2005/0037 / Mr R Harrison / 10/01/2005
WARD/PARISH: / CASE OFFICER: / 8 WEEK DATE:
Dalton North /Askam and Ireleth Parish Council / Charles Wilton
Tel: 01229 894938 / 06/03/2005
LOCATION:
Land adjacent to Glengarth, Ireleth Road, Ireleth, Askam-in-Furness
PROPOSAL:Erection of one dwelling and provision of adopted footway to highway frontage (Outline - Resubmission of 04/1079 in revised form) but with means of access not reserved for subsequent approval.
LOCAL PLAN:
POLICY B2
Applications for residential development on unallocated sites will be permitted where they satisfy the following criteria:
i)The site is located within the built up area of existing settlements or the development cordons identified in Policy B11; and
ii)The development will not result in loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land; and
iii)The siting, layout and design (in the materials and form of the buildings) of the development is sensitive to the local environment and adequate parking provision is made; and
iv)Adequate service and access arrangements can be provided, including servicing of the site by the public transport network and by cycle routes; and
v)The development of the site will not result in the loss of open areas which are important to the character and appearance of housing areas or settlements, or that are used as amenity areas by the public; and
vi)The development is laid out in a way that maximises energy efficiency; and
vii)The development will not result in the loss of land which has nature conservation interest; and
viii)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.
POLICY B11
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 B2:
AskamNorth ScaleRampsideLindalRoa Island
IrelethBiggar Village Newton Marton
POLICY E3
Where development is proposed which is considered will cause an increase in traffic on an unadopted or unsatisfactory section of road such development will be refused. If the developer can secure the making up of the road to adoption standards and providing all other criteria of this Plan have been satisfied, permission will be granted.
POLICY E17
Where feasible the Council will require new development schemes to contribute to an improvement in conditions for pedestrians, with the objective of increasing journeys on foot, reducing car dependence and improving the environment. The facilities that are created must provide quick, direct routes, that are adequately lit and properly surfaced to ensure the safety of users.
SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:Benefits including footway provision to A595 frontage need to be weighed against policy conflict.
NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
REPRESENTATIONS:
Development advertised on site
The Occupiers of 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 Duddon View, Armadale, Windy Ridge, 192, 227, 221, 190, Barregarrow, Kohnifer, Oakburne, Selkirk, Aynsome, Roslyn, Dale View, Ireleth Road, Meadowlands, 1, 3, 5, 7, Underdale, Askam View, Ireleth, Askam in Furness all informed.
The Occupier, 7 Askam View, Ireleth
“We wish to list our concerns as below:
If they do get planning permission how are the building supplies to be delivered as the land is on a bad bend.
How can they provisionally adopt the footway to highway frontage as there is no footway on that side of the road.
If the delivery vehicles use Askam View for access to and from the land, we are concerned about congestion, as it is bad enough trying to get in and out of Askam View onto Ireleth Road.
If the delivery vehicles use the back lane off Askam View (i) will they be able to turn onto the lane without causing damage to walls etc. (ii) it is a muddy land and floods all the way across and all the way down the lane in winter. Are they going to make the back lane up before they start using it”.
The Occupiers, 1 Askam View
“Are we right in assuming that the access for all construction plant and equipment and delivery vehicles would be via Askam View? If this is so it will not be possible for the large vehicles to negotiate the corner from Askam View to go down the back lane without going onto our drive which although not walled is in within our boundary. We would be pleased if you could look into this when considering the planning applications as we do not want to be left with the expense of repairing any damage which will be very likely to occur.”
CONSULTATIONS:United Utilities
“I have no objections to the proposal.”
Askam & Ireleth Parish Council
“Askam and Ireleth Parish Council has asked me to write to you with its comments relating to the application detailed above. Could you please ensure that our comments are included within your report to the planning and environment committee.
What are the applicant's intentions regarding vehicular access to this property? Any vehicular access - presumably via Askam View and the back street of Ireleth Road - should be made up to an adoptable standard, otherwise this application contravenes the Borough's own planning policy regarding development on unmade roads. The Parish Council wholly supports this policy. The pavement shown as running in front of the property up to 192, Ireleth Road is an improvement on the previous application. However, there is a low wall in front of 192, which extends for part of the way in front of Glengarth. This is not addressed in the application and would need to be considered. If the old sandstone wall in front of Glengarth was removed this would need to be re-sited further back to maintain the character of the property and the highway at this point”.
OFFICERS REPORT:This is a resubmission, albeit in a revised form, of a scheme included on your November agenda under reference 04/1079. Recommended for refusal, that scheme was withdrawn prior to determination.
The proposed infill development benefits from local plan policy in that it is located in a built up area within the residential cordon. As a curtilage it also represents brownfeld development, is situated on a bus route and is close to Askam’s shops and railway station. It was however the particular specifics of the site which lead to the earlier recommendation. Subsequent discussions have resulted in this revised scheme.
There are two key issues to consider which both relate to access considerations. The site fronts onto Ireleth Road, which forms part of the A595. A pedestrian access only, was proposed onto this road. However there is no footway in front of this row of properties and as persons leaving the access would have had very restricted visibility to the north I considered this to be unsafe. The applicant has however agreed to my suggestion to create a footway. Initially it was shown outside the proposed dwelling only extending a distance of 12 m. It has not been extended across the full frontage of Glengarth. Not only has this greatly increased its length (would be 32 m long) it would also remove the previous restriction on visibility. It also provides a safer access point for pedestrians visiting the existing bungalow, Glengarth, and could benefit the adjacent bungalow. While there has been no formal response from County Highways there is favourable correspondence between them and the applicant. I have also discussed the matter with the Area Engineer who was supportive of the measures. It could lead to further improvements in footway provision. This matter has therefore not only been resolved but would bring added public benefit.
The second access issue concerns the scheme’s reliance on Askam View for vehicular access. This is an unmade road, which runs along the rear of this row of properties. For most of its length it is constructed of crushed stone. Directly to the rear of the application site it is simply mud. This section also suffers from poor drainage.
Glengarth has a detached garage, accessed from Askam View, which is little used as the property has direct access onto the A595. The proposal is to demolish the garage to permit access and parking for the proposed dwelling.
Policy E3 resists development that will increase traffic on un-adopted roads. The scheme will result in some increase in traffic and there is no proposal to make up the road to adoptable standards. Indeed given its length this would be unreasonable. While the increase in traffic will be modest in percentage terms as Askam View already serves several dwellings nonetheless there is clearly a policy conflict. To be weighed against this are benefits:
- New dwelling in a sustainable location i.e. brownfield, urban location, close to shops, public transport, etc.
- Public benefits in terms of the proposed pavement.
- Modest improvement to immediate section of Askam View (i.e. would be stoned to match adjacent section and some improvements to drainage may also be achievable)
While decisions are normally made in accordance with the development plan there is a legal requirement on the Council to have regard to other material planning considerations. In this case the benefits outweigh the modest impact on Askam View.
The third matter that was raised previously was its relationship with neighbours. The intention is to erect a two-storey house. This would be adjacent to the applicant’s detached bungalow, Glengarth. The next two properties up the hill (north) are also detached bungalows though a terrace of houses lie beyond. A tall Victorian House (192 Ireleth Road) forms the application site’s southern boundary. A new house would not be as tall and will step development down in a graduated way. The architect’s layout plan also shows how a new dwelling could reasonably be accommodated on the site. This forms appendix A.
Various matters are raised in the responses. In both the letters from local residents concern is expressed about possible use of Askam View by construction vehicles. This is understandable because with the road being private any damage is the responsibility of the occupiers of the properties that front onto the road. However, with the right angle turn it would appear unlikely that construction vehicles could negotiate this lane. The A595 is the obvious position for deliveries and appropriate arrangements could be made. This can be conditioned.
The value of the footway is queried in one letter. While it would not link into any other footway it would link into a lay by parking area to the south. This is defined by edge of carriageway road markings next to Duddon View. To the north it would end at a narrow track which links into Askam View. The need for the sandstone wall to be re-built as mentioned by the Parish Council should be conditioned.
Any favourably determination of this application would depend on provision of the footway. It is important to ensure that not only is the footway provided to an adoptable standard (can be conditioned) but that it is dedicated as a public footway (i.e. does not remain private property). To ensure this occurs the applicant should be invited to enter into a 106 obligation.
RECOMMENDATION:I recommend that:
A: On completion of a 106 obligation to require the payment of the Council’s, or their agents, reasonable professional fees associated with the necessary implementation and approval of footway construction including a street lighting column if judged necessary and the dedication and transfer of such to Cumbria County Council as Highway Authority on request that:
B: Planning permission be granted subject to the Standard Outline Duration Limit and the following conditions:
Condition No. 3
Prior to the substantial completion of the dwelling hereby approved a footway must have been constructed to an adoptable standard across the full frontage of the application site as and the frontage of Glengarth shown on drawing no. 2603/04 dated January 2005 (unless the Council gives consent to a variation of the scheme in writing) and in accordance with details of construction, ramps, and a street lighting column, if judged necessary, by the Planning Authority and which shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason
In order to provide adequate pedestrian access to the development and to accord with policy E17 of the Barrow Borough Local Plan Review 1996-2006.
Condition No. 4
Prior to the beneficial occupation of the dwelling hereby approved a minimum of 2 parking spaces must have been provided within the rear curtilage of the application site for the benefit of the development hereby approved and in accordance with details which must have first be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
Reason
To ensure adequate of street parking is provided to serve the development.
Condition No. 5
The parking spaces referred to under condition No. 4 must be reserved for the parking of private motor vehicles and no permanent development including the erection of garages, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modifications) or not, shall be carried out on that area of land.
Reason
To ensure that proper access and parking provision for use in relation to the development.
Condition No. 6
Prior to the beneficial occupation of the dwelling hereby approved the section of Askam View extending along the rear boundary of both Glengarth and the application site shall have been improved in terms of its construction and drainage in accordance with a scheme which must have first been approved in writing with the Planning Authority.
Reason
To ensure adequate vehicular and pedestrian access is provided for the benefit of the development.
Condition No. 7
There shall be no use of Askam View by construction vehicles involved in delivering materials or otherwise involved in the construction of the dwelling hereby approved unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
Reason
Askam View is not considered a suitable means of access.
Condition No. 8
Prior to the beneficial occupation of the dwelling the stone wall shown to be removed to permit the construction of the footway must have been re-built in matching stonework in accordance with details which must have first been approved in writing with the Planning Authority.
Reason
The stone wall contributes to a local sense of identity.
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.
PLAN NUMBER: / APPLICANT: / DATE RECEIVED:2005/0127 / Ms G Downing / 27/01/2005
WARD/PARISH: / CASE OFFICER: / 8 WEEK DATE:
Dalton North/ Lindal and Marton Parish Council / David Kitts
Tel: 01229 894714 / 23/03/2005
LOCATION:
Land adjacent to 33 Marton Nr Ulverston
PROPOSAL:Variation of condition no. 9 of application 2004/0722 to allow enclosure of front garden with a boundary wall.
LOCAL PLAN:
SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:
Application for front boundary wall would result in a sense of enclosure in a traditionally open space in a small village setting.
NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
REPRESENTATIONS:
The Occupiers of 21-24, The Bungalow, Fair View, 25-27. 36, 38, 32, 34, 35, Low Fold, Holly Cottage, 41 Moor Road, Minstrel Hall, Silver Street, Green View, Cartref, Tarn Flatt, Marton all informed. No representations received.
CONSULTATIONS:Cumbria Highways
“It would be desirable if a condition could stipulate the height of any shrubbery that is planted behind the wall. Certainly, the shrub height should not exceed the height of the wall. In addition, the drive should not fall/drain towards the highway unless a drainage system is to be provided that will prevent surface water run off.
In addition, the drive should be a minimum of 2.6m wide and preferably 3m wide.”
OFFICERS REPORT:The application before you today is a proposal to remove condition number 9 of planning application 2004/0722 to allow the erection of a boundary wall to the front elevation of land adjacent to 33 Marton. The application site benefits from planning permission for a detached dwelling, which is still to be built. The house is to be set back 13 metres from the carriageway, the front garden will also incorporate a large drive with turning area.
The condition stated that “The front garden shall be left open and shall not be enclosed by walls or fences”, Reason: “In order to protect the visual amenities of the area.
The proposed boundary wall is 0.9 metres in height and set back 1.2m from the edge of the highway. It is split into two sections with a break for the drive. The main section of the fence is approximately 8.9 metres in length with the shorter section being 1.5m in length.
The area concerned has long been characterised as a traditionally open area. It should be noted that circa 1910 small houses were built on this site, right up to the road. However these have long been demolished and its open character received status in the previous local plan, which stated that open areas will be protected where they are important to the appearance and character of housing areas or settlements. This status was not carried forward to the present plan because the area was considered too small. However the openness is still a major feature in the small village. This was recognised in the previous advice to committee on the original application and the above condition imposed
It is therefore my opinion that the condition should be retained and the application to remove the condition refused.
RECOMMENDATION:I recommend that planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:
Reason No. 1
The proposed wall would result in a sense of enclosure in an area that is traditionally characterised as an open aspect area that forms part of the character of its village setting.
PLAN NUMBER: / APPLICANT: / DATE RECEIVED:2005/0096 / Ms T Sear / 24/01/2005
WARD/PARISH: / CASE OFFICER: / 8 WEEK DATE:
Dalton North/ Dalton and Newton Parish Council / David Kitts
Tel: 01229 894714 / 20/03/2005
LOCATION:
1 Croft Gardens Dalton-in-Furness