Docstoc

Planning Committee 16th June 2009

Document Sample
Planning Committee 16th June 2009 Powered By Docstoc
					                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              16th June 2009
PLAN NUMBER:                    APPLICANT:                       AGENT:

2009/0710                       Mr S Henderson

WARD/PARISH:                    CASE OFFICER:                    DATE RECEIVED:

Walney North                    Leanne Largue                    11/05/2009
                                01229 876438                     STATUTORY DATE:
                                                                 05/07/2009

LOCATION:

118 Mill Lane, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Change of use from retail (A1) to hot food takeaway (A5)

SAVED POLICIES OF THE
FORMER LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY C15

Within established neighbourhood centres, other than the town centre shopping area of
Dalton, applications for hot food take-aways and restaurants will be judged against the
following criteria:

a)     There must be no neighbouring purely residential property and their general impact
       on surrounding residential properties must be considered acceptable; and

b)     Adequate parking space must be available nearby.

They will be subject to a requirement that their opening hours will be restricted to 0700 to
2300 hours.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

The proposal meets the requirements of saved local plan policy C15 and appropriate
conditions will ensure there is no significant harm to residential amenities.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:



REPRESENTATIONS:

                             Development Advertised on site




                                        Page 1 of 39
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               16th June 2009
The Occupiers of 108a, 112, 114, 114a -120a (evens), 121, 123, 127 Mill Lane, 1, 3
Duddon Drive, 1, 3, 5, 7 Darent Avenue, 2-12 (evens) Duddon Mews, Duddon Drive,
Barrow in Furness all informed.

The Occupier, 8 Duddon Mews, Barrow in Furness

“I am concerned over ongoing parking issues we already have if this goes ahead. I am
concerned of the timings it will be open as we already have a problem with youths hanging
around.

I am concerned because my garden already looks likes a tip with rubbish dropped by kids
outside the shops.

I am concerned about how much more value my home will loose with this application. Lots
of questions need answering before our household would even consider backing this
application”.

The Occupier, 12 Duddon Mews, Barrow in Furness

“I would like to object to this application as we already have major issues with parking in
the area without additional cars coming along.

I would also like to raise concerns over the amount of rubbish which will add to our
problems as we already get large amounts blowing over from the shop now even though
there is a bin provided.

We get a lot of noise with youths hanging around the local shop now and with the
takeaway there will be no end to this and police are already struggling to contain this.
I can foresee that with the struggling housing market this will make our homes impossible
to sell should we require it.

Also depending on the wind I object to walking around with clean clothes off my line
smelling like a takeaway and we know Walney is a windy island at all times.

Please take into consideration all these problems. I have young children with a bedroom
at the front who is going to struggle with the disturbance caused by the late nights.
We have been fighting hard to rid the area of drugs and vandals and this would just bring
them back”.

The Occupier, 1 Darent Avenue, Barrow in Furness

“I am writing to voice my concern over the proposed application for a take away at 118 Mill
Lane. I am strongly opposed to the proposal on several issues mainly the inconvenience this
would cause to the community in the area, excess traffic, noise, pollution, and rubbish to Mill
lane, and if the back of the premises is used for delivery and pick up the lack of a safe area
for children to play. As it is only residents use the back street, and use it wisely knowing
children are often playing there. Also how long before the licence would be required until
after midnight, making all the above much worse There is already a take away on the island
with Andy's on the corner of Hastings Street ( I believe) and in Mill lane and a proposed one
in Central Drive at Sandy Gap. A third would just be over kill!!!”



                                        Page 2 of 39
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              16th June 2009
CONSULTATIONS:

Environmental Health

“No details supplied, standard conditions recommended:

All emissions from cooking processes must be extracted through a properly designed and
constructed exhaust ventilation system, adequately filtered and discharged vertically at
sufficient height (at least 1 metre above eaves level) to prevent cooking odours being
observed at any neighbouring properties. The exhaust gas flow must not be restricted by
any plate etc at the outlet which might affect dispersion. Details of the proposed system
must be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to construction.

Noise from the development, including noise from the extraction equipment required in the
above condition, must not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR 30 in daytime hours (0700 -
2300) and NR 25 in night time hours (2300 - 0700) in any noise sensitive property”.

OFFICERS REPORT:

The application site is a vacant property located within a small terrace on the northern side
of Mill Lane. The adjoining premises are commercial and offices above are occupied by
Sure Start. There are residential dwellings on the opposite side of Mill Lane and to the
rear. The site benefits from off-street parking to the front. This section of Mill Lane is
identified as a Neighbourhood Shopping Centre for the purposes of saved policy C15 of
the Local Plan Review.

Policy

Saved policy C15 is copied above for your reference.

Representations

Objections have been received from occupiers of Duddon Mews which is approximately
45 metres to the north-east. The issues raised will be looked at in more detail in the
following section of the report.

Parking

There is an off-street parking area to the front of the terrace. Whilst comments have not
yet been received from Cumbria Highways, there appears to be adequate space available
for staff and customer parking. On-street parking is also available along Mill Lane.

Crime/disorder

No response has been received from Cumbria Constabulary at the time of writing the
report.

One objector has however stated that there is an existing problem of youths gathering
outside the terrace, which is said to create problems of noise and disorder. Whilst it is
accepted that the use could attract additional groups of people, it would be difficult to
prove that any increase in noise and disorder would be a direct result of the opening of the
takeaway.

                                       Page 3 of 39
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              16th June 2009
Emissions/odours

The nearest property is approximately 10 metres away to the rear. A condition requiring an
adequate extraction system should ensure there is no significant odour problem at
neighbouring houses.

Litter

Litter bins are provided along this section of Mill Lane. Whilst people may not always
choose to use them this is not a sufficient reason for refusing the application.

Property values

The potential impact on property values is not a material planning consideration.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

Condition No. 2

The premises must not be open to the public between the hours of 23:00 and 07:00.

Reason

In order to protect the residential amenities of the area, in accordance with saved policy
C15 of the former Local Plan Review.

Condition No. 3

Emissions from cooking processes must be extracted through a properly designed and
constructed exhaust ventilation system, adequately filtered and discharged vertically at
sufficient height (at least 1 metres above eaves level) to prevent cooking odours being
observed at any neighbouring properties. The exhaust gas flow must not be restricted by
any plate etc at the outlet which might affect dispersion. Details of the system must be
submitted to and approved in writing prior to the commencement of the use hereby
permitted. The approved system must thereafter be retained as approved and operated
and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer‟s instructions.

Reason

In order to protect the residential amenities of the area, in accordance with saved policy
C15 of the former Local Plan Review.

Condition No. 4

Noise from the development, including noise from the extraction equipment required by
condition no.3 above, must not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR 30 during daytime hours
(07.00-23.00) and NR 25 during night time hours (23.00-07.00) in any noise sensitive
property.

                                        Page 4 of 39
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              16th June 2009
Reason

In order to protect the residential amenities of the area, in accordance with saved policy
C15 of the former Local Plan Review.




                                        Page 5 of 39
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              16th June 2009
PLAN NUMBER:                    APPLICANT:                       AGENT:

2009/0373                       Barrow Borough Council           Chris Bugler Architect Ltd.

WARD/PARISH:                    CASE OFFICER:                    DATE RECEIVED:

Barrow Island                   Leanne Largue                    17/04/2009
                                01229 876438                     STATUTORY DATE:
                                                                 11/06/2009

LOCATION:

Waterside House, Bridge Approach, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Two storey extension to provide 16 B1 office units with a meeting room.

SAVED POLICIES OF THE
FORMER LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY A4

Proposals for the development of sites allocated under policies A1 and A2 will be required
to meet the following criteria:

a)    Site planning and layout should be carried out on a comprehensive basis
      demonstrating how the whole site will be developed (other than for Site E6);and

b)    The road layout should provide a safe and attractive means of accessing the site
      from the nearest main road - for both vehicles and pedestrians and should be
      constructed to the standards required for adoption by the Highway Authority; and

c)    There is adequate space for parking, loading and unloading in accordance with the
      planning authority‟s adopted guidelines; and

d)    The buildings are well designed in terms of siting, scale, orientation, detailing and
      external finishes and take into account the characteristics of adjoining land uses
      and landscape; and

e)    There is sufficient space to accommodate likely needs for outside storage; and

f)    The development is sustainable in its energy usage, environmental impact, waste
      and transport implications.




                                       Page 6 of 39
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               16th June 2009
POLICY A5

In the urban areas of Barrow and Dalton, outside the locations listed in Policies A1 and
A2, industrial, storage and similar development (B1, B2 and B8 uses) will be allowed
where proposals, in addition to criteria a) - f) inclusive, of Policy A4 do not conflict with
other Local Plan policies and are conveniently accessible by public transport services and
cycle routes. Where this involves conversions within town centres and conservation areas
the Council will expect any conversion to respect the character of the building, particularly
with respect to the treatment of doors and windows.

POLICY A13

Office development will be required to undergo a sequential test whereby it must be
located according to the following priority. Offices would only be permitted at one of the
locations listed below where it is demonstrated that a site at a higher priority location is
either unavailable or is unsuitable:

1. In a town centre;

2. An edge of centre site, defined as within 300 metres of a town centre;

3. Other areas acceptable for employment or non-town centre retailing as identified by
   other plan policy criteria for such uses.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Extension of existing office building on brownfield site.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:


REPRESENTATIONS:

                            Advertised on site and in press

Occupiers of 58-69 (Incl.), 70-71, 72-82 (Incl.), 84-89 (Incl.), Ferry Road, Barrow Sailing
Club, North Road, Unit G1-Unit G12 (Incl.), Units G13 & Units G14, Units F1 & F2, Unit
F3-Unit F13 (Incl.), Furness Enterprise, Waterside House, Bridge Approach, Premier Tiles
Ltd., Ferry, Beach Road,

CONSULTATIONS:

Natural England

Designated Sites

The application site lies very close to:

          South Walney & Piel Channel Flats Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
          Morecambe Bay Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of
         Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar Site.
          Duddon Estuary SSSI, SPA and Ramsar Site.
                                           Page 7 of 39
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               16th June 2009
Based on the information provided, Natural England has no objection to the proposed
development. It is our view that, either alone or in combination with other plans or
projects, it would not be likely to have a significant effect on the interest features of the
SAC, SPAs and Ramsar Sites, or any of the features of special scientific interest of the
SSSIs. Our detailed reasoning behind this view is set out below:

           Provided that the Environment Agency‟s Pollution Prevention Guidelines are
          adhered to there should be no impact on water quality from run-off during
          construction.

Adherence to the Environment Agency‟s Guideline should be made a condition of
planning permission.

Protected Species

Protected species are a material consideration in planning terms under PPS9.

Because of the proximity to the above designated sites, the site may hold breeding ground
nesting birds. Barrow Borough Council should therefore ensure work is either:

              Scheduled to avoid the bird breeding season,
Or
              Not be commenced without a breeding bird survey and mitigation.

This proposal is also considered to pose a low risk to bats; the attached informative
should be sent to the applicant who should ensure all contractors working on the project
are made aware of its contents.

Please note that if planning permission is granted, the applicants should be informed that
this does not absolve them from complying with the relevant law protecting species,
including obtaining and complying with the terms and conditions of any licenses required,
as described in Part IV B of circular 06/2005.

Other issues

Natural England is satisfied the proposal does not have any significant impacts upon
Natural England‟s other interests, including National Trails, Access Lane, or the areas of
search for new national landscape designations.”

Environment Agency.

„The Environment Agency has no objection in principal to the development as submitted
however we would request that Condition 2 relating to the previous planning approval
number 44/2007/0647 that relates to a Phase III programme of remediation measures is
also included in any planning approval for the proposed two storey extension.

The proposed development site is located on the edge of Flood Zone 3 (tidal).
In a previous consultation response to a planning application for this site (ref
NO/2007/100352/01) the Agency recommended that floor levels should be set at, or
above 7.32m AOD to protect against tidal flooding.


                                         Page 8 of 39
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               16th June 2009
We would suggest the same minimum floor level in this instance although we realise that
this should not be an issue since a spot height on the road of 10m is well above this
height.”

Environmental Health

“I have no objection to the development in principle; however I would request that prior to
development commencing, the applicant submitted further details as to how they will
mitigate the issues highlighted in the 2004 Land Quality Assessment by Capita Symonds”.

Cumbria Highways

“I refer to the above consultation received on 27/04/09 and would comment as follows.

As supporting information to their application I would request a Travel Plan and Car
Parking Study.

Upon receipt of this additional information I shall be better placed to make a full
response”.

Cumbria Fire & Rescue

“I wish to inform you that the Fire Authority has no objections to the planning application.

Access for Fire Service vehicles must be in accordance with Approved Document B,
Volume 2 of the Building Regulations 2000. Further guidance, it required, should be
sought from your local Building Control Authority,”

County Planning

“I wish to advise you that we do not consider the proposal to be a Category 1 Application
and the County Council will not be responding from a strategic planning perspective.”

United Utilities – No response received.

Estates and Development Manager – No response received.

Health & Safety Executive

OFFICERS REPORT:

The application is being reported to you today as the applicant is Barrow Borough Council.

The application site is Waterside House, an existing office development in a prominent
position at the junction of Bridge Approach and Bridge Road. The site is surrounded to the
south by vacant land, Walney Channel is to the west and there are residential properties
approximately 90 metres to the east.




                                        Page 9 of 39
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               16th June 2009
Proposal

The application is for a large two storey extension to the rear of Waterside House to
provide 16 B1 office units and a meeting room. A new single storey extension will link the
existing and proposed buildings. The applicant states that the additional floorspace
created will be 1750 square metres.

The extension will be roughly L-shaped, measuring approximately 34 metres at its longest
point and approximately 42 metres at its widest.

Policy

The site is not allocated in the Local Plan as an employment site therefore policy A5
applies. This states that in order for a proposal to be acceptable it must meet the
requirements of policy A4 and must not conflict with other local plan policies. Policy A13
which relates to office development is also relevant. The policies are copied above for
your reference.

Principle of development

The proposal represents a brownfield development in an existing industrial area. As the
use is B1 rather than A2 (which includes uses such as building societies, estate agencies
etc) members of the public are not expected to visit regularly. As the site is well served by
public transport there should be no significant impacts in terms of sustainability.

Planning Policy Statement 6 defines offices as one of the main Town Centre Uses. Such
uses are encouraged to locate within central areas in order to maintain their vitality and
viability. Policy W3 of the North West Spatial Strategy also puts emphasis on the town
centre. Saved policy A13 supports this stance, stating that office development will be
required to undergo a sequential test whereby it must be located according to the following
priority, the preferred location being the town centre, followed by an edge of centre site
and finally other areas suitable for employment. This particular site is neither within the
town centre nor the edge of centre, however there are limited, if any, sites of this size
within the central area. The fact that the offices are to be B1 rather than A2 is a further
factor in their favour.

Appearance

The office units will feature profiled aluminium sheet roofing in a light grey colour. This will
be curved to suit profile section. Meeting rooms and circulation areas linked to the office
units will feature single ply flat roofing.

Elevations will feature a mixture of different materials. Terracotta rain-screen effect
cladding will sit alongside sections of powder coated cladding. Both eastern and western
elevations will feature large areas of glazing which will feature dark grey aluminium
frames.

The design of the building will be in keeping with the character of the area and the existing
building in accordance with saved policies A4 and D21.



                                        Page 10 of 39
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              16th June 2009
Access and Parking

The existing vehicular access from Bridge Approach will be closed off with the pavement
reinstated to match existing. The existing access from Bridge Road will therefore become
the main entrance/exit onto the site. This will be linked to the car park by a new 6 metre
wide road with footway, drainage and lighting, which the applicant states will be adopted
by United Utilities. A new 2.7 metre high galvanised fence will run parallel to the road for
security reasons. Details of the fence will be required by condition.

The existing car park will be extended to provide a total number of 85 spaces. The north-
western corner of the site will be available as an overspill car park. The number of spaces
accords with the requirements of the Regional Spatial Strategy.

A cycle shed and three disabled parking spaces will be provided.

The development will increase the amount of traffic onto Bridge Road, however this was
accepted when the application for the access was dealt with.

Comments have been received from Cumbria Highways requesting a Travel Plan,
however saved policy T31 of the Structure Plan only requires Travel Plans for office
developments in excess of 2500 square metres. There is thus no policy basis to require
the applicant to submit a Travel Plan.

Other issues

The plot between the proposed extension and Bridge Road and the plot to the south of the
new access road will retained for future development.

There should be no significant impact upon the amenities of residents opposite the site.

No objections have been received, however the Environment Agency and Environmental
Health have requested that a condition requiring evidence of on-site remediation is
attached to any consent.

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 drawings and forms forming
part of the application submitted on 17th April 2009, indicated as drawings 246/01, 246/02,
246/03, 246/04, 246/05, 246/06, 246/07.

Reason


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



                                       Page 11 of 39
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               16th June 2009
Condition No.3

The site shall be subject to a programme of Phase III remediation measures that shall be
fully implemented in accordance with prior agreed details and to the written satisfaction of
the Planning Authority, before the commencement of any development on the site. If,
during remediation works any contamination is identified that has not been considered in
the original ground investigation 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. Furthermore, a remediation validation report and risk assessment
strategy supported by all appropriate certification that the proposed works have been
completed, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, prior to
the beneficial occupation of any part of the development.

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.4

Prior to the erection of the security fence indicated on drawing 246/07, further details of
the fence shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason

In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with saved policies A4
and D21 of the Local Plan Review.

Condition No.5

The beneficial use of the development shall not commence until the access and parking
requirements have been constructed in accordance with the drawings hereby approved.
Any such access and or parking provision shall be permanently retained and be
capable of use when the development is initially occupied, or in accordance with the
phasing of the scheme as agreed in writing with the Planning Authority and shall not be
removed or altered without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority.

Reason

In order to provide a suitable level of parking associated with the development, in
accordance with saved policy A4 of the Local Plan Review.

Condition No.6

No development shall commence during the bird nesting season (1 st March to 31st July
inclusive) unless measures have previously been put in place to prevent nesting in
accordance with a scheme which must have first been approved in writing with the
Planning Authority and the success of those measures has been confirmed in writing by



                                       Page 12 of 39
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              16th June 2009
the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any development within the bird
nesting season.

Reason

Because of the proximity to the designated sites listed below, the site may hold breeding
ground nesting birds. Protected species are a material consideration in planning terms
under Planning Policy Statement 9.

            South Walney & Piel Channel Flats Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
            Morecambe Bay Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of
             Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar Site.
            Duddon Estuary SSSI, SPA and Ramsar Site.

Condition No.7

Building and external works operations which continue through the bird nesting season
defined above shall be carried out in accordance with a bird mitigation strategy which must
have first been approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the success of the
strategy must have been confirmed in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the
continuation of such works.

Reason

Because of the proximity to the designated sites listed below, the site may hold breeding
ground nesting birds. Protected species are a material consideration in planning terms
under Planning Policy Statement 9.

            South Walney & Piel Channel Flats Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
            Morecambe Bay Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of
             Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar Site.
            Duddon Estuary SSSI, SPA and Ramsar Site.


_______________________________________________________________________




                                      Page 13 of 39
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              16th June 2009
PLAN NUMBER:                    APPLICANT:                      AGENT:

2009/0519                       Mr & Mrs A Armstrong

WARD/PARISH:                    CASE OFFICER:                   DATE RECEIVED:

Hindpool                        Leanne Largue                   21/04/2009
                                01229 876438                    STATUTORY DATE:
                                                                15/06/2009

LOCATION:

48 Cavendish Street, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Change of use from multi cultural centre to a taxi office.

SAVED POLICIES OF THE
FORMER LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY E19

The Council will only allow taxi businesses in commercial areas, where there is adequate
off-street parking space, either at the site or within the vicinity and the office is not
adjacent to residential property.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Saved policy E19 of the Local Plan Review relates to applications for taxi businesses. The
policy is copied above for your reference. The application complies with the requirements
of the policy as the site is located in a commercial area, is not adjacent to residential
property, and there is off street parking within the vicinity.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:


REPRESENTATIONS:

                                    Advertised on site

The Occupiers of 18-22, 24, 26, 28 Portland Walk, 36, 38-42, 44, 45-53, 46, 50, 52,
Theatre Hotel, Cavendish Street, Barrow-in-Furness all informed.

The Occupier, Threads Clothing, 55 Cavendish Street, Barrow in Furness

“I am writing in response to planning application B20/2009/0519 location 48 Cavendish
Street. I feel that the proposed change from a cultural centre to a taxi office would have a
negative effect on shopping in the street and would attract more drunken behaviour late at
night that could damage shop fronts. as it is the street is narrow with parking down one
                                       Page 14 of 39
                             PLANNING COMMITTEE
                                16th June 2009
side, with the proposed street improvement scheme the road will be narrowed in parts and
there will be no space for taxis that will clog up the streets discouraging shoppers from
venturing down or taking up valuable parking places for shoppers.

There are already numerous pubs on the street that leave the effects from the night before
on our premises, a taxi office will only add to this as it will attract people towards the
street at the end of the night instead of towards established ranks away from shops.

In light of the planned redevelopment I feel that the premises would be best suited as a
retail premises to encourage more shoppers into the town centre which is also one of the
councils aims”.

Stephensons Estate Agent, 36 Cavendish Street, Barrow in Furness

“After serious consideration to this proposed application I feel I must object to the change of
use on the grounds that:
I feel it crucial that Cavendish Street be retained as a retails area.

1. That in view of the new design of the street scape this will not be conducive to taxis
    collecting clients.
2. I understood the intention within the street scape was to arrange for the facility of the
    public to park more easily to shop rather than provide parking spaces for taxis.
3. The concern with regard to the congregation of people in Cavendish Street that will
    prevent shoppers from shopping as freely as they should in view of the width of the
    pavements would not cater for people waiting for taxis.
4. The restriction of taxis to obtain access out of Cavendish Street.
5. I understand that the taxi operators intention is to provide a disabled bus service and in
    view that the Capita/Simmon felt that Cavendish Street was not suitable for taking
    buses. .
6. Concern with regard to vandalism, which has been experienced elsewhere and the
    damage that may be caused shop windows. Obviously my Insurance does not cover
    vandalism for the damage to a broken shop window, which could cost in excess of £300
    to replace.
7. The condition in which the street would be left with regard to bottles and vomit that
    is experienced at present from where the taxis are relocating.
8. Also concerns are that taxis to the rear of the building as it has been emphasized
    in the past that this is only to be used for loading and unloading and cannot be
    used for commercial use, other than that. The concern is that the taxis will pick up
    passengers to the rear of the shops on the even side of Cavendish Street, which
    would not be permitted under the present Highways Regulations.
Another concern I have is that to my knowledge only four shops have received the
correspondence I received dated the 27t h April which is somewhat alarming when
there are at least 15 shops that should have received this consultation document”.

Fitzsimmons Newsagents, Cavendish Street, Barrow in Furness

“I should like to raise an objection to the proposed change of use of 48 Cavendish Street
from a multi cultural centre to a taxi office. The grounds for my objection being:

     Further congestion of a busy retail street which already has parking on both sides
of the road from both short term parking and disabled motorists

                                         Page 15 of 39
                              PLANNING COMMITTEE
                                 16th June 2009
        Reduction in parking spaces for shoppers with taxis parked on the 1 hour spaces
        Illegal parking in the loading bay behind the office
        Risk of vandalism to nearby shops
        Litter risk
        Loss of retail premises for future retail opportunity in a street far more suited to
         retail occupation and currently fully occupied as such
        Conflict with proposed redevelopment plan layout under which road narrows at this
         point
        There are already 3 taxi offices and the taxi ranks on Dalkeith Street and Cornwallis
         Street all within close proximity in addition to the bus terminal
I look forward to hearing your response”.

Richard Haynes, Cavendish Street, Barrow in Furness

“Poor access for cars turning in Cavendish Street and will be worse with the proposed
street improvements. Also concerned that the town has a problem with anti social
behaviour and damage caused by late night trade”.

Applicant‟s Supporting Statement

I am applying for a change of use on 48 Cavendish Street to a taxi office. I am aware that
the property has already undergone a change of use that was granted from a retail
property to an office premises.

There are several reasons for my decision to move my company to the above address.

1)

The expansion of our disability vehicles. I believe a taxi office at this location would enable
people in wheelchairs and with limited walking ability would have better access to the town
centre shops and facilities.

2)
The expansion of my taxi and private hire company would give people in Barrow a service
above any other provider. At present I employ 5 people on a part time basis, my
projections indicate that these positions will become full time with an additional 4 part time
jobs.

3)
A move to Cavendish Street would also enable Barrow Cars to assist the Council and
Police authorities in clearing the streets quicker at the night time in that instead of walking
past the residential parts of the town to our present address they would come straight to
our town centre office after exiting the pubs, clubs and takeaways.

Unfortunately I am confused as my first contact with planning was by telephone and I
spoke to Mr Colin Willets who informed me that the building on Cavendish Street gave me
all the points as it is non residential area with pubs and takeaways etc in the vicinity. Then
I spoke to Mr Kitts who stated that my application could be marred by an increase in traffic

                                          Page 16 of 39
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               16th June 2009
becoming an issue. I believe the only increase in traffic from my company would be the
use of my disabled buses bringing people with walking disabilities into the centre of town.

As this work is ongoing and building with no disruption to the traffic in Cavendish
Street during the busy periods of the day I fail to see the validity of Mr Kitts
objection.
Mr Kitts has objected on the grounds of increased traffic and parking. As my vehicles
already have parking areas in the town the only addition to the above is the office
fares, and as these are in general picked up within 5 minutes of the customer
entering our office, generally our car would pull up outside the office and within 45
seconds the passenger would be aboard the vehicle and on their journey. You will
appreciate that the drivers do not want to be parked up on double yellow lines and I
feel it appropriate to point out to the committee that I am unaware of any taxi office
that does not have double yellow lines outside of their premises.



CONSULTATIONS:

Environmental Health (28/4/09)

“If licensed vehicles are to be picking up fares from the premises or waiting outside for
fares I have concerns that safety issues may arise because of the lack of parking
combined with the cul-de-sac layout of that area of the street. Vehicles will have to either
perform 3 point turns in the street or use the very narrow back street in to Scott Street.

If the premises were to be used purely to receive phoned in bookings I would not have
concerns.”

Environmental Health (21/5/09)

“I would like to raise objections on the grounds that there is no available parking for taxis.
Although double yellow lines exist outside the office I do not believe this will be a deterrent
to drivers. This street is also a busy street during the day and may cause further traffic
problems. In and evening the licensing section are experiencing problem of illegal ranking
by private hire and hackney vehicles outside the take-always on Cavendish Street. I
believe another taxi office in this area will exasperate problems.”

Cumbria Highways

“On the basis that the applicant will have no waiting taxis outside the premises, as per the
Transport Form and Design & Access Statement, I would raise no highway objections to
the proposal as shown.”

OFFICERS REPORT:

The application site is a mid-terrace property located at the northern end of Cavendish
Street. The site was formerly occupied by the Barrow Multi-Cultural centre, which has
relocated elsewhere. The site is surrounded by commercial property and there is a large
loading bay to the rear. The application is for a change of use to a taxi office, which will
be open to the public 24 hours a day.

                                        Page 17 of 39
                             PLANNING COMMITTEE
                                16th June 2009
Representations

Several objections have been received. The issues they raise will be looked at in detail
below. Comments have also been received from the council‟s Commercial Services
department on the grounds of the limited parking at the site and the impact the scheme
may have on congestion, particularly during the evenings.

Policy

Saved policy E19 of the Local Plan Review relates to applications for taxi businesses. The
policy is copied above for your reference. The application complies with the requirements
of the policy as the site is located in a commercial area, is not adjacent to residential
property, and there is off street parking within the vicinity.

Parking

The site does not benefit from on-site parking and the applicant states that the intention is
to station taxis at various off-street car parks within the area. The authority cannot impose
a condition preventing taxis from parking on street, however the presence of double yellow
lines outside the premises should reduce the likelihood of this happening during the day.
Several other taxi offices operate in similar conditions. For example the Appeal Inspector
dealing with the taxi office to the rear of Jefferson‟s public house (1993/0230), felt that the
restrictions on parking directly outside the office were outweighed by the fact that there
was off-street parking available elsewhere within the vicinity.

Impact upon the highway

Cavendish Street benefits from on-street parking opposite the site, whilst directly outside
the site there are double yellow lines. There is a turning head at the top of the street and
two alleyways, one which leads to Preston Street, the second to Scott Street. Vehicular
use of these alleys is not ideal, particularly as they are poorly lit, and can result in conflict
between vehicles and other road users. There are however no proposals to insert bollards
or the like to prevent vehicular access, as part of the proposed Town Centre Improvement
Scheme. This would suggest that the Highway Authority does not feel the alleyways raise
significant problems.

Cavendish Street already suffers from parking and congestion problems. The proposed
town centre improvement scheme will see a reduction in the number of parking spaces
along Cavendish Street. As the spaces opposite the site are almost always full during the
day, taxis will have little option but to stop on double yellow lines outside the office when
picking up customers. Whilst they will only be stationary for a matter of minutes whilst
customers get into the taxi, this could impede the normal two-way flow of traffic.

Members will note concerns raised about potential traffic problems including from the
Council‟s Environmental Health Department. However it should be noted that there is no
objections from the Highways Authority on this point. Cavendish Street is a busy road
both during the day with shoppers and also during the late evening periods with several
public houses and takeaways within the vicinity. A taxi office can however be seen as
providing a service to people already in the area providing improved access for those
entering and leaving the town centre.


                                         Page 18 of 39
                             PLANNING COMMITTEE
                                16th June 2009
Crime and disorder

Several comments received raise concern about the impact of the office in terms of crime
and disorder during the evening. Whilst the office will attract people to the site, particularly
during the evening, it would be difficult to prove that any crime and disorder was a direct
result of the use, given the number of other late-night uses on the street. The stance of
the Inspector, when dealing with the application for an extension of hours at Marmaris
Grill, Duke Street (1993/0230) is a material consideration. The Inspector commented as
follows:

         “Neighbouring businesses have expressed concern that there has previously been
         damage to their premises, particularly when the appeal site traded into the early
         hours of the morning during the 1990s. I understand the strength of these concerns
         and appreciate the inconvenience involved for those called out to deal with such
         incidents. Given the numbers of people already in the streets in the early hours of
         the morning, I find nothing to persuade me that extending the opening hours would
         be likely to result in significantly more problems of this nature.”

The opening of a taxi rank may actually reduce the likelihood of certain types of crime,
such as vandalism as the presence of people in the area will act as a form of natural
surveillance.

Impact upon residential amenity – Noise

Clearly there is potential for customers to create noise, from talking and more boisterous
behaviour during the evening. As there are several other late night uses along the street, I
do not feel there will be a significant increase in ambient noise levels. The closest
residential properties I am aware of are located approximately 65 metres away at Cartmel
Crescent. These are partly screened by other properties along Cavendish Street. Given
this, I do not feel there will be any significant detrimental impact upon the residential
amenities of the area.

The use may help reduce noise levels within the town centre during the evening as taxis
will help clear the area of people quicker.

Loss of retail

Policy C5 requires applications for non-retail uses within the Shopping Core to include
various details to demonstrate that a non-retail use would not be detrimental to the Town
Centre. As the site is outside the Shopping Core this policy does not apply. As there are
no policies restricting non-retail uses along Cavendish Street, this cannot be given as an
adequate reason for refusal, nor can the fact that there are several other taxi operators in
the area.

Litter

There are several litter bins along Cavendish Street. Whilst people may choose not to use
them I do not feel this is an adequate reason for refusal of the scheme.




                                        Page 19 of 39
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              16th June 2009
Other issues

Planning Policy Guidance Note 4, paragraph10 regarding the promotion of small
businesses must be given weight.

The taxi office will help make the town centre more accessible, particularly to disabled
customers or those without private vehicles. This can be seen as a positive move in terms
of attracting people to the town centre.

Conclusions

The site is located in a commercial area, away from residential properties. The provision
of an additional taxi office will make the town centre more accessible and will help clear
the area of people quicker during the evening. This represents one of a limited number of
places where taxi offices could operate without undue detriment to residential amenity.
These benefits must be weighed against the impact of the office on the public highway,
particularly during the evening on busy weekend periods. Whilst the issues are finely
balanced and the recommendation for approval is marginal, I do not feel that the highway
issues discussed above would be so detrimental to warrant refusal of the application.


RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration
Limit.
_______________________________________________________________________




                                      Page 20 of 39
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              16th June 2009
PLAN NUMBER:                   APPLICANT:                      AGENT:

2009/0228                      Barrow Island A.R.L.F.C         Mr C McKinnon

WARD/PARISH:                   CASE OFFICER:                   DATE RECEIVED:

Newbarns                       Ian Sim                         11/02/2009
                               01229 876384                    STATUTORY DATE:
                                                               07/04/2009

LOCATION:

Barrow Island Rugby Club, Ostley Bank, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Variation of Condition No. 3 of planning permission 1996/0420 to allow late opening on
six unspecified nights per month for a temporary period of 1 year

SAVED POLICIES OF THE
FORMER LOCAL PLAN:

No specific policies.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

The change from opening 1 evening a month to 6 evenings would not be a substantial
increase in terms of its current licence.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:


REPRESENTATIONS:

                 Development advertised on site and in the local press

The Occupiers of Newlands, Mill Haven, Holy Family RC School, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 17
Ostley Bank, 1 Harrel Lane, Barrow in Furness all informed.

The Occupier, 1 Harrel Lane, Barrow in Furness

“Whilst we understand the plight of the Rugby Club, we are very concerned about the
effects that late night drinking brings. Over recent years we have had damage to our cars,
beer cans thrown into our garden, general noise late at night and even had a coach
bringing members back from a match crash into our brand new car”.




                                      Page 21 of 39
                             PLANNING COMMITTEE
                                16th June 2009
The Occupier, 9 Ostley Bank, Barrow in Furness

“I write to object to the proposed plans submitted by BARROW ISLAND RUGBY CLUB,
for late opening of their bar on 6 nights per month.

I moved into this house from Abbey Rd because it was a quiet neighborhood, with the
exception of the twice daily disruption of school traffic. To have late night parties, etc,
would mean taxis and traffic late at night and as the access to the club is one way,
everyone using the club would have to pass my house late at night after their celebrations.
This would be quite disruptive not only with noise, along with the potential problems
caused by late night revelers passing by on foot. The clubs present restrictions (no alcohol
after 8-00pm) were put on the bar for the least disruptions to their neighbours.

After looking at addresses of the houses that you sent letters to, I would like to question
why did you not include Harrel lane in your list (apart from no 1),as I feel these residents
would also be affected. Whilst I do not like to be a 'killjoy', I do not think it would be in mine
or my family's interest to accept the proposal, bearing in mind that I have to get up for
work a 5:30 am”.

The Occupier, 29 Harrel Lane, Barrow-in-Furness.

„I am strongly opposed to the recent letter I received dated 16/02/09 regarding the
proposed planning permission to late openings on six unspecified nights per month at
Ostley Bank (reference number B18/2009/0228)

The reasons that I absolutely object to this proposal are many; firstly I vehemently do not
want to live next door to a public house. I do not want the tranquillity of my environment
compromised with the noise from rowdy, drunken behaviour and from car noises
i.e. blaring music and excess revving, late in the evenings.

I also do not want to tolerate the aftermath of these so called proposed evenings i.e.
excessive litter and vandalism.

At the moment we already suffer; evening practices, weekend matches, early Sunday
morning matches and also car boot sales. Is this not enough? Can't Barrow Island
matches arrange their proposed evenings in Barrow Island?”.

The Occupier, 7 Harrel Lane, Barrow in Furness

“I see by a notice on a lamppost near to my house that the Barrow Island Rugby club has
asked for an application to open there Bar on six occasions.

First of all why did I not receive a letter informing me of this when No. 1 Harrel Lane did,
as it will affect us as well as all of the village, and why when I go on the website I cannot
object to this ruling at the afore mentioned club. I do as a matter of fact object to this ruling
very strongly, it is noisy and busy enough in this village without anymore trouble being
added to it”.




                                         Page 22 of 39
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              16th June 2009
The Occupiers, 11 Ostley Bank, Barrow.

„I am corresponding to yourself to OBJECT TO THE ABOVE Planning Application on the
grounds that the proposed increase to late opening hours will be a detriment not only to
the occupants of Ostley Bank (Which is a Cul-De-Sac) but also the broader surrounding
area.

1 There will be increased traffic in the area at un-sociable hours. (Environmental Pollution)
2 There will be increased noise both by cars and pedestrians entering and leaving the
area at un-sociable hours. (Noise Pollution)
3 These increases will only lead to possible damage to local properties and vehicles. With
the best intentions of applicant. NO CONTROLS COMMING AND GOING FROM THE
PREMISES. The cars travel too fast on training nights and match days already.

The area already suffers form a great deal of traffic, pedestrians and cars, during day light
hours with the local school and church. Also at weekends with games being played both
SATURDAY and SUNDAY. Car Boot Sales have also been introduced.

We feel any further noise and disruption at un-sociable hours would be a further invasion
of our privacy with the further possibility of damage to cars and property.‟

The Occupier, 2 Ostley Bank, Barrow-in-Furness
“In accordance with your instructions please find the following comments in respect of the
referenced planning application:
   1. The current restriction (late Bar once per month) was imposed „In order to protect
      the residential amenities of the area due to environmental pollution‟. For local
      residents this is clearly very important and was seen to be so by the planning
      committee when the current restriction was imposed. I am unaware of any material
      change to conditions impacting this decision and hence the reasons for the
      restriction remain as valid today as when it was imposed in 1996. I have concern
      that this protection of the residential amenities of the area from the aforesaid
      environmental pollution is highly likely to be compromised by the proposal to have
      late bars on 6 unspecified days per month.
   2. The „environmental pollution‟ in question is likely to be predominately noise
      generated by music, cars dropping off and picking up (potentially late at night) and
      pedestrians exiting on completion of their celebrations. The traffic noise will impact
      not only those Ostley Bank residents but also those in Harrell Lane and airborne
      noise of all types will carry to the rear of the houses backing onto Ostley Bank
      (particularly in the summer). From past experience there is also likely to be litter too
      and an increased risk of alcohol- related vandalism.
Whilst I have sympathy with the underlying reasons for the application (to generate more
funds for the club) this must be balanced with the potential impact on residents quality of
life and potential impact on property values, not to mention concern for cars parked on the
surrounding streets.
I therefore object to the referenced application on the grounds that the reasons for the
original restrictions remain extant.”



                                       Page 23 of 39
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               16th June 2009
The Occupier, 31 Harrel Lane, Barrow-in-Furness

“Re: planning application B18/2009/0228 we would like to raise the following objections to
the said plan.

We fully understand amateur clubs need to raise funds to exist. Having lived in Harrel
Lane for the past 38 years we have had no objections to training nights, fund raising days
and Sunday Boot sales. Our concerns are now the application is for 6 nights a month the
noise, the alcohol related behaviour which is bound to follow is a great worry to us.

Our house and garden backs right on to the car park and we know now how much noise,
the slamming of car doors is a great disturbance late at night.”

The Occupier, 5 Harrel Lane, Barrow-in-Furness

“Whilst I have had no experience of problems with litter or vandalism in conjunction with
events organised at the club, indeed I have always considered the club to be a good
neighbour. I do believe that an increase in the use of the club during non-social hours
from 1 day per month to 6 is somewhat excessive.

A compromise to 2/3 with the proviso that “late” is defined as 11pm and that such a
change would be subject to re-approval after a period of 12 months. Also that the police
be requested to monitor the parking arrangements.

I have every sympathy with groups attempting to organise activities, in particular for
younger people, the feelings of and the effects upon us older folk, I‟m no longer in the first
or even second flush of youth, have to be considered.”

Applicant‟s Supporting Statement

“The Barrow Island Amateur Rugby league Club is a family orientated club run
and controlled by responsible adults.

The club has grown substantially over the past 5 years and now attracts youngsters (and
parents) from all parts of the borough.

It now trains and runs the following teams:- U8, U10, U12, U14, U16, U 18, 2 x open age
and a ladies team.

It is now proving difficult to fund all of these activities and in this present climate
sponsorship is increasingly hard to come by.

 The restrictions on the use of the club amenities has meant having to continually
refuse requests for anniversary parties, birthday parties and the like, which would been
a great help with club funds.

The relationship with the club's near neighbours, school and church is extremely good
particularly with regard to car parking facilities where overspill from school activities or
funerals are welcome to the use of the clubs large car park.




                                        Page 24 of 39
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               16th June 2009
The planning restriction whereby the club is only allowed to serve alcohol after 8 pm on
one specified night per month is not allowing the club to make full use of their facilities in
this very difficult financial climate.

It is requested therefore that this restriction be amended to allow the club bar to remain
open on six unspecified nights per month”.

CONSULTATIONS:

Cumbria Constabulary – no response received

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.”

Environmental Health

“There is adequate provision under the existing consent to control noise from the venue”.

OFFICERS REPORT:

The Barrow Island Rugby Club is located at the north eastern end of the Ostley Bank cul-
de-sac. Ostley Bank provides rear access to the properties in Harrel Lane though there
are a number of properties in Ostley Bank itself. These are for the most part some
distance from the club itself, being located on the far side of the church away from the
club. Traffic would, however, have to pass these properties. Also there is a bungalow
located at the top of the cul-de-sac next to the club‟s entrance with an additional two
properties roughly 40 metres to the rear of the club. Members will have noted the
opposition to the proposal. To summarise, they relate to „unsocial behaviour‟ regarding
the potential for vandalism, leaving of rubbish, noise etc.

A conditional consent (96/0420) was granted on 4 September 1996 for a change of use of
a multi-gym to a bar and lounge with unspecified restricted opening times. A condition
attached to this consent related to opening times and is copied below:

 “The use hereby approved shall not operate between the hours of 8.30pm on one day
 and 11.00am on the following. The exceptions being the fourth Friday of each calendar
 month (January to November inclusive) and the 31st December.”

The club has submitted a supporting statement (re-produced above) to support their
proposal to vary the aforementioned condition to:

 “To allow late opening on six unspecified nights per month for a temporary period of 1
 year.”




                                       Page 25 of 39
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               16th June 2009
Members will be aware that Licensing legislation has undergone significant change since
the conditional consent granted in 1996. The Council has granted the building a 24 hour
licence with the following:

 Monday to Saturday 1000 hours to 2300 hours

 Sunday and Good Friday 1200 hours to 2200hours

 Christmas Day 1200 hours to 1500 hours and 1900 hours to 2030 hours.

The principle of the use has previously been accepted and the issue is whether the
existing use should be allowed to be open on six unspecified nights per month for a
temporary period of 1 year. The current consent allows opening 7 days a week up to
2030 hours with the exception being the fourth Friday of each calendar month (January to
November inclusive and the 31 December).

The change would be minimal with regard to operation of the club within a 365 day period.
Should disturbances occur then legislation exists whereby action could be taken at any
time i.e. Licensing Act 2003. This has been re-iterated by the Council‟s Environmental
Health Department in their comment. As for using a planning condition to control, for
example, noise away from the application site it could be considered to be „ultra vires‟ to
use a planning power for what was the concern of another set of controls.

In conclusion, the requested change is not for 7 days a week and controls exist to protect
the amenity of residents. Taking this into account a favourable recommendation should
be considered.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

Conditon No. 2

The use hereby approved shall only operate during the following times:

Monday to Saturday 1000 hours to 2300 hours
Sunday and Good Friday 1200 hours to 2200 hours
Christmas Day 1200 hours to 1500 hourus and 1900 hours to 2030 hours.

Reason

In order to protect the residential amenity of the area.

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.


                                        Page 26 of 39
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               16th June 2009
PLAN NUMBER:                     APPLICANT:                       AGENT:

2009/0535                        Mr M Bee                         Mr W Woodhouse

WARD/PARISH:                     CASE OFFICER:                    DATE RECEIVED:

Walney North                     Leanne Largue                    06/05/2009
                                 01229 876438                     STATUTORY DATE:
                                                                  30/06/2009

LOCATION:

Home Farm, North Scale Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Demolition of existing east section of property and erection of a two storey side
extension accommodating a familly room, breakfast room, study and utility with three
bedrooms and en-suite over.

SAVED POLICIES OF THE
FORMER LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY D4

The following areas have been designated as Green Wedges:

a)     Mill Beck Valley
b)     Roosegate
c)     Land separating Ormsgill and Hawcoat
d)     Land north of Dalton
e)     Land between North Walney Estate and North Vickerstown
f)     Land at Anticross
g)     Land north of Flass Lane
h)     Land at Clovelly Terrace

Development within Green Wedges that would detract from their value as a setting for
recreation, providing important urban space and visual relief and contrast between
residential areas would not be permitted.

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

                                        Page 27 of 39
                             PLANNING COMMITTEE
                                16th June 2009
or bulk will not be permitted, unless there is specific justification, such as interests of
sustainability, energy efficiency or crime prevention.

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:

The development will be out of keeping with its surroundings and neighbouring properties
to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area, contrary to saved policy
D21.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:


REPRESENTATIONS:

                                       Advertised on site

The Occupiers of Home Farm, Daisy Bank, 1 & 3 North Scale, Borough Training Kennels,
North Scale, Barrow-in-Furness all informed.

CONSULTATIONS:

Natural England – No response received.

David Joyce – No response received.

North Scale Residents Association – No response received.

United Utilities

„No objection.‟

Environment Agency

“The proposed development falls within a green cell on the Flood Risk Matrix i.e.,
Householder development and alterations within Flood Zone 2 (box E2) and therefore falls
outside the scope of referrals we would wish to receive”.
Environmental Health

“The Borough Kennels are located approximately 85m from the South West corner of the
proposed development. The additional bedrooms at 1st floor level may be exposed to
occasional noise from the dogs barking at Kennels. The developer should be made aware
of the potential for this occasional noise”.




                                         Page 28 of 39
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              16th June 2009
OFFICERS REPORT:

The application site is Home Farm, a residential dwelling accessed from a narrow road
leading from North Scale. The Borough Kennels and a number of small industrial units are
approximately 84 metres to the south-west.

The site is on the edge of North Scale and there is a small cluster of other houses
approximately 83 metres to the north-east. The site is located within an area of Green
Wedge as designated under saved policy D4 of the Local Plan Review and is just outside
the boundaries of the North Scale Conservation Area.

Policy

Saved policies D4 and D21 have been considered, both of which are copied above for
your reference.

Proposal

The existing house comprises two attached but distinct sections. On plan the smaller is
the 2 storey section which measures 4.2 metres (frontage) x 11.2 metres (depth, non-
inclusive of front conservatory). The adjoining single storey section measures 9.5 metres
(frontage) x 9 metres (depth). The single storey section would be demolished and
replaced by a new two storey extension with a larger footprint of 13 metres (frontage) x
11.2 metres (depth).

There is a white UPVC conservatory to the front of the two storey section, which will be
removed as part of the scheme. An external balcony, which is predominantly glazed, will
be erected around the full rear elevation and part of the eastern elevation at first floor
level.

Planning History

An application for outline consent for a bungalow adjacent to the existing house was
refused in 1998 (0395). The reasons given for the refusal were that the site was outside
the residential cordon and that the application would be contrary to policy D4.

Appearance

The appearance and character of the house will be altered significantly by the
development and upon completion the house will appear much larger and more imposing.
The house is on the edge of North Scale. Neighbouring dwellings are some distance away
but are passed en-route to the site. The majority of these are relatively small and rural in
character.

In contrast to this the house, once completed, will be large, bulky and relatively modern in
appearance. The design makes little attempt to reflect either the character of houses in
the area or the character of the existing house. It includes columns, extensive balconies
and windows with horizontal emphasis.

Policy D21 echoes advice contained in PPS1 that development should be sensitive to its
setting. PPS1 states:


                                       Page 29 of 39
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               16th June 2009
       “Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities
       available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions,
       should not be accepted.”

The proposal due to its scale and design would be contrary to this advice and would result
in an alien form of development to the unacceptable detriment of the area.

Impact upon Green Wedge

Local Plan Policy D4 states that development which has a negative impact upon the value
of the green wedge as a setting for recreation, providing important urban space and visual
relief and contrast between urban areas will not be permitted. The aim of the policy is not
to prevent all development within the Green Wedge. The development will not affect the
green wedge‟s setting in terms of recreation. A public car park and footpath runs to the
west of the site, these will be unaffected by the proposal. Whilst the house will be bulky I
do not feel it would harm the feeling of openness within the area and therefore cannot be
said to be contrary to policy D4.

Flooding

The development is located in a zone 3 high flood risk area. While this designation would
not preclude extensions to existing houses it is reasonable to expect a developer to
consider the risk and to include mitigation as part of the design. This could lead to a
reduction in the scale of the development.

Further issues

Given the distance of the house from other dwellings, there will be no impact upon privacy
or sunlighting at neighbouring properties.

Comments have been received from Environmental Health regarding potential noise from
the kennels. These comments will be forwarded to the agent should permission be
granted.

Conclusions

The development will alter the character and appearance of the building significantly and
fails to relate to either its context or the character of the original house. Approval of the
scheme would therefore be contrary to saved policy D21 and guidance contained within
PPS1.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Reason No. 1

The development fails to relate sensitively to its context appearing as an alien feature in
the landscape given its scale, fenestration, entrance features, extensive balcony and
materials. As such approval would be contrary to saved policy D21 of the former Local
Plan Review 1996-2006.

                                        Page 30 of 39
                         PLANNING COMMITTEE
                            16th June 2009
Reason No. 2

The development is located within a zone 3 high flood risk area. The development has
failed to demonstrate how such risks have been mitigated as part of the proposal.
_______________________________________________________________________




                                   Page 31 of 39
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              16th June 2009
PLAN NUMBER:                    APPLICANT:                      AGENT:

2009/0506                       Mrs J Evans

WARD/PARISH:                    CASE OFFICER:                   DATE RECEIVED:

Roosecote                       Ian Sim                         15/04/2009
                                01229 876384                    STATUTORY DATE:
                                                                09/06/2009

LOCATION:

Land south west of Peasholmes Lane, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Erection of a timber building containing two stables, feed store and field shelter
(Retrospective)

SAVED POLICIES OF THE
FORMER LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY D1

The Borough‟s countryside will be safeguarded for its own sake and non-renewable and
natural resources afforded protection. Development will be permitted in the countryside
only where there is a demonstrable need that cannot be met elsewhere. Where necessary
development is permitted any adverse effect on the rural character of the surroundings
should be minimised subject to the development‟s operational requirements.

POLICY G13

For the quiet enjoyment of recreation activities such as walking, cycling and horse riding
the Borough Council will protect the following designated routes from development taking
place on; or in the immediate surroundings where an interesting or visually pleasing view
would be adversely affected:-

The Cistercian Way
Haematite Trail
Cumbria Coastal Way
Public Footpaths
Any existing right of way joining the rights of way network

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

The development appears as an isolated and prominent feature in the open countryside,
an area which is sensitive to urban type development.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:


                                       Page 32 of 39
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               16th June 2009
                                     Advertised on site

REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupiers of High Peasholmes Farm, Granary Cottage, The Stables, Snowdrop
Cottage, Low Peasholmes Farm, Peapod Cottage, Lin Dor, The Chalet, Rose Lea,
Peasholmes Lane, Low Wynds, Newtown Farm, Page Bank Lane, Barrow-in-Furness, all
informed.

The Occupier,The Stables, Peasholmes Lane, Barrow in Furness

„The application made here does appear to be retrospective as all buildings have been
erected for a substantial amount of time.

Does this imply that planning and building consents are not necessary?

Does it also mean a dwelling may be built on the site as a construction precedent has
been set?

What happens now when others start to want to erect buildings here there and
everywhere? A lot of other fields are rented or owned as smallholdings. Does this mean
we will end up with a shanty town of buildings made from whatever the person feels like?

I note also that within the planning application the reasoning for the building is the welfare
of the horses due to hoof problems and wet conditions. Surely this should have been a
concern prior to purchasing the horses and a logical approach for their welfare should
have been considered. I.e. purchase land, obtain planning for buildings and hard standing,
construct buildings and then purchase horses. Instead the horses have had to endure an
open environment for a number of years and are now the excuse to allow the buildings to
remain.

In total are these the actions where the welfare of the animals is at heart?
As for local consultation the only consultation has been through previous applications and
your official communication and not from the owners.
Given that there were two previous applications made and the owners were fully aware of
such necessity for consents then it implies they deliberately flouted the rules to erect the
buildings and develop the site without permission.

Is this action a demonstration of disregard for council ruling?

There is also reference for making the area tidier, one only has to look at the increased
debris in the lane within the site locality, the increased traffic now using the lane, the
increased parking in the lane and the fields that were once green and lush that is now
trying to recover from surface vegetation loss.
It may be that you decide to allow the buildings to remain but it does have ramifications for
the rest of the fields and dwellings in the locality where anyone may now think they do not
need planning permission prior to construction of any building.

Where do such actions end?‟




                                       Page 33 of 39
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               16th June 2009
The Occupier, Peapod Cottage, Peasholmes Lane, Barrow

“With reference to your recent letter regarding consultation over planning, we would like to
point out that in our opinion; this application is a retrospective planning application as
development has already taken place.

This is despite two previously aborted applications, which have caused us to spend time
and effort in responding, only for them to be withdrawn at the eleventh hour. This does
show however that the applicants did realise that planning permission has always been
required.

Our main objections are as follows;

Precedent If planning is granted then we will see these developments springing up in
most of the surrounding fields; already 200 yards away we have a collection of
sheds/shelters and fencing,

Environment With feed and bedding left strewn around we have already witnessed rats
running about. Not to mention the general increase in litter and debris left lying about.

Traffic We have already seen a large increase in traffic movements down a single lane
road with people parking in the passing places that were put in by the local farmer as a
request by the planners for the barn conversions some 15 years ago. It will only be a
matter of time before there is another accident.

Aesthetics We can now see that one of the think we feared most has occurred, that is
the site would end up a bizarre collection of garden sheds „Wendy houses,‟ caravans,
stables, bales of haylage and manure in an untidy mess.

Future If this development is allowed to remain then it will continue to expand. We have
already seen the contempt that the applicants hold for the local planning laws and the
local residents.

“They will just do and be dammed”.

In response to the applicant‟s claims that they consulted the locals, we have never been
approached since they have owned the land and had we been we would have voiced our
objections most strongly.

The development is visible from Peasholmes lane through the gate way and through the
hedge row especially during the winter months.

This field is poorly drained and water floods from this land across the lane regularly.

The applicants would have been best advised to have sorted out the welfare of their
animals before they proceeded in buying the land in the first place. If they required
building then why didn‟t they buy land with existing buildings?

The applicants wish to improve the existing hedgerow is very noble but they have spent no
time on maintaining the existing hedging to-date.



                                       Page 34 of 39
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              16th June 2009
I hope that the committee reject this retrospective planning application on the above
grounds and send a clear message out to those people show complete contempt for the
planners and the local residents.”

Applicant‟s Design and Access Statement

“Temporary housing for horses and sheep and small feed/medical store situated at
Peasholme Lane.

Description

Acreage 6.67 owned and 6.2 of rented land total 12.87 acres

All wooden construction with no concrete floors. Total area of building 60 sqm laid out in
an „L‟ shape. We have not had to remove or create any landscaping but wish to plant
existing hedgerows with additional trees and shurbs of hazel, ash etc.

Dimensions 7.2m x 3.6m x 2.6m height x 7.2 x 3.6 x 2.6m height joined into an „L‟ shape.
Feed/med store 2.5m x 3.6m x 2.6 height which is sited at the end of the „L‟ shape as
seen on drawings.

The buildings are to house 2 horses who in the winter months need protection of shelter
and availability of an area free from mud so that they can chose to move around in.
These animals cannot be stabled in the normal manner (no access to walking area) to do
so would cause them to swell to the point of being unable to move. These horses are not
to be ridden nor are they capable of being ridden due to their health. We have searched
for appropriate accommodation there is non available in our area who can provide this
type of accommodation (we have however been able to accommodate 2 other horses who
require shelter but do not require availability of an area to walk in when required). We also
need the buildings for the sheep to be assessed and treated medically and to lamb from
April onwards. One of the buildings is an isolation unit the other all join together via
openings.

The buildings are not visible from the lane (Peasholme) or any foot paths and have been
placed in an area of the field which required the least amount of disturbance, very close to
the access gate (as we have 2 access gates, access to the buildings is via the second
gate if travelling down Peasholme lane from St Michael‟s on Rampside Road, the first gate
is located near a blind bend and would not have been suitable).

The access at the area of the buildings does not hinder the use of the lane or cause any
obstruction to traffic/pedestrians using the lane in fact the local walking clubs have
commented on the improvements we have made to the access by keeping it clear and
tidy”.


CONSULTATIONS:

                                      None informed.




                                       Page 35 of 39
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               16th June 2009

OFFICERS REPORT:

The proposal relates to the retention of a timber building containing two stables, feed store
and field shelter. The indicated size of the „L‟ shaped development taken from the
submitted plans are approximately 13.6 metres x 7.1 metres, with a mono-pitched roof
giving a height of roughly 2.6 metres. The external materials are of timber. It is located in
the eastern corner of the application site. The application also involves a change of use
as the existing use is agriculture. While planning permission is not involved for the grazing
of horses on agricultural land, a change of use occurs when horses are kept on
agricultural land.

A site visit has been arranged.

The area is generally characterised by agricultural fields with the few agricultural building
and isolated residential properties grouped together. Several footpaths intersperse the
general locality. Overall the site is within a pleasant working landscape distinguished by
its regular longitudinal field pattern contained within hedgerow boundaries.

The applicant‟s design and access statement (copied above) makes the case for the
retention of the development.

Clearly the application site is within an area of open countryside and planning policy for
the countryside can be summarised as promoting the rural economy while protecting the
natural beauty and undeveloped character of the landscape. This approach results in the
promotion of proposals which involve the re-use of existing buildings for appropriate
commercial use, whilst avoiding the countryside being scarred by isolated development.

There is little doubt that the development occupies an isolated location in open
countryside. I acknowledge that some screening is provided by existing hedgerows and
that the applicant has suggested that additional planting could occur, however, this does
not mitigate the overall harm that would be created by the development and associated
paraphernalia associated with such a use. There has been a tendency for agricultural
land to be owned in smaller parcels, for example, single fields. Were planning permission
to be granted on relatively small parcels then the character and appearance of the
countryside would be harmed by a plethora of isolated buildings.

The authority have resisted such development in the open countryside, indeed a similar
proposal for the erection of three stables and tack room/store (2009/0234) at Snipe Gill,
Marton was refused on 27th April 2009. In addition, a recent dismissed appeal decision
(dated 27th May 2009) for a stable block tack room and feed store (2008/1418) at Saves
Lane, Ireleth had the Inspector comment as follows:

“Although it would be partly screened by hedges and trees, the isolated building would be
intrusive in an area of open countryside notably lacking such developments, and would
harm this locally designated landscape. Furthermore, Planning Policy Statement 7 –
Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7) advocates strict control of new building in
the open countryside which should be protected for the sake of its intrinsic character and
quality. Although PPS7 acknowledges the importance of equestrian activities in the
countryside, this is specifically in relation to farming activities and diversification of the
rural economy. The proposal is to support the appellant‟s hobby, and therefore it fails to

                                        Page 36 of 39
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              16th June 2009
satisfy these criteria. I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and
appearance of the area, contrary to Policies D2 and G15 of the Local Plan and PPS7.”

The full decision letter is reproduced as Appendix A .

In conclusion, the development represents isolated development in the open countryside
in an area sensitive to urban development and agricultural change. The building and
paraphernalia which is common to such uses would represent an isolated structure and
the proposal is unacceptable in this location. There are other locations in the Borough
where developments such as this might be acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that (A) planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

Reason No. 1

The development due to its size and location would appear as an unduly intrusive and
isolated featuree to the unacceptable detriment to the open countryside. Approval would
therefore conflict with local and national policies including saved policies D1 and G13 of
the former Barrow Borough Local Plan Review 1996-2006. The adverse impact identified
above would be likely to be further housed by external paraphernalia and means of
access.

and B:

The Development Control and Enforcement Manager be authorised to serve an
Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the building and to take any further action
necessary to secure compliance.
_______________________________________________________________________




                                       Page 37 of 39
                           PLANNING COMMITTEE
                              16th June 2009
PLAN NUMBER:                    APPLICANT:                       AGENT:

2009/0483                       Ms J McCarten

WARD/PARISH:                    CASE OFFICER:                    DATE RECEIVED:

Newbarns                        Barry Jesson                     08/04/2009
                                01229 876323                     STATUTORY DATE:
                                                                 02/06/2009

LOCATION:

14 Pembroke Close, Barrow-in-Furness

PROPOSAL:

Erection of gates on driveway (retrospective)

SAVED POLICIES OF THE
FORMER LOCAL PLAN:

POLICY B20

Applications for garages will be refused unless the proposed garage is located a minimum
distance of six metres from the highway. Exceptions to this policy will be allowed only
where the safety of people using the highway will not be unduly diminished such as along
back streets.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:

Whilst gates provide security to the rear of the property, the set back distance from the
highway is considered too short and potentially represents a danger to highway users.

NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:


REPRESENTATIONS:

The Occupiers of 12-28 (evens), 15-19 (odds) Pembroke Close, Barrow-in-Furness all
informed.

CONSULTATIONS:


OFFICERS REPORT:

The application is for the retention of gates spanning the driveway of the above property, a
bungalow, located on the south site of the former Listers factory on the recently
constructed housing estate. The house is located on a corner formed where Pembroke
Close branches off to serve further houses.
                                       Page 38 of 39
                            PLANNING COMMITTEE
                               16th June 2009
The gates are sited between the side of the house and an existing fence, set back over
two metres from the front elevation of the house. The length remaining in front of the
gates varies in width due to the tapering of the drive where the corner of the road curves
past the drive. The submitted plans show the drive at its widest point, to be only 3.5m in
length. The gates are shown to open inwards on plan, though the photographs show one
side opens outwards.

Whilst there are no issues with the design and visual appearance, the key issue is the
resulting drive length. Whilst not serving a garage, the theory behind the 6m set back of
garages remains relevant. The reasons for a 6m set back include the aim of avoiding cars
jutting out onto road and obstructing/partly obstructing the highway either when parked on
the drive or while waiting to enter the garage. In this case, the latter would apply whilst the
gates were being opened.

Members may recall a previous refusal at Middle Hill, Newbarns (2007/1256). In that case
the drive serving the proposed garage was only 4m in length and was considered to be
too short and contrary to saved policy B20 of the former Local Plan. It was stated in the
report,

“Very few cars are 6 metres long. The policy takes account of such matters as garage
doors, gates and general circulation space. Most cars however exceed 4 metres in
length.

The policy has been consistently applied.”

Whilst this application is not for a garage, the principles of the policy apply in this case.
The drive overall is longer than 3.5m in front of the gates, though much of this is unusable
due to the narrowing nature of the drive. It was put to the applicant‟s that a revised
positioning of the gates, at 6m from the highway, would be supported. However, no reply
has been received at the time of writing this report.

Bearing this in mind, and the future potential for larger cars being owned by current or
future occupants, I believe that the application in its current form should not be supported.

RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that A:

planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

Reason No. 1

The set back distance of the gates from the highway creates a situation where vehicles
are likely to obstruct/partly obstruct the highway representing a potential danger to
highway users;

and that B:

That the Development Control and Enforcement Manager be authorised to take
enforcement action to require removal of the gates and to take any further action
necessary to secure compliance.

                                        Page 39 of 39

				
DOCUMENT INFO