application involves the demolition of the existing building and its replacement with
five houses set around a courtyard. Consequently there are two elements to be
considered: the first is the principle of losing a community facility, including the likely
impact upon the local community, and whether the arguments put forward by the applicant
are robust enough to meet with policy. The second is the suitability of the layout and
design of the replacement housing within the wider context of the local setting.

General policy guidance found in PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) and
encourages planning authorities to adopt policies in local plans that identify the criteria
used when considering applications that would result in the loss of certain rural facilities
and services. The examples given include village shops, post offices, petrol stations, and
public houses. In the regional guidance, the North West Plan, policy RDF2 refers to the
need to provide plans and strategies that promote development which fulfils the needs of
local communities and enhance the quality of rural life.

Local plan policy C11 sets out the criteria for determining such applications. This includes
evidence that the use is no longer viable, and the business has been advertised on the
open market at a realistic price with no reasonable offer refused.

With regard to the principle of losing the facility, there is another public house in Lindal,
the Railway Inn on London Road, whilst Lindal cricket and bowling club is also licensed,
albeit to members only. So, should consent be granted, Lindal would still retain some
licensed premises. It should be noted that the Railway Inn is subject to a previous
approval for residential conversion some 5 years ago. It was then vacant and consent was
granted in November 2004, [2004/0990], a decision that was based upon the information
provided at that time. This showed that the business was not viable and that the Anchor
Hotel was providing for the level of local demand at that time. However, the consent was
never implemented (although it is still just valid) as the premises were sold and a new
licensee has since built up the business to its current level.

The information submitted with the application before this committee includes a letter from
Robinson‟s brewery which indicates the level of investment since 1992, and shows a
succession of (short term) tenants, and several temporary managers when no tenant
showed any interest in the business. The same letter also quotes the low barrelage figures
over the past 3 years and suggests that the Anchor has been a loss making operation for
much of the period since the 1990s. Despite its main road frontage and the availability of
car parking, it appears that even with the additional opportunity of passing trade, the level
of local patronage was insufficient to maintain the business in the face of competition from
the Railway Inn.

The last tenant left in November 2007, and the property remained open under a
successive temporary managers including being put up for sale in October 2008. The
applicants bought the property in February 2009 and placed it on the open market in April
through an Ulverston agent who marketed the site locally and also nationally through his
web site. There were 3 viewers, none of whom wanted to run the property as a public
house.

Compared with similar applications elsewhere in the Borough, such as the Bay Horse at
Ireleth (2005/0062), there is no local disagreement with the economic arguments put
forward, and no suggestion that the premises have been deliberately run down. From the
submission and the representations received, it appears that there is only sufficient trade
to support one public house within the village, and I consider this to be material to your

                                       Page 25 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009
decision today. Whilst policies seek to prevent the random loss of rural services, it is not
within the remit of the planning system to perpetuate a failing or uneconomic business.
Policies do exist to create a framework whereby proposals can be scrutinised again set
policy based criteria and local circumstances. In this particular instance, the submitted
figures and the general local acceptance that the village will not sustain two public houses
leads me to the conclusion that the proposal is not contrary to the development plan, and
that, in principle, the application should be supported.

Whilst the application is in outline form, recent legislative changes mean that applicants
must provide a Design & Access Statement, together with “illustrative material” to show
how the site may be laid out. The initial layout consisted of seven three storey houses with
a shared parking area on the site frontage, which I considered to be out of keeping with
the local character. There had also been opposition from County Highways and from
several residents to this layout which albeit illustrative in nature, was likely to form the
basis of any Reserved Matters application. Any comments on the revised scheme will be
reproduced as extra information if received after publication of the agenda. The revised
scheme shows a development of five two storey houses set out in a courtyard
arrangement. Each property is shown with an integral garage and space for a second car,
and the elevations incorporate features found on the existing building. The number of
units would enable the development to remain a private road under the current highway
criteria. Reference is also made in the response from the parish council regarding the
possibility of “low cost” homes. However, as there is no policy basis for the need and
hence provision of low cost homes in the Borough at present, such a requirement could
not be initiated.

The Design & Access statement also indicates that materials would be sympathetically
chosen to retain some of the elements of the hotel building, such as render, sandstone
and slate. A more detailed critique would be undertaken at the Reserved Matters stage
when full layout and elevational details would have to be considered by this authority.
In policy terms, the developed nature of the site means that it is classed as a brownfield
and, together with its location within the village cordon identified by local plan policy B13, it
meets the general sustainable development criteria that percolate through the national
guidance and development plan framework. The illustrative layout and materials suggest
that the site can be developed in a manner that is in accordance with local plan policies
relating to design, although greater consideration would be given to this at the Reserved
Matters stage.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that Outline Planning Permission be GRANTED, subject to the Standard
Duration Limit and the following conditions;

Condition No. 2

No development whatsoever shall take place until full details of the access, appearance,
landscaping, layout, and scale of the development have been submitted to and approved
by the Planning Authority and the development shall conform to such approved details.

Reason

Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

                                         Page 26 of 48
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                             20th October 2009
Condition No. 3

Application for approval of Reserved Matters must be made not later that the expiration of
three years beginning with this permission and the development must be begun not later
than whichever is the later of the following dates:

a) The expiration of three years from the date of this permission;

or

b) expiration of two years from the final approval of the Reserved Matters or in the case of
approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

Reason

Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.


Condition No. 4

Any Reserved Matters application shall be in accordance with the amended layout plans,
reference 2980/01 Revision B and elevational drawing reference 2980/02 Revision C as
drawn by Craig & Green Architects and the revised Design and Access statement
submitted by Stephens Associates reference AHL/30.09.09.

Reason

To ensure that, in the opinion of the Planning Authority, the development accords with the
development plan criteria by respecting the site‟s location and setting.


Condition No. 5

Before the development is commenced, a desk top study/Phase 1 report in accordance
with a methodology subject to prior agreement with the Planning Authority shall be carried
out by the developer to establish if the site contains contaminants, and to assess the
degree and nature of the contaminants present. If this study does identify any potential for
contamination, then a site investigation/Phase 2 report based upon the study shall be
implemented. The method and extent of this investigation shall be agreed in writing with
the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any work. If, during the remediation
works any contamination is identified that has not been considered in the original
submission, then additional remediation proposals for this material shall be submitted to
the Planning Authority for written approval prior to those measures being implemented.
Any further approved proposals shall thereafter form part of the remediation report.
The development shall not proceed until the subsequently agreed works have been
carried out by the developer to the written satisfaction of the Planning Authority, which
shall also include submission of a remediation validation report and risk assessment
strategy, with all appropriate certification that the proposed works have been completed.



                                       Page 27 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009
Reason

To protect the environment and the health of the public from potential hazards that may
arise as a direct result of the redevelopment of the land.


Condition No. 6

Drainage must be on the separate system with all foul drainage connected to the foul
sewers and only uncontaminated surface water connected to the surface water system.

Reason

In order to ensure that the site is adequately drained and in order to control the potential
for pollution of the water environment.

Condition No. 7

Prior to the beneficial occupation of any part of the development, a landscape scheme for
the site, showing the trees, shrubs and hedgerows, including verges and other open
spaces, together with details of any phasing of such a scheme must be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall be submitted on a plan
not greater that 1:500 in scale and shall contain details of numbers, locations and species
of plants to be used. All planting and subsequent maintenance shall be to current British
Standards. The approved scheme must subsequently be implemented by the end of the
first planting season following initial beneficial occupation of the development or by such a
programme as may be agreed in writing. Any trees or shrubs removed, dying being
severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be
replaced by the landowner with trees or shrubs of a similar size and species to those
originally required to be planted.

Reason

In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and the prominent location of the site.


Condition No. 8

No dwelling shall be occupied until the vehicular access and turning requirements have
been constructed in accordance with the approved plan and has been brought into use.
The vehicular access turning provisions shall be retained and capable of use at all times
thereafter and shall not be removed or altered without the prior written consent of the
Planning Authority.

Reason

In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety and in order to minimise potential
hazards.




                                        Page 28 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009
Condition No 9

Prior to the beneficial occupation of the dwelling(s), sufficient space must be provided
within the curtilage(s) of the proposed dwelling(s) for either a garage or a garage space
behind the building line and an additional parking space, or for two parking spaces, one of
which shall be behind the building line. These parking spaces shall be kept clear of any
development (whether Permitted or not by virtue of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No2) (England) Order 2008, or any
Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modifications) or obstructions
and shall not be used for any other purpose, unless the Planning Authority gives prior
written consent for any variation. All spaces shall accord with the latest version of the
Cumbria Design Guide.

Reason

In order to provide a suitable level of parking associated with the development.

Reasons for Granting Consent

The development hereby approved has been assessed against the Development Plan for
the area, specifically the policies listed below, and material considerations, including third
party representations. The Planning Authority concluded that the development, subject to
the conditions imposed, would accord with the Development Plan and there were no other
material considerations to justify a refusal of permission.

North West Plan RSS policy RDF2

The Borough of Barrow in Furness Local Plan Review policies B3, B4, B13, C11, D21.


_______________________________________________________________________




                                       Page 29 of 48
                          PLANNING COMMITTEE
                            20th October 2009
PLAN NUMBER:                   APPLICANT:                     AGENT:

2009/1538                      Mr DS Troughton                Mr D Troughton
                               Furness Rugby Union
                               Football Club Ltd

WARD/PARISH:                   CASE OFFICER:                  DATE RECEIVED:

Newbarns                       Barry Jesson                   04/09/2009
                               01229 876323                   STATUTORY DATE:
                                                              29/10/2009

LOCATION:

Furness Rugby Union Club, The Strawberry Grounds, Croslands Park,
Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Improvement to access track from Litchmead Grove by addition of hardcore

SAVED POLICIES OF THE
FORMER LOCAL PLAN:

No specific policies.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

The club seek to improve the existing access to allow access for emergency services
vehicles whilst retaining access for grounds maintenance vehicles. No other form of
access is required.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

House values.

REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupiers, 1-24, 26 Litchmead Grove, 30, 32, 36 Croslands Park , Barrow in Furness
all informed.

The Occupier, 4 Litchmead Grove, Barrow in Furness

“We would like to register our objection & concern over above proposal, which should be a
retrospective application, as work has already been started.

The applicant says that residents have been consulted, but we cannot find anyone at this
end of the “track” who can recall this. We have contacted the planning department on
several occasions to express our concerns to which no information was returned.


                                     Page 30 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009
The application is for “emergency use” only, which we do not object to, however heavy
goods vehicles have already used said “track” and this we most strongly object too.
Litchmead Grove is a quiet cull de sac, to which we were attracted to move just a year
ago, and which will be ruined if regular traffic were ever permitted to access The
Strawberry Grounds from this approach. The street is narrow and we will not appreciate
the obvious increase in unnecessary traffic flow, together with any decrease in property
values.

The application is for hardcore on grassy ground, which if used by vehicles, will bring mud
and soil, together with some of the unspecified “hardcore”, onto Litchmead Grove and
Valley Drive.

The “road” which might result from the proposal could potentially create a rat run between
Crosslands Park and Litchmead Grove.

This application is regarded as potentially un-neighbourly and objectionable, if the gate
were to be left unlocked.

Should The Council, in their wisdom, permit the application to proceed, then it is hoped,
and that the locked gate be conditional together with provision nearby for a smaller
pedestrian access to maintain the right of way described.

Additional parking adjacent the proposed road must be prevented. Our biggest fear is that
the access via. Crosslands Park might eventually be closed for the benefit of residents
there and to our loss. Whatever happens in the future, the Crosslands access should be
maintained.”

The Occupier, 20 Litchmead Grove, Barrow in Furness

“I would like to object to the above planning application for the following reasons;

1. There is already access to the Club / car park via Crosslands Park. I believe this access
has been used for many years. What is the need / justification for an extra entrance when
one already exists?

2. There is an entrance to the Rugby club from Abbey Road. This is a main road so it
would obviously be the best for access. I would have no problem with the Litchmead
Grove entrance used for emergency vehicles only.

3. When I purchased my property I specifically looked for a cul-de-sac location. The
addition of a hardcore track / driveway up to the car park would take this cul-de-sac
location away.

4. This track / driveway could and possibly would be used as a short cut between
Crosslands Park and Litchmead Grove for vehicles.

5. Taxis would use this for late night pick ups at the Club. This would add a significant
amount of noise to what is currently a quiet residential street.




                                       Page 31 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009
6. The junction at the bottom of Valley drive can be a tight bottle neck. By adding more
traffic through this junction the problem will become worse / potentially dangerous for the
residents and their children. This residential area is not built to accommodate extra traffic
flow (cars / coaches).

7. This will encourage extra parking on the street which could be potentially hazardous to
residents if emergency vehicles needed access (which they do to any residential area.).

8. The planning application mentions the addition of hardcore. This makes me assume
there was no need for planning permission to put the track down in the first place as the
track has been added only recently.

It seems fairly obvious that the intention will be to make the hardcore track for vehicle
access, i.e. driveway. Would this be a highways issue? which I‟d assume would also need
to go through the County Council Highways Agency.

It should be noted that although planning permission has not been granted, there are a
number of vehicles using the „new‟ track for access to the field (tractors used road over
weekend of 12th / 13th Sept to cut grass). There is now no gate at the end of the street so I
believe people now assume the driveway / access is operational. A gate should be in
place.

As far as I‟m aware the local residents were not consulted regarding the apparent increase
in the size of the car park at the club. I was not consulted when floodlights were added so
it is a relief that I have the chance to object to this.

I hope the residents of Valley Drive have also been consulted as I‟m sure they would have
similar views to me”.

The Occupier, 13 Litchmead Grove, Barrow-in-Furness

 “As the track in the above application has already been covered in hardcore I see no
reason for this application. My main concern would be if the track is made more
permanent by the addition of asphalt to the surface. If as proposed the gate is kept closed
even on match days and only opened if an ambulance was needed on the pitch or some
maintenance machinery is needed then I don‟t see a problem. But if as is the concern of
the residents I have spoke to, the gate is left open and it becomes a entrance or egress
from the car park then I would want them to be stopped using it for any access”.

The Occupier, 7 Litchmead Grove, Barrow in Furness

“I wish to strongly object to the planning application no. B18/2009/1538 by Furness Rugby
Union Club. This appears to be retrospective as the work was started 10/04/2009.

Proposal : Improvement to access track from Litchmead Grove by addition of hardcore.

I have lived here since 1989 it is a quiet road with young families, this application should
be refused because if granted it will lead to the extension of the car park, beer wagons
delivering, coaches arriving on match days, the increase in traffic would be totally
unacceptable and damaging to the local environment.


                                        Page 32 of 48
                             PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               20th October 2009
At times it is difficult now when there are matches, training sessions and various events,
but we just accept this inconvenience as we know the club need to raise money, even
though we do not receive any advanced warning or consultation.

There are other access points to the ground Croslands Park Road, Abbey Road and from
Hector Street in Newbarns village, why is a fourth one required? Surely it will be easier to
update these access points to be suitable for the intended use.

If this application is granted it will lead to other projects and will spoil this residential area
forever.

Please inform me of the expected time and date of the meeting to decide on this
application”.

The Occupier, 9 Litchmead Grove, Barrow in Furness

“I wish to raise concerns over the rugby clubs planning application to use the access road
solely for emergency vehicles and also the occasional agricultural machinery.

It is stated that the gate will be shut at all times with exception of the above vehicles, only
yesterday (22nd September 2009) a beer wagon used this route to deliver to the rugby
club.

I have also noticed that this gate has not been locked for over two weeks and when I
walked down to investigate, saw that the gate had been removed completely. This gate
also seems to have been recently moved which now causes problems for the owner of the
end house whilst parking as her vehicle partly blocks the road.

Not only have the rugby club failed to tell the planning office of their intentions, as they
have already put the hardcore down without the Councils knowledge they are blatantly
using this entrance for other purposes.

If this planning application then this would have a long term impact on all the residents of
Litchmead Grove, how long would it be before taxis and all other vehicles start using this
for immediate access? Not to mention what harm this will do to all the families with young
children in the street who play out in the cul de sac.

I appreciate that the rugby club would like access for emergency as the one case they
highlighted in their application but accidents must have occured in the past as the club has
been playing on this site for many years without any concerns for vehicular access then I
feel that this application is part of a larger agenda and feel ultimately they want to make
this their principal entrance. Another option for emergency access could be the gate that is
already situated from Abbey Road leading to the rugby ground.

The current car park is large enough to accommodate all the cars on match days, surely
they can paint a no go area so if an accident occurs then emergency can still gain access
rather than causing disruption to the cul de sac.

If this planning application is granted then not only would it interfere with the quality of life
in this and neighbouring streets but could also impact on the resale value of all the
properties in the surrounding area. One of the reasons we were attracted to this property


                                          Page 33 of 48
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                             20th October 2009
was the quiet and safe environment, as I am sure most of the residents of this street
would agree.

Why try and alter something that has never been an issue before, unless they are
planning something else in the future?

In part 8 of the planning application form regarding the neighbour and community
consultation it asks `have you consulted your neighbours or the local community about the
proposal` of which they responded `yes`, the form then says `if yes provide details` of
which they have placed no details in the box. The first news we heard of these plans was
when we received the letter from yourselves dated the 9th September 2009”.

The Occupier, 5 Litchmead Grove, Barrow in Furness

“I wish to place on record my strong objection to the above proposal.

It was not made clear in the letter why Furness Rugby Union Club need to improve
this so called access track nor was it clear from the website link. My daughter on my
behalf, therefore contacted Mr Barry Jesson to clarify why Furness Rugby Union
Club have sought planning permission and was informed it was to improve access
for Emergency Vehicles.

The proposal states `Improvement to access...' since when was access granted?
Access to Furness Rugby Union Club has always been through Croslands Park.

My concerns would be that Furness Rugby Union Club would eventually abuse this
access - directing traffic to their grounds from Abbey Road via Valley Drive and then
Litchmead Grove. This has happened in the past resulting in a back log of cars
towing caravans onto their fields for a dog show.

More recently - Sunday 13 September 2009 - large agricultural machinery was using
Litchmead Grove as access to cut and bail the grass.

Litchmead Grove, to my understanding is a cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac means a dead
end street with only one access - this being from Valley Drive.

Have Highways have been consulted and assessed the area for suitability as an
access?

I am also objecting to the proposal for the following reasons:

It will devalue our properties
It will increase the traffic noise and pollution
It will put residents and property at risk of accident”.

The Occupiers, 16 Litchmead Grove, Barrow in Furness

“We object to the plan quoted if the „improvement‟ is for regular access for cars etc. to and
from the Rugby Club. This street is a quiet cul-de-sac and, over the years, families with
young children have chosen to live here as it is safe for children to play.



                                       Page 34 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009
We would approve if the through traffic is for „special occasions‟ but not if it is to be an
everyday occurrence”.

The Occupier, 24 Litchmead Grove, Barrow in Furness

“I am writing to object to the Planning Application submitted by Furness Rugby Union
Club for improvements to the access track from Litchmead Grove to the playing fields at
the Strawberry Grounds.

When I moved into Litchmead Grove over 20 years ago the playing fields were fenced
off with no access from the street. A few years ago the fence at the end of the street
was removed and a gate installed. This was done without any consultation or permission
from residents. Lately the gate has been removed leaving access to the field completely
open to vehicles. I have recently seen agricultural machinery using this unauthorised
access and almost damaging a resident's car which was parked close to the opening.

Litchmead Grove is a quiet cul de sac and allowing vehicles to enter & exit the playing
fields from the end of the street would be a hazard and greatly increase the amount of
traffic along what is a narrow residential street. Litchmead Grove would soon become an
alternative access to the Rugby Club with cars using it as a short cut. The additional
traffic would increase noise levels, pose a risk of damage to resident's vehicles left
parked on the street and be a danger to residents when vehicles exit the field without
warning.

I wish to attend the meeting”.

The Occupier, 10 Litchmead Grove, Barrow in Furness

„There is no reason why an ambulance parking and turning area cannot give priority over
parking cars on match days on the car park. Also there has never been a track as long as
people can remember leading to the rugby club, it has always been green grassed. The
gravel track that is there now has only appeared recently whether this should have had
planning permission I don't know. Since it has appeared the hardcore track is already in
use by brewery lorries and other vehicles. I also feel that this will be used for general
access to the car park as there is no one there to police it and also feel people will park
there cars in the street and use it as a general walkway. There are young and elderly
people in the street and feel we have bought our houses in this street for the cul de sac
and the quietness, I also feel this will devalue my house price. There has been an
entrance from Crosslands for many years and I do not feel there is any need for another
entrance.‟

The Occupiers, 22 Litchmead Grove, Barrow in Furness

“I would like to object to the above planning application as it would cause parking
problems and increased traffic to a residential street.

I would like to point out that a gravel path from the existing car park on the rugby field
leading down to Litchmead Grove has already been made and used, there is no gate on
the entrance to the field leaving the street exposed we have had trailers, skips, cars
(please see enclosed photos from weekend September 12th and 13th) and a variety of
vehicles using the entrance. It seems people assume this track is already in operation!
There is hazardous junction at the end of the street which will be worse with added traffic

                                        Page 35 of 48
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                             20th October 2009
and also parking problems as we do have already when there are special events on in the
field. It will be dangerous for children playing and the cul-de-sac location would no longer
exist.

The access which is already from Croslands Park and has been for many years would it
not be more sensible to open the other already existing access road from Abbey Road?
This is the main road and much easier to access. This is a narrow street with cars parked
on both sides of the road. It hasn‟t been built to accommodate large volumes of traffic,
especially the heavy vehicles we have see already using the street (cracked paving stones
have already begun to appear)

I also think it would be used as a short cut for cars between Crosslands Park and
Litchmead Grove, we are wondering why the residents of Valley Drive have not been
notified as the extra traffic would affect them and I am sure if they had been given the
chance to object they would have similar views to us”.




12th September/13th September




12th/13th September




                                       Page 36 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009




12th/13th September




12th/13th September


The Occupier, „Brantwood‟, Valley Drive, Barrow

“Reference the above and your letter to the occupier, 22 Litchmead Grove, as a resident
for some years of Valley Drive, a totally residential area of Barrow, I object to any
development of a further access to the grounds of Furness Union Rugby Club via
Litchmead Grove.

Obviously any such development would increase traffic and probably car parking in Valley
Drive as well as Litchmead Grove and would be detrimental to the well being and safety of
residents of Valley Drive also.

We already have parking problems during popular events such as bonfire night and would
not wish to see additional problems develop.

P.S. the further signatures on this letter are also residents of Valley Drive.”




                                        Page 37 of 48
                             PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               20th October 2009
The Occupiers, 26 Litchmead Grove, Barrow.

„With regards to the above planning application for an improved access track, we are
concerned this will result in an increase in the volume of traffic passing through, in what is
at the moment a quiet cul-de-sac‟.

Applicant‟s Supporting Statement

“The following information relates to the rough track leading from the end of Litchmead Grove
to the car park at Furness R.U. The attached pictures were taken on 24th August 2009.

The track has been established over an existing grass track to improve access to the
southern pitches of the Strawberry Ground.

The intention is to allow safer ambulance access on match days for both senior and junior
rugby and football. The main car park is busy on these days with limited space for turning. Last
season an ambulance got stuck on the grass track whilst attending to a young player with a
broken leg, causing unnecessary delays - a situation we want to avoid.

A locked five bar farm gate will prevent unauthorized access at all other times and will only
be opened on match days, if required (gate absent on photos)

Any other access will be very occasional, for example, agricultural machinery for pitch
maintenance.

There is no intention to use the track as access to the grounds on a regular basis. The main
point of access to the club will continue to be the lane from Croslands Park.




View north from access point                       View south from car park towards Litchmead
                                                   Grove




                                         Page 38 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009




View east from top of Litchmead Grove             View west into Litchmead Grove
(Gate Removed)




                                                 View north east towards car park.

To the south of the track there are three other pitches used for rugby and football with no other
access points for vehicles”.

CONSULTATIONS:

Cumbria Highways

„I refer to the above consultation received on 09/09/2009 and would inform you that there
are no objections to the proposal form a highway point of view, subject to the following
recommended conditions being included in any Notice of Consent which may be issued:-

1.      Access Gates
     Access gates, if provided, shall be hung to open inwards only away from the highway.

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

2. The access drive shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or
   otherwise
   bound and shall be constructed and completed before the development is brought into
   use.


                                         Page 39 of 48
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                             20th October 2009
   This surfacing shall extend for a distance of at least 5 metres inside the site, as
   measured from the carriageway edge of the adjacent highway.

      Reason:       In the interests of highway safety.
                    To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD5, LD7, LD8

3. Surface Water Discharge onto Highway
   Details of all measures to be taken by the applicant to prevent surface water
   discharging onto or off the highway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority
   for approval prior to development being commenced. Any approved works shall be
   implemented prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained
   operational thereafter.

      Reason:        In the interests of highway safety and environmental
                     management. To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD7,
                     LD8’

OFFICERS REPORT:

The proposal before you today is retrospective as the work has already been carried out.
The work amounts to providing a hardcore surface along a narrow track running from an
access at Litchmead Grove to the clubs car park. The previous track surface was grass.
The club is located off Croslands Park, where the primary hard surfaced access to the
grounds has been present for many years.

A large number of objections have been submitted from residents along Litchmead Grove,
listing a number of generally common issues, which have been reproduced in full above.
It should be made clear that this application is not to create a new access, as the club
have benefited from access directly onto Litchmead Grove for a number of years which
allowed access directly onto the playing fields. The application involves upgrading the
surface with the provision of hardcore. This has the potential to intensify its use which
needs to be assessed accordingly.

The club state within the supplied information that its intended use is primarily for
emergency service vehicles, siting an incident where a player had broken a leg and due to
congestion the ambulance struggled to access the grounds from Croslands Park. In
addition, it will be occasionally used by grounds maintenance vehicles i.e. tractors with
grass cutting equipment. The latter usage would not require the hardcore to permit
access due the capabilities of tractors on such terrain. In terms of other vehicles using the
access, as raised in a number of the objections, the club have not stated any other
vehicles will need to use the access, and this has been conditioned accordingly.

Cumbria Highways have not objected to the scheme but have requested a number of
conditions which seem excessive or inappropriate. Surface water discharge should not be
affected as the track will allow water to drain through it as it is not an impermeable hard
surface such as concrete. Furthermore they have requested that the first 5m of the track
from Litchmead Grove be surfaced with a bound material to prevent material being
dragged onto the highway. The infrequent use of the track should ensure that very little
material is deposited onto the highway, and this was observed during my site visits.
Furthermore, the provision of a small section of hard surfacing may encourage frequent
use by vehicles not suited to such a „rough‟ track i.e. motor cars, delivery trucks etc.


                                       Page 40 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009
As such, the only other consideration is the visual impact caused by the track. Given it is
a narrow strip, with grass growing through the material the visual impact is minimal. I
therefore consider that, with appropriate conditions, the proposal should be supported.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Condition No. 1

The access from Litchmead Grove to Furness Rugby Union Football Club shall only be
used by emergency service vehicles and grounds maintenance vehicles. Access by
vehicles for any other purpose shall not occur unless the prior express approval of the
planning authority has been granted in writing.

In the interests of highway safety and to ensure only appropriate vehicles use the access
track.

Condition No. 2

An inward opening access gate must be provided at the access from Litchmead Grove
within 56 days of the date of this consent, and thereafter permanently maintained unless
agreed in writing with the local authority. A full specification of the gate design shall be
submitted to the local authority prior to its installation. The gate must then subsequently
remain closed when not in use by the specified vehicles as detailed in condition no.1.

In order to prevent unauthorised access and to aid compliance with condition no.1 of this
consent

Reason for Granting Approval

The development hereby approved has been assessed against the Development Plan for
the area and material considerations, including third party representations. The Planning
Authority concluded that the development, subject to the conditions imposed, would
accord with the Development Plan and there were no other material considerations to
justify a refusal of permission.




                                       Page 41 of 48
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                             20th October 2009
PLAN NUMBER:                    APPLICANT:                      AGENT:

2009/1312                       Mr J Pascoe                     Mr W Woodhouse

WARD/PARISH:                    CASE OFFICER:                   DATE RECEIVED:

Newbarns                        Barry Jesson                    08/09/2009
                                01229 876323                    STATUTORY DATE:
                                                                02/11/2009

LOCATION:

46 Flass Lane, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Erection of a rear ground floor family room extension and a detached games
room/garden tool store to rear of garden.

SAVED POLICIES OF THE
FORMER LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY B14

Extensions to the rear of dwellings will not be permitted where they adversely affect the
amenities of neighbouring properties by virtue of loss of sunlight or privacy or by the
creation of an overbearing impact or excessive level of enclosure.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

The proposed extension does not have a significantly higher impact than the existing
extension. The design of the neighbour‟s extension should not unduly restrict the
applicant‟s proposal.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:



REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupiers of 42, 44, 48 Flass Lane, Bevan House, Stackwood Avenue, Barrow in
Furness all informed.

The Occupier, 44 Flass Lane, Barrow in Furness

“We object to the proximity of the rear ground floor family room wall to the shared
boundary as it will block light from our existing windows. On building our extension at no.
44 we were advised by planning to stay 0.5M away from the boundary as not to block light
from the neighbours window. We would like the same consideration to apply.”


                                       Page 42 of 48
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              20th October 2009
CONSULTATIONS:


OFFICERS REPORT:

The proposal comprises two elements; the erection of a rear ground floor family room
extension and a detached store and games room located at the bottom of the garden.
The site is a traditional style semi-detached property on Flass Lane which benefits from a
large rear curtilage, approximately 50m long. The house is set back a fair distance from
the highway, which provides a large quantity of off-road parking. An existing rear
extension will be removed to make way for the larger extension.

The reason for presenting this application before you today is due to an objection
submitted from the attached neighbour, relating to the family room extension. It is stated
that due to the proximity to the boundary, the proposal will block light from the windows in
their own extension, and it should be sited 0.5m from the boundary as their extension is,
rather than the 0.2m proposed.

However, having considered both the plans and the arrangement on site, I do not believe
that setting the extension further from the boundary will have any significant effect. It is
true that the extension as proposed will block some light from the windows in the side of
the objector‟s extension. However, this is also currently experienced with the existing
extension, albeit to a lesser degree, but would also likely to be the case if the extension is
set further away from the boundary.

The presence of windows in the side elevation of the neighbour‟s extension is particularly
unusual as they are often omitted for both reasons of privacy and the future potential of
proposals such as this. For this reason, I do not believe this should be a constraint on the
applicant‟s proposal, as it is broadly similar to the neighbours, though slightly longer at
5.5m. In addition, the neighbouring extension is served by patio doors and windows to the
rear elevation which will allow daylight and sunlight through.

The materials proposed are to match the existing dwelling. Privacy is actually improved as
a blank wall will be provided at the shared boundary with the attached neighbour; the
current arrangement consists of a window facing the neighbour‟s extension.

The other element of the proposal relates to a detached store and games room at the
bottom of the garden. This raises no issue as it is relatively small scale in the wider
curtilage and does not overlook any other property. It is well screened to the rear by
existing mature trees and hedges. Again, materials will match the existing house.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration
Limit and the following conditions:

Condition No. 2

The development must be carried out in accordance with the plans (drawing numbers 1-
12) hereby approved as varied by Condition No. 3 below as submitted with the application
dated 08.09.09.
                                        Page 43 of 48
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                             20th October 2009
Reason

To ensure that the development is carried out only as indicated on the drawings approved
by the Planning Authority.

Condition No. 3

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) (Amendment) (No 2) (England) Order, 2008 (or any Order revoking or re-
enacting that Order with or without modifications) no opening of any kind shall be made
in the north facing elevation of the permitted extension without the prior written consent
of the Planning Authority.

Reason

In order to protect the residential amenities of neighbouring properties from overlooking
or perceived overlooking.

Reason for Approval

That having regard to the provisions of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act and all other material considerations, and subject to the proposed
conditions, the development as proposed by reason of its location, design and orientation,
will not have a detrimental impact upon the neighbouring properties or the visual amenities
of the area. As such, the proposal complies with the Development Plan for the area,
specifically saved policy B14 of the former Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council Local Plan
Review 1996-2006.




                                       Page 44 of 48
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                             20th October 2009
PLAN NUMBER:                    APPLICANT:                      AGENT:

2009/1358                       Mr. E. Hurst                    Mr W Woodhouse

WARD/PARISH:                    CASE OFFICER:                   DATE RECEIVED:

Dalton North Dalton and         Leanne Parr                     26/08/2009
Newton Parish Council           01229 876438                    STATUTORY DATE:
                                                                20/10/2009

LOCATION:

34 Cleater Street, Dalton-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Erection of a two storey rear extension forming ground floor dining room with
bedroom above.

SAVED POLICIES OF THE
FORMER LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY B14

Extensions to the rear of dwellings will not be permitted where they adversely affect the
amenities of neighbouring properties by virtue of loss of sunlight or privacy or by the
creation of an overbearing impact or excessive level of enclosure.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

The extension will have a detrimental impact upon the amenities of the adjoining
neighbour in terms of creating an overbearing impact and an excessive level of enclosure.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:


REPRESENTATIONS:

Occupiers of 11, 12, Broughton Lodge, Broughton Road, 30, 32, 36, 38, Cleater Street,
Dalton-in-Furness, all informed. No representations received.

CONSULTATIONS:

Dalton with Newton Town Council

„No objections‟.




                                       Page 45 of 48
                             PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               20th October 2009
OFFICERS REPORT:

The application site is a mid-terrace, two storey dwelling located on the east side of
Cleater Street. The houses along this side of Cleater Street feature two storey outriggers
to the rear. Several also benefit from single storey extensions, some of which extend the
full length of the rear yard.

The application is for the erection of a two storey rear extension, which will be attached to
the existing outrigger. The extension will have a footprint of 4.8m x 2.6m, which will bring it
right up to the rear boundary wall. It will feature a flat roof with a height of 4.9 metres.

Policy

The relevant saved polices from the Local Plan Review are copied above for your
reference.

Issues:

Overbearing Impact

The main issue is whether the development will have an overbearing impact upon the
adjoining property at no. 32 Cleater Street.

The main impact is likely to be upon the rear ground and first floor windows of no.32
Cleater Street and their rear yard.

The issue is relatively subjective and I note that no objections have been received from
neighbouring residents. However, two Inspector‟s decisions have raised the same issues;
both of the appeals were subsequently dismissed and relate to the erection of two storey
rear extensions at terraced properties. The most similar scheme to the proposed
development was at 52 Newby Terrace, a mid-terrace property with a similar sized rear
yard to the application site. Appendix F shows the location of the two appeal properties.
The Inspectors dealing with the cases commented as follows:

52 Newby Terrace (89/0905)

         “The height of the boundary walls, the smallness of the enclosed yard and the
         changes in level result in a dim and dismal outlook from rear ground floor windows
         of properties in Newby Terrace. To introduce a 16 foot high wall the full depth of the
         yard would undoubtedly have an unacceptable impact on the outlook from that
         window in your own property and those of your immediate neighbours.”

The Inspector continued…

         “Additionally I have no doubt that were I to approve your project, it would lead to
         irresistible pressure on the council to allow other 2 storey rear extensions in Newby
         Terrace with the result that other properties would be adversely affected.”




                                         Page 46 of 48
                             PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               20th October 2009
2 Lincoln Street (89/0129)

       “I accept that the boundary wall between the two properties contributes to the
       enclosure and relative darkness of the rear yards. The first floor extension would
       also increase the degree of enclosure of the two rear yards, worsening the outlook
       from those windows and from the first floor window of no.4”

I believe such a high wall extending the full depth of the yard and being only 1.7 metres
from the boundary with no. 32 Cleater Street, will cause an excessive level of enclosure to
the neighbour‟s yard. The extension would have an overbearing impact on the rear ground
floor window of no.32 and the outlook from this window would also be worsened by the
development. Because no.32 Cleater Street is set at a lower level to the applicant‟s house
I believe the extension will also have a detrimental impact upon the neighbour‟s first floor
bedroom window.

The extension would also have an impact upon the applicant‟s own house and yard,
however the impact on an applicant‟s property has been held in the past to not constitute
a reason for refusal of an application as they have some choice in the matter and
ultimately benefit from the development.

Due to the limited size of the yard, there appears to be little, if any, scope to redesign the
extension in order to reduce its impact upon the neighbour. Given this, I have had no
option but to recommend refusal of the application, rather than discussing alternative
designs.

Sunlighting and daylighting

Sunlight indicator charts show that there will be no impact upon on the amount of sunlight
received at rear windows of no.32 Cleater Street. The development also meets the 45
degree test in terms of daylighting. The neighbour at no. 36 Cleater Street benefits from a
rear single storey extension which extends the full length of the rear yard. This extension
features a lean to roof with a ridge height of 4 metres. The proposed development has no
further impact than this extension upon the amount of sunlight or daylight received to rear
windows at this property.

Privacy

The proposal raises no issues in terms of privacy. The proposed first floor window will
overlook garages to rear and privacy at ground floor level will be protected by the
boundary wall between the properties. The proposed roof light will be at least 2 metres
above first floor level and will therefore have no impact in terms of privacy.

Further Issues

Members will also recall a recent Inspectors decision at 2 Pryors Walk, a detached
property in Askam. The application for a first floor extension (2008/0279) was refused on
the grounds of an overbearing impact upon the neighbour. The applicant‟s appeal was
dismissed. The Inspector noted that the extension would not cause any significant
overshadowing or loss of daylight to the neighbouring property, nor would there be any
impact in terms of privacy. However the Inspector agreed that the extension would have
an overbearing impact on the neighbour due to its height and proximity to the boundary.

                                        Page 47 of 48
                          PLANNING COMMITTEE
                            20th October 2009
Whilst there are obvious differences between the two applications, the Inspector‟s
decision highlights that developments which would have an overbearing impact should be
refused, regardless of whether they have an adverse impact in terms of sunlighting,
privacy etc.

Summary

The extension due to its height and proximity to the boundary will have an overbearing
impact upon the adjoining property and will create an unacceptable level of enclosure
reducing the outlook from the rear ground and first floor windows. The development is
therefore contrary to saved policy B14 of the former Local Plan Review. Approval of the
scheme would also set a harmful precedent for similar developments elsewhere along
Cleater Street.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that the application is REFUSED for the following reasons:

Reason No. 1

The extension due to its height and proximity to the boundary will have an overbearing
impact upon the adjoining property (no.32) and will create an unacceptable level of
enclosure reducing the outlook from rear ground and first floor windows. The development
is therefore contrary to saved policy B14 of the former Local Plan Review. Approval of the
scheme would also set a harmful precedent for similar developments elsewhere along
Cleater Street.


_______________________________________________________________________




                                      Page 48 of 48

								
To top