Decisions

Use the below search options at the bottom of the page to find information regarding recent decisions that have been taken by the council’s decision making bodies.

Only decisions taken after 5th March 2012 will be included in this search

Alternatively you can visit the officer decisions page for information on officer delegated decisions that have been taken by council officers.

Decisions published

25/07/2019 - Internal Audit Progress Report 2019/20 ref: 4140    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Audit Committee

Made at meeting: 25/07/2019 - Audit Committee

Decision published: 15/08/2019

Effective from: 25/07/2019

Decision:

Jane Butterfield, Internal Audit, introduced the Internal Audit Progress Report 2019/20. Appendix 1 of the report provided a summary of the progress against the Internal Audit Annual Plan as at 10 July 2019. She highlighted Appendix 2 to the report which contained the executive summaries of the two audit reports completed in the period: Empty Homes and Cash Receipting – Car Parking. Ms Butterfield went on to inform Members that Internal Audit would usually have provided an update to the Committee with the latest position relating to the implementation of outstanding recommendations however, due to illness, the report had been delayed and an update would be presented to the Committee at the September meeting.

 

Members gave consideration to the overall assurance assessment of the Empty Homes review and the definition of an empty home and requested that a management response be provided at the next meeting.

 

RESOLVED – That the following be noted:-

 

(1)        the progress achieved in 2019/20 in delivering the Audit Plan and the outcomes of completed audit reviews, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report; and

 

(2)        the audit reports, as set out in Appendix 2 to the report.


25/07/2019 - Planned Audit Fee for 2019/20 ref: 4142    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Audit Committee

Made at meeting: 25/07/2019 - Audit Committee

Decision published: 15/08/2019

Effective from: 25/07/2019

Decision:

Jillian Burrows, the External Audit Senior Manager, presented a letter from Grant Thornton on the planned audit fee for 2019/20. Public Sector Audit Appointments Limited (PSAA) had, following a consultation process, published the 2019/20 scale audit fees at the end of March 2019. Individual scale fees had been maintained at the same level as in 2018/19, unless there were specific circumstances which required otherwise. The Council’s scale fee for 2019/20 had been set by PSAA at £43,005.

 

RESOLVED – That the Annual Audit Fee for 2019/20 be noted.


25/07/2019 - Audit Committee Risk Register ref: 4137    For Determination

Decision Maker: Audit Committee

Made at meeting: 25/07/2019 - Audit Committee

Decision published: 15/08/2019

Effective from: 25/07/2019

Decision:

The updated Audit Committee Risk Register was presented by the Finance Lead Specialist (Section 151 Officer). The Risk Register had last been reviewed by the Committee on 5 December 2018 and the recommendations from that meeting had been included within the update.

 

The Finance Lead Specialist (Section 151 Officer) highlighted the risks which had been considered at the meeting in December 2018 and made particular reference to Risk AC 1 (the challenge from the committee is ineffective due to inexperience) she explained that training had been provided to the three new members of the Audit Committee and therefore there was not an increase in risk. Risk AC 2 (the ability of the Council to carry out its statutory requirements effectively due to limited resources as a result of funding of local government) she explained that this risk was below the line of appetite and had been reduced to reflect the Council’s robust financial planning process. However, the risk remained, as the current financial situation remained uncertain. Risk AC 3 (Members identified the risks regarding the statutory timetable for final accounts reporting from the 2017/18 accounts being a month earlier) she explained that Officers had prepared the 2018/19 accounts by the end of May 2019 and therefore it was proposed that the risk was archived. The Finance Lead Specialist (Section 151 Officer) highlighted the risks which had, as agreed by the previous Audit Committee, been archived and informed Members that none of the archived risks needed to be reactivated.

 

RESOLVED – That the updated Audit Committee Risk Register be noted.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Helen Smith


25/07/2019 - Statement of Accounts and Annual Governance Statement 2018-19 ref: 4141    For Determination

To report on the 2018-19 Statement of Accounts and progress on the external audit of the accounts.

Decision Maker: Audit Committee

Made at meeting: 25/07/2019 - Audit Committee

Decision published: 15/08/2019

Effective from: 25/07/2019

Decision:

Note – Councillor John Holmes declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item by virtue of the fact he is a nominated Director of South Lakes Housing. He remained in the meeting during discussion and voting on the item.

 

The Finance Lead Specialist (Section 151 Officer) introduced the audited Statement of Accounts and Annual Governance Statement for 2018/19 and Appendices 1, 2 and 3, which had been circulated to the Members prior to the meeting. The unaudited Statement of Accounts for 2018/19 had been approved by the Finance Lead Specialist (Section 151 Officer) on 30 May 2019. The accounts had been subject to public inspection from 1 June 2019 allowing the opportunity for the general public to raise objections, questions and comments with the External Auditor. Legislation required that accounts be considered and approved by Members and published no later than 31 July 2019.

 

The Finance Lead Specialist (Section 151 Officer) drew Members’ attention to the net pension liability which included the second year impact of the payment of an additional sum in regards to future years’ liabilities and a past service cost as a result of a recent national court case which was impacting on all Local Government Pension Schemes. In addition she highlighted that the revaluation of the lake assets had not been processed and informed Members that this had been corrected and the Statement of Accounts amended.

 

The Finance Lead Specialist (Section 151 Officer) went on to draw Members’ attention to further documents which had been circulated at the meeting. One being the letter of representation which required approval and signature by both the Section 151 Officer and Chairman of the Audit Committee and formed part of the overall assurance required by the External Auditor in providing their opinion.  She went on to highlight the Annual Governance Statement Recommendation Implementation Progress Report at Appendix 3 to the report and outlined the actions which had been identified and a new action regarding a review of Local Government Ethical Standards.

 

The Finance Lead Specialist (Section 151 Officer) responded to questions raised by Members.

 

RESOLVED – That

 

(1)        the audited Statement of Accounts for 2018/19 be approved;

 

(2)        the letter of representation, as at Appendix 2 to the report, be approved;

 

(3)        the Chairman of the Audit Committee be authorised to sign the letter of representation and the Statement of Accounts on behalf of the Committee;

 

(4)        in the event of further amendments following the final audit findings report, the Chairman of the Audit Committee be authorised to re-sign the Statement of Accounts; and

 

(5)        the Annual Governance Statement action plan, as at Appendix 3 to the report, be noted.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Peter Hunt, Helen Smith


25/07/2019 - Risk Management Update ref: 4138    For Determination

Decision Maker: Audit Committee

Made at meeting: 25/07/2019 - Audit Committee

Decision published: 15/08/2019

Effective from: 25/07/2019

Decision:

The Support Services Case Management Officer presented the latest Strategic Risk Register. The Register contained all those risks above and below the line of risk tolerance. He explained that all risks above the line of tolerance had mitigations listed and the mitigations were designed to reduce the risk in terms of likelihood or impact or both and to reduce the risk from the current position on the risk matrix to the target position. The Support Services Case Management Officer informed Members that there were 15 risks listed at Appendix 1 to the report and he highlighted the six risks which were above the line of appetite. He went on to explain that a risk should reach its target position by the target date and for a risk to be managed on schedule the mitigations must be implemented by their due dates. Over 60% of the Strategic Risks were positioned below the risk tolerance which demonstrated the effective mitigation and regular review of the risks.

 

The Support Services Case Management Officer responded to questions raised by Members. In response to a question regarding the position of Risk 17 - Cyber Security Incident he stated that the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) arrangements were considered to be robust and were outlined in the next item on the Agenda: Internal Audit Recommendations Monitoring Report - Appendix 2. In addressing a query regarding the mitigation process regarding Risk 6 - Medium Term Financial Planning he explained that mitigations against the risk were continually monitored and in addition the Chief Executive added that the Council’s finances were sound however it was acknowledged that there were risks, a number of which were out of the Council’s control. In response to a question regarding Risk 5 – Impact of the Welfare Reform on communities the Support Services Case Management Officer advised Members that the Revenues and Benefits Department monitored the risk from a welfare perspective and the Director of Strategy, Innovation and Resources added that a Building Financial Resilience group had been set up which was a multi-agency collaboration to reduce poverty.

 

RESOLVED – That the Strategic Risk Register, as at Appendix 1 to the report, be noted.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: John Davies


25/07/2019 - Internal Audit Recommendations Monitoring Report ref: 4139    For Determination

Decision Maker: Audit Committee

Made at meeting: 25/07/2019 - Audit Committee

Decision published: 15/08/2019

Effective from: 25/07/2019

Decision:

The Internal Audit Recommendations Monitoring Report was presented by the Finance Lead Specialist (Section 151 Officer).  Internal Audit had made recommendations to improve governance arrangements and the report provided an update of the progress in implementing the recommendations. The Audit Committee, at their previous meeting, had requested a further report on Cyber Security which was included at Appendix 2 to the report. In addition an update regarding progress with the Review of Information Governance had been requested and was included at Appendix 3 to the report. 

 

RESOLVED – That the following be noted:-

 

(1)        the progress made with implementing the Internal Audit Report recommendations, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report;

 

(2)        the report on Cyber Security at Appendix 2 to the report; and

 

(3)        the report on Assurance Review of Information Governance at Appendix 3 to the report.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: John Davies


25/07/2019 - Customer Connect Programme Management ref: 4135    For Determination

Decision Maker: Audit Committee

Made at meeting: 25/07/2019 - Audit Committee

Decision published: 15/08/2019

Effective from: 25/07/2019

Lead officer: Sarah Berry


29/07/2019 - Application to Renew Hackney Carriage Licence contrary to Vehicle Age Limit Policy (Cttee Ref: LR03-19/20) ref: 4134    For Determination

Decision Maker: Licensing Regulatory Sub-Committee

Made at meeting: 29/07/2019 - Licensing Regulatory Sub-Committee

Decision published: 14/08/2019

Effective from: 29/07/2019

Decision:

The Principal Environmental Protection Officer presented a report asking the Sub-Committee to consider an application for the renewal of a Hackney Carriage vehicle licence from Mrs Joan Darling, a Hackney Carriage proprietor, prior to her current licence expiring. Within the report the Officer highlighted the age of the vehicle and Mrs Darling’s intention to retire within the next year. The Principal Environmental Protection Officer explained that if granted, the Council would be required to dispense with the current vehicle age limit policy in this instance, if deemed appropriate, as the vehicle in question was more than ten years old and was not a wheelchair accessible vehicle. He went on to inform Members that the age restriction policy had been adopted to ensure that Hackney Carriages and private hire vehicles met modern safety requirements and provide the travelling public with reasonably up-to-date vehicles and one unintended consequences of the policy was that it also ensured that the vehicle fleet would comply with the most recent vehicle emissions requirements.

 

Mrs Darling, the Applicant, was invited to present her case. She informed the Sub-Committee that it was her intention to retire in the following year but that she wished to continue as a Hackney Carriage driver until that date. Mrs Darling stated that she had maintained the vehicle to a high standard over its lifetime and wished for the vehicle to be safe for her to drive as well as for others to use. She moved on to highlight that any issues identified by the MOT were addressed immediately and that she had brought receipts, warranties and the log book as evidence of the high standard of maintenance kept on the vehicle.

 

The Principal Environmental Protection Officer then asked the Applicant if there were any exceptional circumstances to be considered. Mrs Darling responded by informing the Sub-Committee that the vehicle had a low mileage and had been maintained well over its lifetime so far, and that she intended to retire in the next year and therefore could not afford to replace the car if the application were to be denied.

 

Furthermore, the Applicant was asked if she felt that by further extending the licence, she would hold an economic advantage over other licence holders.

 

Mrs Darling highlighted that she only worked a two day week so did not feel that she had an economic advantage over others. In addition she informed the Sub-Committee that as an independent taxi driver, she relied mainly on passing trade which further evidenced her claim to have no economic advantage over other drivers.

 

The Applicant responded to questions raised by the Sub-Committee and confirmed that she would be keeping the vehicle after her planned retirement but only as her own personal vehicle. Mrs Darling also confirmed that the second driver was licensed to drive a Hackney Carriage, but this was only for emergency circumstances when she was not available to drive the vehicle herself and the second driver would not take over the licence. In addition she confirmed that her mileage estimation was around eight thousand miles in the next 12 months, mainly due to her two day working week.

 

Note – Following a vote, the Sub-Committee, together with the Legal, Governance and Democracy Specialist, Principal Environmental Protection Officer and Mrs Darling, adjourned to view the vehicle at 11.15 a.m. and reconvened at 11.23 a.m.

 

The Applicant was invited to make a closing statement. She informed the Sub-Committee that she had been a taxi driver in the area for around fourteen years but was due to retire within the next twelve months. She highlighted her desire to use the vehicle in question as her personal vehicle after her retirement as it had been well maintained and was still in good working order.

 

Note – The Sub-Committee passed a resolution to adjourn the meeting to exclude the press and public and Mrs Darling in making its decision, pursuant to Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006 by virtue of the paragraph indicated:-

 

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

 

The Sub-Committee, supported by the Legal, Governance and Democracy Specialist, then withdrew to consider the circumstances put forward and subsequently reconvened to deliver the decision.

 

Having read and heard the representations made by the applicant, and based on the submitted report, including the independent report of TC Motors, and following an inspection of the vehicle by members of the Sub-Committee, the Sub-Committee were satisfied that the vehicle was fit for purpose and

 

RESOLVED – That the Council’s age limit policy be dispensed with on this occasion and that Mrs Darling be granted a renewal for her Hackney Carriage vehicle Licence for a 12 month period providing the vehicle passed the required four monthly MOT tests.

Lead officer: Inge Booth


29/07/2019 - Application to Renew Hackney Carriage Licence contrary to Vehicle Age Limit Policy (Cttee Ref: LR02-19/20) ref: 4133    For Determination

Decision Maker: Licensing Regulatory Sub-Committee

Made at meeting: 29/07/2019 - Licensing Regulatory Sub-Committee

Decision published: 14/08/2019

Effective from: 29/07/2019

Decision:

The Principal Environmental Protection Officer addressed the Sub-Committee and explained that he had a number of documents which had been submitted within the last week and he went on to circulate the documents to the Sub-Committee and Officers. The documents included a vehicle inspection report, MOT certificate, an email from Mr Atkinson and a copy of the agenda from the meeting of a Licensing Regulatory Sub-Committee held on 4 July 2018, which included documents referred to in Mr Atkinson’s email.

 

Note – The Sub-Committee voted to adjourn the meeting at 10.07 a.m. to provide an opportunity for the Members to read the documents circulated and reconvened at 10.38 a.m.

 

The Principal Environmental Protection Officer presented a report asking the Sub-Committee to consider an application for the renewal of a Hackney Carriage vehicle licence from Mr Atkinson, a Hackney Carriage proprietor, prior to his current licence expiring. Within the report, the Officer highlighted the age of the vehicle and that Mr Atkinson had submitted a similar request to re-licence the same vehicle in 2018. The application had been heard on 4 July 2018 and had been granted for one year. The Principal Environmental Protection Officer explained that if granted, the Council would again be required to dispense with the current vehicle age limit policy in this instance, if deemed appropriate, as the vehicle in question was more than ten years old and was not a wheelchair accessible vehicle. He went on to inform Members that the age restriction policy had been adopted to ensure that Hackney Carriages and private hire vehicles met modern safety requirements and provide the travelling public with reasonably up-to-date vehicles and that one of the unintended consequences of the policy was that it also ensured that the vehicle fleet would comply with the most recent vehicle emissions requirements. 

 

Mr Atkinson, the applicant, was invited to present his case but informed the Sub-Committee that he had nothing further to add following the Principal Environment Protection Officer’s report.

 

The Principal Environmental Protection Officer asked the Applicant if there were any exceptional circumstances to be taken into account and, if the licence was to be extended, if the Applicant felt he would gain an economic advantage over other licence holders. The Applicant responded by stating that the vehicle was a good asset to a family run business and he did not feel he would gain an unfair advantage.

 

Mr Atkinson responded to a question raised by a Member and stated that his vehicle was fit for purpose and there was no difference between his vehicle and a wheelchair accessible vehicle which could be licensed for up to 14 years.

 

Note – Following a vote, the Sub-Committee, together with the Legal, Governance and Democracy Specialist, Principal Environmental Protection Officer and Mr Atkinson, adjourned to view the vehicle at 10.45 a.m. and reconvened at 10.52 a.m.

 

Mr Atkinson was invited to make a closing statement but informed the Sub-Committee that he had nothing further to add.

 

Note – The Sub-Committee passed a resolution to adjourn the meeting to exclude the press and public and Mr Atkinson in making its decision, pursuant to Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006 by virtue of the paragraph indicated:-

 

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

 

The Sub-Committee, supported by the Legal, Governance and Democracy Specialist then withdrew to consider the circumstances put forward and subsequently reconvened to deliver the decision.

 

Having heard the facts of the case, having had regard to the Council’s policy on vehicle age limits and having heard the representations made by Mr Atkinson, the Sub-Committee noted that the vehicle had been inspected by an independent, qualified engineer, who did not find any faults with the vehicle other than slight cosmetic damage. The Sub-Committee were therefore satisfied that, despite the age of the vehicle, it was of good working order and

 

RESOLVED – That the Council’s age limit policy be dispensed with on this occasion and that Mr Atkinson be granted a renewal for his Hackney Carriage vehicle Licence for a further 12 month period, providing that the vehicle passed the required four monthly MOT tests.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Tony Houlihan


06/06/2019 - Planning Application SL/2019/0138 - Land to the west of High Sparrowmire and Kettlewell Road, Kendal ref: 4129    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 06/06/2019 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 09/08/2019

Effective from: 06/06/2019

Decision:

Note- Councillor Susanne Long declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item by virtue of the fact she had been a Member of Kendal Town Council Planning Committee and having regard to bias and/or predetermination, she left the meeting during discussion on the item.

 

Councillors John Holmes and Rupert Audland declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item by virtue of the fact they were SLDC Outside Body representatives on South Lakes Housing and having regard to bias and/or predetermination they left the meeting during discussion on the item.

 

Off-site surface storage basin to help reduce the extent of flooding experienced during times of extreme rainfall to the front of nos.102 and 104 Low Garth (South Lakes Housing)

 

The Planning Officer presented Planning Application No. SL/2019/0138 which sought permission to undertake earthworks to establish a water storage basin to intercept overland exceedance flows which currently passed through the garden of 15 High Sparrowmire, therefore ameliorating a known flood risk further to the southeast of the area around Nos. 102 and 104 Low Garth. He drew Members’ attention to errors within the report which referred to planning policies not relevant to the application. He referred to the site visit and displayed plans and photographs which detailed the proposal.

 

The Planning Officer highlighted the link between South Lakes Housing’s planning application for 26 dwellings on an allocated site and he stated that the decision on the surface water storage basin would influence the applicant’s approach to the proposed housing scheme. He went on to outline the proposals of the scheme which would involve a cut-and fill engineering operation to create a detention basin with a uniform depth of 400 mm. The land around the proposed basin would be altered and the excavated material would be used to form a low bund on the eastern and southern boundaries. The Planning Officer displayed plans which outlined the various sections of the proposed scheme and referred to the history of flooding on the Hallgarth Estate. Photographs were displayed which highlighted the surface water run-off from agricultural land, the penetration of the water through perimeter walls and where water pooled. He went on to make reference to the report from R.G. Parkins and Partners Ltd and highlighted the calculations within the report in relation to the total volumetric storage, the level of the proposed discharge pipe and assumptions regarding flow rates through the garden of 15 High Sparrowmire. The Planning Officer informed Members that 15 High Sparrowmire had suffered internal flooding in 2012 and 2015 and following the 2015 flooding, South Lakes Housing had undertaken remedial works within the curtilage. He went on to explain that on the occasions when the detention basin would fill with water it would be to a depth of no greater than 400mm and that the applicants were confident that the capacity of the basin would be sufficient to intercept all of the water flowing through 15 High Sparrowmire and in the event that the basin was overtopped 120m³ of water would be held back. In addition the basin had been designed so that the intercepted water would be held in the basin until it naturally filtered into the water table, which was expected to take no more than 24 hours. In summarising the application the Planning Officer stated that there were undeniable benefits offered by the scheme and that the benefits needed to be outweighed against the alterations to the physical characteristics of the area and the loss of the small crab apple tree. The Planning Officer went on to address concerns regarding the slow drainage of the basin in that the basin would turn into a smelly and unhygienic puddle, and he labelled these concerns as unfounded, as the rate at which the water would drain into the water table would not allow this. He went on to state that the risk of drowning had been acknowledged and that paragraph 95 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that ‘planning policies and decisions should promote public safety…’ In addition the applicant’s agent had confirmed that the scheme would be subject to a separate sustainable drainage system (SuD) risk assessment using the criteria established in the CIRIA SuDs Manual. The Planning Officer concluded his presentation by highlighting to the Committee that this application was the result of the need to find an acceptable solution to the surface water discharge from a separate development for 26 dwellings. However, he stressed that the merits of this housing scheme should have no bearing on the application for the basin, despite the fact that the separate application for 26 dwellings, would be impacted by the decision made on the application.

 

Councillor Jon Owen, Ward Member for Kendal North, addressed the committee. Speaking on behalf of his ward he declared that he was objecting to the application. Councillor Owen informed the Committee that he supported the residents of his Ward who had compelling concerns and seemed to have a good understanding of the flooding and drainage issues in their area. He asked for Members to pay attention and to give them due consideration before forming their opinions. He confirmed that he had engaged with the residents and had been impressed by knowledge of what was a complex scheme. Councillor Owen highlighted the loss of amenity land and the failure to invest in a surface water system. He referred to the Local Lead Flood Authority and the fact that no one doubted the hydrologic inadequacies on the Hallgarth Estate. He concluded his address by stating that it was vital to find investment for a better surface water drainage system before increasing the number of houses in the area and he urged the Committee to listen to the residents and to consider if it was right to approve a scheme which would open the door to new housing in the area and he stated that a failure to invest properly in a ground and surface water drainage system was a sticking plaster approach.

 

Joanne Miller, a local resident, addressed the Committee. She stated that the 50 year old Hallgarth drainage system could not cope with the rainy climate in Kendal, furthermore the upgrading of this system would be incredibly expensive so neither Cumbria County Council nor United Utilities (UU) were willing to invest in the overhaul of the drainage system. Ms Miller went on to state that South Lakes Housing were adding to the problem, by proposing to build new houses which would overload the system and add more water to an already overflowing surface water drainage issue. She informed the committee that had the housing scheme not been proposed, the land would not need or receive any help or changes. Ms Miller stated that she was fairly certain that the land would be left to flood if South Lakes Housing did not have an interest in the area. She went on to inform the Committee that the years 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2015 all brought heavy rainfall and flooding but some other smaller events had also caused flooding issues. Ms Miller stated that the application had been mooted to “help” two houses but would put the rest of the estate at risk from further flooding. She went on to quote the engineer who had said that the scheme “would not solve the pre-existing historical drainage and flooding issues in the estate.” Furthermore, Ms Miller went on to inform Members that she had been in correspondence with a number of officers at Cumbria County Council who had been vague in their responses when asked about the re-contouring of the land and the potential testing of the basin. She went on to highlight the advice from the Planning Officer, which had been to consider the application as a stand-alone application. Ms Miller informed Members that she hoped that on a stand-alone basis, the basin would be tested. Furthermore, Ms Miller highlighted the use of the word ‘betterment’ which had been used frequently and she pointed out to Members that nothing could be conceived as being better until it had been tried. Concluding her speech Ms Miller informed the Committee that the operations and management plan would last only for the duration of South Lakes Housing’s ownership, which meant that the responsibility for maintenance would no longer be their responsibility if the houses were sold and that policy dictated that there must be detailed maintenance for the lifetime of the development. In conclusion Ms Miller referred to the words of Members of Kendal Town Council who described the proposal as “ludicrous”, “totally ridiculous” and also said simply, that the “drains were not fit for purpose”. Ms Miller finished by asking Members to use their common sense and reinforced her view that the application should not be passed.

 

Councillor Chris Rowley, Kendal Town Councillor representing the Green Party for Kendal Strickland, addressed the Council. He commenced his address by informing the Committee that he had been very impressed with the decision making at both Parish Council and District Council levels. Councillor Rowley stated that he commended the work done, with good arguments on both sides of the debate. He continued by stating that he believed that the Hallgarth Estate had largely been neglected in terms of flood prevention, due to the fact that it was not affected as such, by riverine flooding. He stated that he believed that decision making should be evidenced based. Councillor Rowley went on to inform the Committee that his observations of decision making showed that at each stage of an application, new information was revealed and that a decision which appeared to be correct in the early stages, based on the available evidence, may become a mistake later, when new evidence came to light. Councillor Rowley stated that the land had been chosen for the housing scheme as it was owned by South Lakeland District Council and the housing scheme application had led to the application for the storage basin. Councillor Rowley concluded by stating that, the correct decision was to reject this proposal which would make it clear to United Utilities that Hallgarth deserved a drainage system to protect them, not one full of sticking plasters which hide behind flood prevention, and that despite the obvious need for affordable housing in Kendal, he asked the Committee to reject this proposal and stated that he looked forward to seeing a future proposal that set out to solve the Hallgarth flooding problem properly.

 

Paul Naylor, a local resident, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. He commenced his address by informing Members that part of his Royal Navy Fire Chief Training was to learn about hydraulics and pump flow rates. He stated that the water flow would damage and overburden the basin and increase the flood risk downhill. Mr Naylor highlighted the statistics that every year 10 children, under five years old, drowned in ponds and ditches and that it was not a risk of drowning, it was a certainty. Mr Naylor then argued that South Lakes Housing had contributed to the field water run-off to 15 Sparrowmire and he then questioned why the drains at High Sparrowmire and Low Garth did not dispose of the water and he revealed that he had seen some drain covers that were fully blocked by grass. Mr Naylor concluded by stating that the only solution was to fix and improve the existing drains and that the proposed scheme did not offer improvement or betterment and it should be rejected.

 

Richard Smith, a local resident, addressed the Committee. He stated that the Committee was discussing the proposal because South Lakes Housing wanted to build a housing estate and did not want to pay for the proper drainage solutions. Mr Smith advised Members that the basin would become a muddy, unhygienic and smelly pond and would not serve as a proper drainage basin. Furthermore he argued that the basin had been designed to hold water and that placing it on amenity land, where children played was dangerous and irresponsible. Mr Smith moved on to inform the Committee that there was a risk of disease in standing water and the water  held in the basin would be run off water from fields used for grazing livestock and therefore the standing water would be infected with cattle urine as well as any diseases that would develop naturally in standing water. Mr Smith went on to inform Members that he felt that safety was a major issue which was currently being overlooked. He reinforced the point that people die in water and outlined statistics from 2011, where there were 22 fatalities, 10 of which were children under the age of 4. Mr Smith concluded his presentation by arguing that the proposed basin was untried, untested and based on theory. He went on to question the claim of providing “betterment” to residents and stated that the only thing that was clear was the health and safety risk to the local children and there was no guarantee of solving the underlying issue of surface and ground water drainage. In conclusion Mr Smith quoted the designer of the surface water storage basin who had stated that “offsite works would not solve the flooding problems” and Mr Smith  stated that what was on offer was not fit for purpose and he asked Members why allow the application, when it would not solve the issue and why not provide proper drainage?

 

Amena Cassagne, a local resident, addressed the Committee. She began by stating that the application appeared to be aimed at aiding the flooding in Low Garth and did nothing to help the issues faced by the rest of the Hallgarth Estate. Ms Cassagne continued by suggesting that South Lakes Housing wanted to offset extra water from the proposed new housing development by draining it into the proposed basin. She advised Members that Network Rail had flatly refused, as was their right as a consultee. Ms Cassagne then asserted that the residents of High Sparrowmire and Low Garth did not have the right to reject the proposal as Network Rail did and that the supposed “betterment” was only theory. She informed Members that the figure quoted in the report on drainage, did not take into account rain water and other sources of water that would fall directly into the basin, which meant that the calculations did not add up and the basin would overflow, more regularly into the already overburdened drainage system. Ms Cassagne then referred to a similar event at Rydal Road, Kendal, where a drainage basin, similar to the proposed basin at High Sparrowmire, had overflowed due to water flowing off the hills, which resulted in residents having to knock down a wall in order to prevent the flooding of their homes. In concluding her address, Ms Cassagne by stressed the fact that the basin was only being brought for consideration to the Members so that 26 new homes could be built by South Lakes Housing, and she reminded Members that the residents of Hallgarth would have to live with the consequences of the decision made by the Committee.

 

Lee Gillies, a local resident, addressed the Committee. He began by highlighting the South Lakes Housing application to build 26 new houses at the top of the Hallgarth Estate. Mr Gillies asserted that the application would destroy a parcel of land that acted as a natural flood defence and soakaway that offered protection from flooding for the residents of the Hallgarth Estate. Furthermore, in order to push the housing scheme, South Lakes Housing had been forced to address the damage that the proposed development would create. Mr Gillies labelled the application for an off-site storage basin as a very weak result of an attempt to appease both Council stipulations and resident’s concerns. He continued by highlighting to Members that this proposed housing development was the only reason that the application for the basin existed. Mr Gillies continued by informing the Committee that the Planning Officer had admitted that the link between the two developments was explicit, but had no relevance to the merits of the surface water storage basin scheme. In addition Mr Gillies quoted the designer of the proposed basin who stated the “the proposed off-site works will not solve the pre-existing historical drainage and flooding issues experienced in the Hallgarth Estate". Mr Gillies continued by stating that there was very little merit in the scheme as it stood alone and added that if the scheme stood on its own merits, it would have been proposed years ago to address the issue and as it stood the application for the basin had only been put forward now to aid the application for the Housing Development. Mr Gillies then stated that the residents of Hallgarth deserved better than this. He went on to argue that, until a comprehensive review and infrastructure upgrade could be implemented on the Hallgarth Estate, it was worrying that South Lakes Housing would even consider proposing a potentially destructive planning application. Mr Gillies then highlighted that within the Planning Officer’s report, the figures, flow rates and measurements were simply estimations and assumptions. He concluded his address by asking the Committee to not inflict more real misery and disruption on the residents of Hallgarth, based on assumptions and estimations from the people looking to make a profit with these schemes. Mr Gillies continued by asking Members to put the welfare of Kendal residents above all else and to help them to progress the infrastructure in a way that which enhanced the community and not to degrade people’s lives for the sake of hitting housing targets. He ended with a final plea to the Members, to do the right thing for the Hallgarth community and reject the application.

 

Note- The proceedings were adjourned at 12:27 p.m. due to sounding of the fire alarm and the evacuation of the Chamber.

 

The meeting reconvened at 12:49 p.m.

 

Rachel Burles, a local resident, addressed the Committee. She began by informing Members that despite wide acceptance that there were serious drainage inadequacies on the Hallgarth estate, the applicant’s plan was to try to justify adding more to the failing system from a proposed new housing development at the top of the estate. She continued by informing Members that if the proposed basin had been suggested with the sole intention of alleviating flooding on Low Garth, she probably would not be stood in front of the Committee, but it was not. Ms Burles moved on to highlight that the designers had confirmed that they had been instructed to see if the land could be utilised to reduce the risk of downstream flooding and thereby demonstrate  betterment to account for additional proposed discharge into the head of the estate. Ms Burles then moved on to suggest that assuming that there would be alleviation of the flooding by implementing the basin to the extent claimed, such alleviation would then be offset by the additional flow added into the system, should the housing development be built, leaving the residents of Low Garth no better off. She then argued that even with taking the applicant’s future plans out of consideration, the applicant had not demonstrated that the proposal would achieve what it purported to. Ms Burles went on to outline assumptions included within the report regarding the rate at which the water would channel down the side of 15 Sparrowmire and into the drainage system and she suggested that it was misleading for the applicant to assume that water entered the drainage system at a median rate of 16 litres per second, thus the claims of betterment were not reliable. Ms Burles reminded the Members that all parties to this application had accepted that the basin would go no way to resolving the existing drainage and flooding issues on Hallgarth and the report had ignored the increased threat of flooding which was faced from climate change and need to look towards more long-term substantive measures, which had been stressed by the Chair of the Environment Agency in May 2019. Ms Burles concluded her address by informing the Committee that the basin represented a poor substitute for proper upgrading works to improve the drainage on the estate and that Members should not accept the proposal as a consolation, when the basin would not help to resolve the existing issues and Members certainly should not then consider adding more housing and therefore more water to the problem area.

 

Mr Rick Smith addressed the Committee on behalf of Celeste Bonfanti, a local resident. He began her address by which quoted from the Planning Officer’s report “the application has been prompted by the need to find an acceptable solution for dealing with the surface water discharge, from a separate development of 26 new houses, proposed by the same applicant on land to the North of High Sparrowmire.” Mr Smith went on to state that the calculations from the report were only based upon the amount of water coming from the fields and then down the side of the property at 15 Sparrowmire, and they did not take in to consideration the amount of rain water that would be held in the basin after heavy rainfall. Ms Bonfanti’s address questioned whether or not it was appropriate to add even more water into the already overloaded drains on the Hallgarth Estate. The Committee were informed that it appeared that the report had made light of the amount of water that would be held in the basin and the risk it posed to children and Mr Smith highlighted that people could and do drown in 20cm of water and that a child could drown in less than 30 seconds. In addition, water borne diseases were also more of a risk than had been indicated in the report and Ms Bonfanti’s address raised the question whether it was responsible to allow the storage basin when it posed such risks to health and safety. He concluded Ms Bonfanti’s address by stating, that the only acceptable solution was to invest in the drainage system of the Hallgarth Estate so it could cope with the vast amount of water that was put into it by field run off and other ground and surface water sources.

 

Ian Hoggett, a local resident addressed the Committee. He informed Members that he objected to the application and that the proposal did not create betterment. He went on to highlight the limitations of the testing which had been carried out and stated that there had been no monitoring of the water table. Mr Hoggett referred to a meeting between himself, South Lakes Housing and the applicant’s agent and he highlighted his concerns regarding the impact of rain water and the further addition of water from the proposed housing development. Mr Hoggett questioned the position of the basin, and informed the Committee that the water’s natural drainage route was towards Burneside and that the proposed basin was to be in the opposite direction. He informed Members that the agent’s report stated that the proposed basin would not solve the flooding issues on the Hallgarth Estate, but it would provide residents with some time to prepare for any potential flooding. Mr Hoggett concluded his address by stating that the application was incomplete, it was based on assumptions and estimations and as a result offered no real concrete evidence and certainly not enough to merit it being passed by the Committee.

 

Troy Melhuish, the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee. He informed Members that 15 High Sparrowmire had flooded on several occasions and that South Lakes Housing had completed flood mitigation measures in November 2016, the performance of which had been tested a year later. It had been identified that the public open space at the front of the properties had been under-utilised for temporary flood storage and it was also obvious that overland flows of water had been contributing to the volume of flooding experienced in Low Garth. The Agent went on to outline the solution proposed, which sought to address and mitigate the flooding mechanism, by intercepting and temporarily storing the flood water during an extreme storm event. Mr Melhuish highlighted that the basin was an incredibly simple solution that would re-profile a sloping section of land to provide a shallow, bunded, temporary storage area with a level bed. He moved on to inform the Committee that a ground investigation had confirmed that there was sufficient infiltration capacity within the underlying substrata to ensure that a permanent pond did not form. Furthermore, he added that in addition to the basin, further land drainage was to be installed, to enhance the drainage characteristic and to ensure that the public open space could be brought back into use within 24 hours. He informed the Committee, that the proposal represented an ideal location to install a simple sustainable drainage system that would reduce the volume of flooding downstream and benefit the wider community. The basin would store 120m3 of flood water and would provide residents of Low Garth valuable time to be prepared. Mr Melhuish advised Members that both the Lead Local Flood Authority and United Utilities supported the plan and recognised it as an important piece in solving the wider flooding issues to Low Garth. He then went on to advise Members that the basin would be maintained by South Lakes Housing which would be a simple task involving regular grass cutting, removal of litter, debris and leaf litter as well as frequent inspections after flood events with appropriate actions being taken as required. Mr Melhuish referred to the Health and Safety implications of the basin and stated that, under CDM Regulations 2015, a risk assessment would be undertaken. In addition he highlighted that the risk of drowning had already been assessed and was seen as negligible, as the basin would not form a permanent pond and would only ever become inundated during the most extreme storms to a maximum depth of 400mm. He went onto inform Members that the proposed location of the basin in an open area, which was overlooked by several properties which provided a high degree of natural surveillance. In concluding his address, Mr Melhuish stated that the Agents R.G. Parkins had demonstrated that the proposed temporary storage basin would provide betterment to the overall extent and depth of flooding experienced in the Low Garth area. Furthermore, he highlighted that the scheme presented an excellent opportunity to utilise an existing public open space more effectively to mitigate flooding from a well-established flooding mechanism. Finally, he requested that the Committee supported the application and thanked Members for their time.

 

The Planning Officer responded to questions raised by Members. He advised the Committee that a significant number of homes had access to the public open space where the proposed basin would be sited and confirmed that the reference to Network Rail was related to the separate application for the housing development and had no bearing on the application for the surface water storage basin.

 

In response to a question regarding a similar scheme on the Sandylands Estate, the Applicant’s Agent, with permission of the Chair, responded by informing Members that the similar scheme on Sandylands was a Russel Armer Scheme and that only part of the site had been only constructed when it had been overwhelmed during Storm Desmond and following overflow and diversion works the scheme had been up and running and fully operational.

 

The Planning Officer outlined details of the water ingress and overflow from the pond via pipes and went on to advise, in regards to public safety, that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that “planning policies and decisions should promote public safety.” However, detailed health and safety considerations were addressed by other legislation and would be the responsibility of the owner and manager of the site. He highlighted to Members the section of the report which referred to other possible options and went on to inform them that he had pressed United Utilities for a statement or clear response to the planning application and he had taken their lack of response as an indication of little progress having been made. The Planning Officer reiterated his earlier comment advising Members to consider the application on its own merits and not to link it to the proposed housing development. He stated that the application, in its own right, provided betterment for the community and had a clear benefit in the containment of water and the delay of risk to properties in addition to the aggregate series of filter drains which would aid drainage. In response to further questions, the Planning Officer confirmed that the responsibility of the land and operation change the responsibility would transfer to the new owner.

 

The Interim Development Management Team Leader explained that the NPPF, which constituted Government Planning Policies, favoured sustainable urban drainage systems which involved open water bodies and which were transient and drained down over time. The newly adopted Development Management DPD contained policies that promoted SuDS drainage systems which would apply to all new developments within the District. He stated that taken on its own merits the scheme would help to resolve a local issue and that the application for the future development of the allocated site would consider the local flood risk and this would be assessed as part of the application process. 

 

Members thanked Officers for the well written and balanced report and acknowledged the contribution of those who addressed the Committee during public participation. Members gave consideration to the suitability of the proposal and it was felt that the proposed scheme addressed the consequences of flooding and not the cause. In addition, concerns were raised regarding health and safety risks and the ‘natural surveillance’ comments from the applicant’s agent were dismissed.

 

A motion to refuse the application based on the fact that the proposed scheme did not resolve the pre-existing and historical drainage issues on the Hallgarth Estate and the risks to public health was proposed and seconded and following lengthy debate and advice from the Interim Development Management Team Leader the motion to refuse the application was withdrawn.

 

Members went on to further consider the proposed scheme and recapped the areas of concern and agreed that there needed to be a long term solution.

 

A motion to grant the application was proposed and seconded and following further questions to and advice from the Interim Development Management Team Leader, Members considered the implications of an appeal, should the application be refused, and gave further consideration to the effectiveness and adequacy of the proposed scheme. The motion to grant the application was withdrawn.

 

Members felt that a decision on the application should be deferred at this time in order to provide the applicant and Planning Officers the opportunity to reconsider the application, to provide more information regarding the wider hydrological issues and to consider the application in a wider context.

 

RESOLVED- that the Planning Application SL/2019/0138 be deferred.

 

Note – The Committee voted to adjourn for a break at 1:50 p.m. and reconvened at 2.21 p.m. when the same Members were present with the exception of Councillors Audland and Hutton.


06/06/2019 - Planning Application No. SL/2018/0925 - Kendal Flood Risk Management Scheme, Kendal, Natland, Skelsmergh and Scalthwaiterigg, Helsington ref: 4128    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 06/06/2019 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 09/08/2019

Effective from: 06/06/2019

Decision:

Note- Councillor Susanne Long declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item by virtue of the fact she was a Kendal Town Councillor. She stated that she had no bias toward the proposal and she remained in the meeting during discussion and voting on the item.

 

Kendal Flood Risk Management Scheme- Phase 1 Kendal Linear Defences, comprising works along the rivers Kent and Mint through Kendal including new & raised flood walls, new & raised flood embankments, ground raising, pumping station and associated changes to the public realm & landscaping. (Environment Agency)

 

The Interim Development Management Team Leader addressed the Committee and reminded them that, at its meeting on 21 March 2019, the Planning Committee had resolved to approve the application. However, following the adoption of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (DMDPD), on 28 March 2019, it was necessary for the Planning Committee to reconsider its resolution in light of this. He went on to inform Members that the previous objection from Sport England had been withdrawn after further discussions. Furthermore, following a number of representations, including that from the Victorian Society requesting that the Secretary of State call-in the decision, South Lakeland District Council had received a letter from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government which had confirmed that the Secretary of State had decided not to call-in the decision. In addition there were several new Members on the Planning Committee since the meeting of the Committee on 21 March 2019. Therefore, in light of events since March 2019, the updated report and the amended recommendation would be presented to the Planning Committee for further consideration.

 

The Planning Officer presented Planning Application No. SL/2018/0925, which sought permission for Kendal Flood Risk Management Scheme - Phase 1. The Planning Officer explained that for the new Committee Members he would summarise the report presented in March 2019 and he drew Members’ attention to the updated sections of the report which had been highlighted in red.

 

The Planning Officer stated that he would be making his presentation with the presumption that the report had been read, and that the presentation itself was intended to give a broad overview of the report for the Planning Committee. Throughout his presentation the Planning Officer displayed photographs, plans and visualisations.

 

He informed Members that the Planning Application covered Phase 1 of the Kendal Flood Risk Management Scheme which would reduce the flood risk from events with a minimum return period of 1 in 20 years. The benefits of the scheme were outlined to Members, with 227 homes, 71 businesses and 80 community facilities being removed from direct risk of flooding in a 1 in 20 year return period. With a further 253 homes and 40 businesses seeing their depth of flooding decrease in events with a 5% Annual Exceedance Probability. The Planning Officer highlighted that completion of Phase 1 in isolation, would cause a limited number of homes to see an increased risk in flood events however, the Environment Agency (EA) had confirmed that it was working with those residents affected to try to alleviate the risk. Furthermore, the EA had carried out further site visits and discovered that topographical features had reduced the number of homes at risk. He went on to explain that the EA was not responsible for ground and surface water drainage, however, they had been working with the Local Lead Flood Authority and United Utilities on this issue. The Planning Officer highlighted that concerns had been raised regarding walls and embankments holding back surface and/or groundwater and he went on to outline the proposals to address these concerns which included weep holes and non-return valves. The Planning Officer displayed a series of images that highlighted the extent of the scheme, which was broken down into individual reaches of the river network. The reaches were labelled A-L from north to south and stretched from Mint Bridge to Helsington Mills. The plans highlighted the areas where walls would be constructed and the Planning Officer explained that there were 32 wall types and that the updated plans indicated what specific wall type was proposed. The Planning Officer then went on to outline the details of the proposals on each of the reaches of the river, from A to L, and to highlight the impact and residual harm on the townscape and the landscape character along the reaches and he drew Members’ attention to the mitigation measures which had been proposed.

 

He informed Members that the proposed walls would be between 1.2 metres and 1.8 metres in height with the glass sections of the wall fixed at 1 metre on varying height plinths. The highest walls were planned to be on the stretch between Miller Bridge and Nether Bridge with glass-panelled sections reaching 1.8 metres in height on the west bank south of Miller Bridge with the walls reaching 1.8 metres in height running around the boundary at the Parish and Kirkland Halls. He went on to outline the significant loss of trees and the impact on the town’s landscape but noted that tree loss, while still significant, would not be as great as originally proposed. He also highlighted the significant impact on the Kendal Conservation Area, due to the potential impact on the landscape, local biodiversity and the loss of significant trees. The Planning Officer referred to the Environment Agency’s over cautious approach when considering the foundations of the proposed walls and explained that any roots of trees which did not impact on the foundations of the walls, would result in trees not being lost.

 

The Planning Officer summarised the proposals for the replacement of the curtilage wall of Abbot Hall and explained that this would require Listed Building Consent. He went on to outline the impact on the heritage assets in the area which included the Parish Hall, Kirkland Hall and Nether Hall and he explained that the EA was in consultation with Holy Trinity Church and Trustees of Abbot Hall regarding property flood resilience measures.

 

The Planning Officer advised Members that the EA was committed to creating new areas of woodland in several areas and in some cases there were planned improvements to pre-existing low grade habitats with woodland and wetland scrapes, which would result in a net biodiversity gain. In particular, the planting of semi-mature trees would help to develop the biodiversity of the area. Furthermore, glass panels in the wall along Waterside and at other locations, would provide key viewing points across the river and the town, which would retain the natural beauty of the Kendal Conservation Area and in areas such as Miller Park the erection of walls could improve noise impact and air quality. However, it was noted that in the conservation areas where there was dominant existing planting, there would be appreciable harm and mitigation opportunities, such as planting pioneer species such as Birch, would not gain the height of the current planting.

 

The Planning Officer went on to provide details of the Riverdale Court landscaping works which included a continuous stone planter ‘flood defence’ which would be used in conjunction with the wall to protect homes and provide a different and more aesthetically pleasing method of flood defence directly in front of homes along the entire length of the amenity area. He went on to outline the final section of the flood defences for Phase 1 at reaches K and L in the area around the sewerage treatment plant where a wall along the left bank would provide protection and 500 metres of embankment and raised footway at Helsington Mills.

 

The Planning Officer concluded his presentation by emphasising that the report outlined the benefits of the scheme. However, the report also acknowledged the lasting and damaging impact to the landscape character, the harm to the main heritage assets through the centre of the town and to Kendal’s conservation area. The identified harms would be contrary to the objectives of: (1) Core Strategy policies CS8.2 (Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and settlement character) and CS8.6 (historic environment); and (2) Policy DM3 (Historic Environment) of the DMDPD. He went on to state that the conclusions of the report had been updated to reinforce the significance of the legal obligations in Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservations Areas) Act 1990 to: (1) have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings (including their setting; and (2) or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas and the ‘great weight’ to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets as required by paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In conclusion the Planning Officer advised Members that following the detailed analysis of impacts upon the significance of heritage assets, the strategic importance of reducing flood risk, even by the levels associated with Phase 1 in isolation, the scheme represented significant public benefit that outweighed the harm, a conclusion reinforced by the adoption of the DMDPD. 

 

Cheryl Berry, a local resident, addressed the Planning Committee. She explained that she had lived in Kendal all her life, with 26 years spent living close to Mint Bridge. She described how she and many other people living in the area around Mint Bridge were unhappy with the plans to build a wall along the stretch of river. Ms Berry stated that the damage from Storm Desmond had been as a result of surface and ground water flooding and in the event of which Phase 1 would not protect the homes. She stated that Phase 1 would not protect homes from the worst events and that even if all three phases were to be completed they would still not protect from a Storm Desmond type event. Furthermore, she informed members that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) stated that projects should not be considered in isolation if, in reality, they were an integral part of a more substantial development and that in such cases the project must be considered in the context of the whole development. Ms Berry informed the Committee that the Council had stated that Phases 2 and 3 had not been developed to a point that would allow a high level of scrutiny required for an EIA and that there was no certainty that the further phases would be implemented. She went on to highlight the increased risk of flooding to a number of homes if Phase 1 was completed in isolation and referred to the National Planning Policy which stated that “local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased anywhere else.” Referring to a letter from Tim Farron, Member of Parliament for Westmorland and Lonsdale, she stated that Mr Farron was confident that the Planning Committee would not be able to approve or suggest plans that would give further worries to residents who were vulnerable to flooding under the proposals. In addition, Ms. Berry stated that Heritage England had raised concerns over harm to the Kendal Conservation Area and that the proposal meant that there would be significant loss to trees and further harm to the landscape of the town. She went on to highlight the significant loss of trees and vegetation, leading to the harm of protected species which was also contrary to planning policy and as the policy stated that proposals should seek to enhance and conserve existing trees and woodland. In concluding her representation, Ms Berry argued that the visual amenity of Kendal would be dramatically affected for all who lived in and visited the area, with an increased negative impact on conservation sites and listed structures. Ms Berry reminded the Committee of the significant harm that would be inflicted on the landscape of Kendal without any guarantees of a significant reduction in the level of flooding in Kendal and stated that there were no accurate images which would show exactly how the town would look if the proposed application were to be approved.

 

Sue Kennedy, a local resident, addressed the Planning Committee. Ms Kennedy informed Members that she wished to reinforce the legal presumptions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservations Areas) Act 1990 and the requirement to apply ‘great weight’ to the conservation of designated heritage assets. Furthermore, she wished to challenge that Phase 1 in isolation, did not represent a significant public benefit that outweighed the harm. Ms Kennedy went on to highlight that Heritage England Assets, stated that “even with all of the proposed mitigation in place there would be a residual adverse impact on landscape and townscape character to the north of the town, and the proposals would cause harm to the significance of a number of heritage assets, specifically; Kendal Conservation Area; the setting of the grade II listed Parish Hall; and the setting and fabric of the scheduled monuments, Miller Bridge and Nether Bridge.” She then went on to highlight several statements which had been made by an Environment Agency Officer at a meeting of Aynam Road residents in March. The Officer, when asked for his thoughts on the implementation of the Phase 1 flood defences commencing before work on the upstream catchment area, had responded by stating that it was “less than ideal.” In addition a further question received contradictory responses and it was of concern that the Environment Agency Officer had stated that the “likelihood of Phases 2 and 3 going ahead, would be in the hands of the landowners and that no compulsory purchase order would be applied.” Ms Kennedy went on to advise Members that the walls alone, with no control over the flow rate, could increase the volume and water to a potentially catastrophic level. In conclusion she referred to the media’s reporting of the Kendal Flood Risk Management Scheme, particularly in the Westmorland Gazette, which she felt had portrayed the Phase 1 proposals as intended to protect the town from another Storm Desmond type event. Ms Kennedy felt that the facts and images presented by the local media had been bought into by local people, particularly those at risk from flooding. She concluded by highlighting the lasting impact on the mental health of those residents affected by flooding and she considered that the potential worst case scenario could be loss of life, with residents thinking that they would be safe, following the construction of Phase 1, to remain in their homes during a flood event. Ms Kennedy echoed calls for the Environment Agency to consider sustainable and natural flood management and resilience.

 

Councillor Giles Archibald, Leader of the Council and Ward Member for Kendal Town, addressed the Planning Committee. He commenced his address by reminding the Members that previously he had spoken about the devastating aftermath of Storm Desmond and that rejecting the Phase 1 Scheme would put Phases 2 and 3 in jeopardy. He had also highlighted the positive plans that Phase 1 was committed to, which included a safe public walk and cycle way from Shap Road to the County Hall and beyond. Councillor Archibald informed the Committee that in this address he would focus on the positive environmental impacts of Phase 1. He explained that consideration was given to the environmental impact of any planning application and that the Phase 1 Scheme from the EA provided assistance to the efforts of climate change prevention and would actually improve biodiversity. Furthermore, the general public would be encouraged to contribute to the plans by having influence over the types of trees that would be planted to compensate for tree loss in Phase 1 and that the planting of trees would help reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the act of which was accelerated when trees were in their “dynamic growing phases”. Councillor Archibald advised Members that there would be a net biodiversity gain within several areas of the proposed Phase 1. Councillor Archibald acknowledged the extensive research which had been undertaken by the EA in order to find the best solution, with the resources available, to Kendal’s flooding dilemma and resolved that there was no other option. He concluded his address by stating that having spoken to residents in his Ward it was vital that their mental anguish and distress was ended.

 

Ian Kell, Secretary to Benson and Sands Flood Action Group addressed the Planning Committee. He commenced his address by stating that he was strongly in support of the application. He went on to inform Members that Kendal’s 1000 plus flood prone homes had been treated unfairly by the application being presented to the Planning Committee for further consideration, particularly after the unanimous decision made in March. He urged Members not to forget the trauma felt by families and businesses during and after the flooding in 2015. Mr Kell added that the proposed plans for Phase 1 had been debated and approved in March and  it would have been more appropriate for the updated Phase 1 plans to have been ratified by delegated powers. He reminded the Committee that in March, the plans for Phase 1 had been supported by the Westmorland and Lonsdale Member of Parliament, the Leader of the Council, the Deputy Leader of Cumbria County Council and by every group from flood-affected residents in Kendal. Mr Kell continued by stating that it had been a worrying week for flood affected residents, after the announcement in the Westmorland Gazette that the Kendal Flood Risk Management Scheme would be coming back in front of the Planning Committee. Mr Kell then commended the previous Planning Committee who had considered the proposed Kendal Flood Risk Management Scheme and he described the Committee as being completely fair and open to the supporters and objectors, who had addressed the Committee. Mr Kell made reference to the net biodiversity gain including that of 3500 trees which would compensate for the significant, but temporary loss in mature trees along the proposed walled sites and he continued by stating that the opinions previously voiced, that the current river and its 1970’s flood works were natural, had been dismissed at the last committee and that the Phase 1 plans would provide a “differently beautiful” Kendal. Mr Kell remarked that objectors had perhaps not understood the technical areas of the proposed Phase 1 plans and he called for those objectors to embrace the positives and the opportunities presented by the Scheme, to work with the town to plan for a safer, drier future. Mr Kell concluded by asking the Committee to not dilute the unanimous decision made in March.

 

Helen Bentley addressed the Committee on behalf of David Hughes. Ms Bentley, stated that while it was crucial to ensure that communities were provided with resilient defences to flooding, it was premature to approve this application. It was not possible to win the war against water and there was a need to develop consistent standards and assess the risk and to adapt and respond accordingly. In continuing Mr Hughes’ address, Ms Bentley highlighted the failed flood defences in Carlisle and that the solution to the failures had been to build more and higher defences which in turn had been overwhelmed. Ms Bentley went on to highlight the permanent and negative impact on river species and bats and that the proposed walls would ruin the attractive image of Kendal. Mr Hughes’ representation concluded in urging the Planning Committee to defer their decision until the outcome of the Environment Agency’s consultation had been received.

 

Stuart Mounsey addressed the Committee on behalf of the Environment Agency. Mr Mounsey expressed his thanks to those who had contributed to the development of the Kendal Flood Risk Management Scheme and went on to explain that the EA had considered 60 flood relief options. He informed Members that Kendal had over 1400 homes and 1100 businesses with a 1 in 5 chance of flooding every year, and the 1 in 200 year flood event caused by Storm Desmond had seen 2150 homes flooded. Mr Mounsey acknowledged the psychological impact on those who had been flooded, living in fear when it rained and the impact this had on their health and wellbeing, in addition to the difficulty in obtaining property insurance. He went on to highlight the wider impacts on businesses, tourism and bridges, as well as other infrastructure and reiterated the risk if the decision was taken to do nothing. Mr Mounsey informed Members that the EA’s proposal was a phased approach with three schemes and he outlined the potential results of the 3 phases, if completed, which included; a total of £55 Million investment into flood defences; a 1 in 100 year standard of flood protection; and wider improvements to Kendal which could be linked to the flood scheme. Mr Mounsey reiterated that the flood management scheme would not protect against a Storm Desmond type event. The Phase 1 plans, which included a £16 Million investment, would bring the following benefits:- Flood Risk Reduction which would see a reduced risk to 227 homes, 71 businesses and 80 community facilities as well as providing further indirect economic benefits to 1712 businesses. In addition the EA wanted to emphasise that the Scheme could be more than just a flood scheme as the investment presented a much broader level of opportunity for the people and the environment of Kendal. Improving public places which would include the creation of 5 hectares of new habitat at Jubilee Fields, improvements to community spaces at several sites across Kendal as well as to 3km of riverside footpath. Furthermore the proposed Phase 1 would enable cycle pathways along the river and see a significant financial contribution to a new Gooseholme foot bridge. Mr Mounsey concluded his representation by advising Members that the EA had taken on-board feedback regarding Abbot Hall and had significantly redesigned the scheme. Furthermore, the EA had made a commitment to plant more semi mature trees, as well as a provision of bird and bat boxes. He concluded by stating that the changing climate would see future generations facing a very different climate with the risk for floods getting worse if we chose to do nothing and the opportunity to secure a £55 Million investment would deliver a better Kendal for today and future generations.

 

The Planning Officer responded to questions raised by Members. He drew Members’ attention to the PowerPoint slide which provided the direct benefits statistics and he confirmed that 227 homes would be protected by Phase 1. Stuart Mounsey from the EA responded to a further question regarding the, timescale for the flood management proposals and he advised the Committee that Phase 1 was scheduled to start in February of 2020 with the rolling programme of Phases 2 and 3 together, subject to approval of a future planning application. In response to further questions the Planning Officer then reiterated that there was no guarantee of Phases 2 and 3 going ahead, however, approval of Phase 1 would improve the chances of Phases 2 and 3 being completed. He confirmed that the landscape mitigation plans were bound by planning conditions and that the EA was in discussions regarding the glass panels and that consideration may be given to an amendment to the current plans in this regard.

 

Members thanked the Planning Officer for the comprehensive report and presentation and agreed in the need for the flood relief scheme to alleviate the flood risk for thousands within Kendal. They welcomed the fact that the application had been brought back to Committee and Members agreed that although the scheme had drawbacks and risks these were outweighed by the benefits.

 

RESOLVED – That the application be approved subject to the following:-

 

(a)        Acknowledging the Environment Agency as the lead competent authority in undertaking the Habitat Regulations Assessment necessary to meet the requirements of Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

(b)        Adopting the Environment Agency’s final Habitat Regulations Assessment, Draft 8 dated 11 March 2019, (signed by Natural England) for the purposes of meeting the Council’s obligations under Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

(c)        The following conditions:

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

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

Approved plans

(2)        The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Red line boundary Plans

·        Red line boundary Sheet 1 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-PL-0001

·        Red line boundary Sheet 2 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-PL-0002

·        Red line boundary Sheet 3 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-PL-0003

·        Red line boundary Sheet 4 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-PL-0004

Construction Access and Site Compounds

·        Construction Access and Site Compounds 1 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-PL-0005

·        Construction Access and Site Compounds 2 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-PL-0006

·        Construction Access and Site Compounds 3 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-PL-0007

·        Construction Access and Site Compounds 4 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-PL-0008

General Arrangement Plans

·        General Arrangement Reach Overview ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0101.P05

·        General Arrangement Reach A ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0102.P05

·        General Arrangement Reach B ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0103.P05

·        General Arrangement Reach C1 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0104.P06

·        General Arrangement Reach C2 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0105.P06

·        General Arrangement Reach D ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0106.P05

·        General Arrangement Reach E ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0107.P05

·        General Arrangement Reach F1 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0108.P06

·        General Arrangement Reach F2 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0109.P05

·        General Arrangement Reach G1 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0110.P06

·        General Arrangement Reach G2 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0111.P06

·        General Arrangement Reach H ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0112.P06

·        General Arrangement Reach I ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0113.P05

·        General Arrangement Reach J ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0114.P05

·        General Arrangement Reach K ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0115.P05

·        General Arrangement Reach L ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0116.P05

Cross Sections

·        Section Embankment A&B ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0201.P03

·        Section Embankment C&D ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0202.P03

·        Section Floodgate Dble&Sgle ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0203.P02

·        Section Floodgate 4m Dble ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0204.P02

·        Section Floodwall A1 A2 A3 A5 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0205.P02

·        Section Floodwall B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0206.P02

·        Section Floodwall C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0207.P02

·        Section Floodwall D1 D3 D4 D5 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0208.P02

·        Section Floodwall E3 H3 H4 H5 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0209.P02

·        Section Floodwall I3 I4 I5 J3 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0210.P03

·        Section Floodwall J4 J5 K6 L6 R7 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0211.P03

·        Landscaping Reach J ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0212.P01

Landscape Masterplan

·        Landscape Masterplan Reach Overview ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-L-0301.P05

·        Landscape Masterplan Reach A ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-L-0302.P05

·        Landscape Masterplan Reach B ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-L-0303.P06

·        Landscape Masterplan Reach C ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-L-0304.P06

·        Landscape Masterplan Reach D ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-L-0305.P05

·        Landscape Masterplan Reach E ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-L-0306.P05

·        Landscape Masterplan Reach F1 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-L-0307.P07

·        Landscape Masterplan Reach F2 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-L-0308.P05

·        Landscape Masterplan Reach G1 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-L-0309.P07

·        Landscape Masterplan Reach G2 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-L-0310.P04

·        Landscape Masterplan Reach H ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-L-0311.P06

·        Landscape Masterplan Reach I ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-L-0312.P05

·        Landscape Masterplan Reach J ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-L-0313.P05

·        Landscape Masterplan Reach K ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-L-0314.P06

·        Landscape Masterplan Reach L ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-L-0315.P05

Tree removal and retention

·        Tree removal and retention Plan A ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-EN-1001.P04

·        Tree removal and retention Plan B ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-EN-1002.P03

·        Tree removal and retention Plan C ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-EN-1003.P04

·        Tree removal and retention Plan D ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-EN-1004.P04

·        Tree removal and retention Plan E ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-EN-1005.P03

·        Tree removal and retention Plan F ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-EN-1006.P03

·        Tree removal and retention Plan G ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-EN-1007.P03

·        Tree removal and retention Plan H ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-EN-1008.P04

·        Tree removal and retention Plan I ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-EN-1009.P03

·        Tree removal and retention Plan J ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-EN-1010.P03

·        Tree removal and retention Plan K ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-EN-1011.P03

·        Tree removal and retention Plan L ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-EN-1012.P03

·        Tree removal and retention Plan M ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-EN-1013.P03

·        Tree removal and retention Plan N ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-EN-1014.P03

·        Tree removal and retention Plan O ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-EN-1015.P04

·        Tree removal and retention Plan P ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-EN-1016.P03

Elevations

·        Elevation plan 1 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1201.P02

·        Elevation plan 2 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1202.P02

·        Elevation plan 3 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1203.P02

·        Elevation plan 4 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1204.P02

·        Elevation plan 5 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1205.P02

·        Elevation plan 6 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1206.P02

·        Elevation plan 7 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1207.P02

·        Elevation plan 8 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1208.P02

·        Elevation plan 9 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1209.P02

·        Elevation plan 10 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1210.P02

·        Elevation plan 11 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1211.P02

·        Elevation plan 12 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1212.P02

·        Elevation plan 13 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1213.P02

·        Elevation plan 14 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1214.P02

·        Elevation plan 15 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1215.P02

·        Elevation plan 16 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1216.P02

·        Elevation plan 17 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1217.P02

·        Elevation plan 18 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1218.P02

·        Elevation plan 19 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1219.P02

·        Elevation plan 20 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1220.P02

·        Elevation plan 21 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1221.P02

·        Elevation plan 22 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1222.P02

·        Elevation plan 23 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1223.P02

·        Elevation plan 24 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1224.P02

·        Elevation plan 25 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-1225.P02

Stock Beck Pumping Station proposals

·        General Arrangement ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3E0-DR-C-0105.P03

·        Details of Structures 01 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3E0-DR-C-0201.P03

·        Details of Structures 02 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3E0-DR-C-0202.P02

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

Phasing

(3)        No development shall commence until a construction phasing plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The purpose of the phasing plan is to establish discrete geographical areas in which, once pre-commencement conditions pertaining to that area have been discharged, development can proceed ahead of other areas where compliance with pre-commencement conditions might remain outstanding. The phasing plan is not intended to dictate the order in which different elements of the scheme can progress, nor to prevent different elements proceeding simultaneously.

Thereafter, the development shall proceed in accordance with the agreed construction phasing plan.

Reason: To ensure that the construction proceeds in a manner that minimises disruption to local amenity.

Public art and interpretation strategy

(4)        No development shall commence until a public art and interpretation strategy for the entire development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The principles agreed in the strategy will then need to be reflected in the further details required by subsequent conditions, where relevant and specified.

Reason: To ensure the development achieves a high quality design in accordance with Policy CS8.10 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy, and Policies DM1, DM2 and DM3 of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

Materials and finishes

(5)        No cladding of any wall type incorporating stone facing as shown on the approved plans shall commence until a sample panel detailing: (1) the type of stone to be used (which, for the avoidance of doubt, shall be locally-sourced natural stone for both cladding and coping); and (2) the proposed bedding, coursing, sizing, style and pointing of the stone; has been constructed and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter, construction of all stone-faced wall types shall be completed in accordance with the approved sample panel.

Reason: To ensure the development achieves a high quality design in accordance with Policy CS8.10 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy, and Policies DM1, DM2 and DM3 of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

(6)        No work shall commence on the erection of the stone faced flood defence wall on the eastern bank of the River Kent immediately downstream of Miller Bridge until further details of the interface between the wall and the existing railings and stone pier have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Thereafter, the work to this section shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the development achieves a high quality design in accordance with Policy CS8.10 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy, and Policies DM1, DM2 and DM3 of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

(7)        No wall type incorporating a printed or patterned concrete finish shall be so finished until a sample panel has been prepared and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The print or pattern should adhere to the principles established in the public art and interpretation strategy referred to in condition 4 above.  Thereafter, construction of all wall types incorporating a printed or patterned concrete finish shall be completed in accordance with the approved sample panel.

Reason: To ensure the development achieves a high quality design in accordance with Policy CS8.10 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy, and Policies DM1, DM2 and DM3 of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

(8)        No work on any wall type incorporating glass panels shall commence until a specification for the panels has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The specification shall comprise: (1) confirmation of the use of self-cleaning glass; (2) details of the materials proposed for the construction of the frames; and (3) principles established in the public art and interpretation strategy referred to in condition 4 above.

Reason: To ensure the development achieves a high quality design in accordance with Policy CS8.10 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy, and Policies DM1, DM2 and DM3 of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

(9)        No work shall commence on the installation of the wall type incorporating glass panels on the western bank of the River Kent on the sloping ground immediately downstream of the retained stone pier at Miller Bridge until further details of the proposed elevational treatment of the panels has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Thereafter, the work to this section shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the development achieves a high quality design in accordance with Policy CS8.10 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy, and Policies DM1, DM2 and DM3 of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

(10)      No work shall commence on the installation of handrails until details have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.  The style and method of fixing of handrails should adhere to the principles established in the public art and interpretation strategy referred to in condition 4 above.

Reason: To ensure the development achieves a high quality design in accordance with Policy CS8.10 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy, and Policies DM1, DM2 and DM3 of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

(11)      No individual floodgate shall be first installed until details of its design have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.  The detailed design of each floodgate should adhere to the principles established in the public art and interpretation strategy referred to in condition 4 above.

Reason: To ensure the development achieves a high quality design in accordance with Policy CS8.10 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy, and Policies DM1, DM2 and DM3 of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

(12)      No work on the control kiosk serving the Stock Beck Pumping Station shall commence until full elevational details at a scale of 1:100, plus details of the proposed natural walling and roofing materials, have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Thereafter, the control kiosk shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the development achieves a high quality design in accordance with Policy CS8.10 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy, and Policies DM1, DM2 and DM3 of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

(13)      For the avoidance of doubt, and notwithstanding any indications to the contrary on the approved plans, any existing walls to be repaired and/or taken down and rebuilt shall be repaired/rebuilt in material salvaged from the existing wall, and/or from new matching material, details of which shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that existing stone walls are retained in order to preserve the character of the area.

Landscaping

(14)      No individual phase of development, as agreed in compliance with condition 3 above, shall commence until a detailed landscaping scheme for that phase has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The landscaping scheme shall accord with: (1) the principles shown on the approved Landscape Mitigation Plan(s); (2) the numbers and disposition of trees shown in Table 10.6 of the associated Environmental Statement; and (3) the principles established in the public art and interpretation strategy referred to in condition 4 above. The details of the landscaping scheme shall comprise: (i) planting plans; (ii) written specifications and schedules of proposed plants noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities; (iii) the extent and depth of wetland scrapes and water features (where relevant); (iv) samples of surfacing materials for paths, tracks and other public amenity area; (v) furniture; (vi) an implementation timetable; and (vii) a schedule of landscape maintenance proposals for a period of not less than 10 years from the date of completion of the scheme for that individual phase. Thereafter, the approved landscaping scheme shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the agreed details and timetable.

Reason: To ensure that adverse visuals effects are mitigated as quickly and effectively as possible.

(15)      Except where covered by the phased landscaping details approved in accordance with condition 14 above, within one month of the completion of the development approved by this permission the various compound/storage/stockpile areas shown on the approved “Kendal FRMS Temporary Construction Access and Compounds” drawings shall be reinstated in accordance with a specification that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. 

Reason: To ensure that adverse visuals effects are mitigated as quickly and effectively as possible.

Tree removal and protection

(16)      No development shall commence until a method statement detailing how the authorised removal of trees will be managed during the course of the construction process has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The method statement will set out the timescales for removal of trees within each of the phases agreed in compliance with condition 3 above, prioritising the retention of trees for as long as is practicably possible having regard to the requirements of other conditions imposed on this consent and other legislative responsibilities, i.e. those imposed by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Thereafter, tree removal shall proceed in accordance with the agreed method statement.

Reason: To ensure that the authorised removal of trees proceeds in a manner than minimises the loss of amenity.

(17)      No individual phase of development, as agreed in compliance with condition 3 above, shall commence until those individual trees and groups of trees shown to be retained on the relevant Tree Removal and Retention Plans have been protected in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Thereafter, the implemented protection measures shall be maintained for the duration of construction works within that phase of the development.

Reason: To ensure that those trees shown for retention are adequately protected before development commences.

Archaeological recording

(18)      No individual phase of development, as agreed in compliance with condition 3 above, shall commence until implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.   For the avoidance of doubt, “development” in this context shall not include any clearance of vegetation, felling of trees, or undertaking of any groundworks necessary to inform the required written scheme of investigation.

Reasons: (i) to afford reasonable opportunity for an examination to be made to determine the existence of any remains of archaeological interest within the site and for the preservation, examination or recording of such remains; (ii) to ensure that permanent records are made of the heritage assets of architectural and historic interest prior to their alteration as part of the proposed development.  

(19)      If the works require the “riverside steps and stone flag plinth” marked on approved plan “General Arrangement Reach G1 ENV0000489C-CAA-IZ01-3KD-DR-C-0110.P06” to be removed and reinstated then this shall be undertaken in accordance with a specification that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. 

Reason: To ensure the retention of this historically significant feature.

Traffic

(20)      No individual phase of development, as agreed in compliance with condition 3 above, shall commence until a Transport Assessment / Construction Traffic Management Plan (TA/CTMP) for that phase has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The TA/CTMP shall include details of:

·        the numbers and types of vehicles associated with construction;

  • construction vehicle routing;
  • the pre-construction road condition established by a detailed survey for accommodation works within the highways boundary;
  • arrangements for the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;
  • arrangements for loading and unloading of plant and materials;
  • storage arrangements for plant and materials used in constructing the development;
  • measures to control noise and vibration from plant, equipment and development processes;

·        measures for cleaning of site entrances and the adjacent public highway;

·        proposed wheel washing facilities;

·        the arrangements for the sheeting of all HGVs taking spoil to/from the site to prevent spillage or deposit of any materials on the highway;

·        the management of junctions to and crossings of the public highway and other public rights of way/footway;

·        surface water management details during the construction phase

Construction lighting should be designed to negate light spillage from site boundaries and mitigate glare.

Thereafter, development of each phase shall proceed in accordance with the relevant TA/CTMP.

TA/CTMPs for development beyond the first phase shall address the cumulative effects of earlier phases.

Reason: In the interests of ensuring highway safety and efficiency, and to ensure that the highway network has sufficient capacity to safely accommodate the increased levels of construction traffic. To keep the impact of construction traffic on the amenity of local residents and other road users to acceptable levels.

Surface water

(21)      Every phase of development, as agreed in compliance with condition 3 above, in which linear defences coincide with areas at risk of surface water flooding (identified on figures 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 within the Flood Risk Assessment (Kendal flood risk management scheme - Phase 1 Kendal Linear Defences) January 2019) shall incorporate measures to allow the disposal of surface water into the river in conditions when the level of the river would not otherwise prevent it. The details of such measures shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

Reason: To safeguard against flooding from surface water to neighbouring sites.

(22)      Any surface water drainage outfalls encountered during construction shall be logged and the logbook shall be shared with the Local Planning Authority on a weekly basis. The logbook shall note the location of the outfall with an assessment of the drainage area that they serve. On site, a drainage engineer shall consider the likelihood of increased flood risk to people and property due to the proposal and appropriate mitigation shall be taken if required. Any mitigation and reasoning should be recorded in the logbook and approved in writing by, the local planning authority prior to the completion of the development.

Reason: To safeguard against flooding from surface water elsewhere.

Air quality

(23)      No individual phase of development, as agreed in compliance with condition 3 above, shall commence until mitigation measures to control dust during the course of construction works (as recommended in Table 7.24 of the Environmental Statement submitted in support of this application) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Thereafter, the agreed mitigation measures shall be retained for the duration of construction works in the relevant phase.

Reason: To keep disruption to local amenity to a minimum.

Working hours

(24)      No building work or associated deliveries shall occur on Bank Holidays or otherwise outside the hours of 0800 – 1800 Monday to Saturday without the prior written agreement of the local planning authority.

Reason: To safeguard amenity.

Contamination

(25)      No individual phase of development, as agreed in compliance with condition 3 above, shall commence until a Phase One Assessment and conceptual model of the various potential contaminated land sites within and adjacent to the development corridor, including potential for migration of pollutants into the areas of proposed works has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

If any contamination is encountered during the project (not addressed in previous assessments), work must be halted on that part of the site, and a further assessment specifying the measures to be taken to make the site suitable (including any remediation proposed) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.  Work shall then proceed in accordance with the further assessment.

Within three months of completion of the scheme a validation report and statement from a competent person detailing contamination assessment, including any found during development, and any remediation undertaken, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The validation report should cross-refer to the Phase One Assessment and any further assessments.

Reason: To remove any risk or concerns regarding human health (also to ensure that site workers are not exposed to the unacceptable risks) and the environment.

Biodiversity

(26)      No individual phase of development, (including demolition, ground works, vegetation clearance) as agreed in compliance with condition 3 above, shall commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan covering biodiversity issues (CEMP: Biodiversity) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP: Biodiversity shall include the following:

a)     Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities.

b)     Identification of “biodiversity protection zones”.

c)     Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements).

d)     The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features (including a commitment to no in river works between 1st October and 30th June in any given year in order to protect white-clawed crayfish).

e)     Details of how rescues of fish and white-clawed crayfish shall be undertaken by appropriately qualified persons (with the relevant permissions) prior to any activities that could result in physical harm to these animals.

f)       The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works.

g)     Responsible persons and lines of communication.

h)     The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person.

i)       Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.

j)       The numbers and locations of bird and bat boxes, along with a timetable for installation.

Thereafter, development of each phase shall proceed in accordance with the approved CEMP: Biodiversity.

Reason: To safeguard biodiversity interest on the site.

(27)      Prior to the commencement of development, a biosecurity protocol shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority detailing measures to minimize or remove the risk of introducing non-native species into a particular area during the construction, operational or decommissioning phases of a project. The measures shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To safeguard biodiversity interest on the site.

(28)      No individual phase of development, as agreed in compliance with condition 3 above, shall commence (including demolition, ground works and vegetation clearance) until a biodiversity monitoring strategy has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The purpose of the strategy shall be to identify changes in bat activity. The content of the Strategy shall include the following:

a)     Aims and objectives of monitoring to match the stated purpose.

b)     Identification of adequate baseline conditions prior to the start of development.

c)     Appropriate success criteria, thresholds, triggers and targets against which the effectiveness of the various conservation measures being monitored can be judged.

A report describing the results of monitoring shall be submitted to the local planning authority at intervals identified in the strategy. The report shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed with the local planning authority, and then implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme. The monitoring strategy will be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard biodiversity interest on the site.


06/06/2019 - Planning Application No. SL/2019/0207 - 27 Kirkstone Close, Kendal ref: 4130    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 06/06/2019 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 09/08/2019

Effective from: 06/06/2019

Decision:

Erection of a two storey rear extension (Mrs K Duffield).

 

The Planning Officer presented Planning Application No. SL/2019/0207 which sought permission for a two storey rear extension at 27 Kirkstone Close, Kendal. She referred to the site visit and displayed photographs and plans which outlined the proposals and drew Members’ attention to the late representations which had been circulated prior to the meeting and included a written representation from the applicant. The Planning Officer highlighted the key issues which were the design, scale, layout and impact on visual and residential amenity. The Planning Officer explained that the application had been referred to Planning Committee for consideration due to fact that the applicant was a member of SLDC staff, which was in line with the Council’s Constitution and the Scheme of Delegation. She went on to describe the location of the property, in the South of Kendal with the ASDA Superstore situated to the rear of the dwelling separated by a boundary fence and trees. The Planning Officer informed the Committee that the two storey semi-detached dwelling was situated on a staggered row, with the properties to the east sitting further north and the terrace properties to the west sitting further south. She went on to detail the proposal by stating that the two storey extension would feature on the northern elevation of the property, with the extension forming additional living space at ground floor level and a bedroom at first floor level.  Furthermore, the Planning Officer highlighted that the extension would project 4 metres from the rear elevation with a width of 3.04 metres and that the roof would have a dual pitched roof with a gable elevation to the rear. The Planning Officer outlined the impact on residential amenity and stated that the proposal would result in significant adverse effects on the residential amenity of the occupiers of 26 Kirkstone Close.

 

The Planning Officer then responded to questions raised by Members.

 

RESOLVED – That the application be refused.


27/06/2019 - Planning Application SL/2019/0146 - Land at Booths, Oubas Hill, Ulverston ref: 4119    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 27/06/2019 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 08/08/2019

Effective from: 27/06/2019

Decision:

Erection of freestanding single storey restaurant with associated drive-thru, car parking and landscaping and associated works, 2 customer order displays with associated canopies and play area (McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd)..

 

Note- Councillor Judy Filmore declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item by virtue of the fact that she was predetermined. Councillor Filmore addressed the Members in accordance with the Planning Committee’s Public Participation Scheme before leaving the meeting during  discussion and voting on the item.

 

Councillor Janette Jenkinson declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item by virtue of the fact that she was a member of Ulverston Town Council during initial discussions. She remained in the meeting during discussion and voting on the item.

 

The Planning Officer presented Planning Application No.SL/2019/0146 which sought permission to erect a single storey restaurant with an associated drive-thru. He referred to a site map to illustrate the location, displayed plans and photographs which outlined the proposals and he drew Members’ attention to the late representations which had been circulated prior to the meeting. The Planning Officer highlighted that within the late representations the applicant’s agent had outlined the proposed opening hours and that a suitable planning condition would be included in the decision notice, should approval be granted. He then moved on to outline the proposals for the single storey restaurant with a drive-thru element which included 30 parking spaces and a play area, on the brownfield site which was currently being used as a recycling centre in the car park of Booths supermarket.

 

The Planning Officer went on to explain that the key issues for consideration were the principle of the development; the impact on the town centre; the impact on amenity, design, scale and layout; highways safety and parking; air quality, noise and odour; impact on the environment and wildlife; and impact on drainage and flooding. The Planning Officer moved on to detail the assessment of the application. He informed Members that the site was within Ulverston’s development boundary and that sequential testing had been applied and that no suitable alternative sites had been identified. The site was well connected to the town centre and the proposal was acceptable in principle. He referred to the impact on visual amenity and highlighted specific details of the site which included the maximum height of the building at 5.7 metres, which was considered to relate acceptably to its surroundings. He explained that soft landscaping and external lighting would be controlled by planning conditions and he added that directional signage within the site had already been granted permission. Furthermore, the Planning Officer informed Members that due to concerns highlighted in representations regarding the impact on residential amenity, the delivery and opening times would be controlled by planning conditions and he went on to outline the distance of the application from the nearest residential dwellings. He stated that the proposal would not cause harm to local residential homes or businesses. The Planning Officer confirmed that Highways England had no objections to the proposal and he informed Members that despite the proposed site being in ‘Flood Zone 2’, it was not a high risk site and that the Local Lead Flood Authority had no objections to the development. Moving on, the Planning Officer informed Members that a noise report and odour control measures had been submitted with the application and that South Lakeland District Council’s (SLDC’s) Environmental Protection Officer was satisfied with the proposal, subject to their recommended conditions. Regarding the impact on Public Health, the Planning Officer informed Members that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) required authorities to enable and support healthy lifestyles and that Development Management Policy DM22 stated that proposals for hot food takeaways needed to be carefully managed and have regard to the proximity to sensitive areas such as schools. He informed Members that the nearest Primary and Secondary Schools were 700 metres and 750 metres away from the site respectively, and highlighted that Ulverston town centre was closer to the nearest schools than the proposed restaurant. The Planning Officer went on to outline the impact on the environment, climate change and wildlife and he highlighted the commitment, by the applicant, to limiting the impact the development would have on climate change and that a survey of travel arrangements of employees from similar size restaurants had been completed and that a travel plan would be put in place. The travel plan would encourage staff to use sustainable modes of transport and in addition the proposal included parking spaces for eight bikes and two electric vehicles. Furthermore the applicant was committed to using one vehicle for deliveries and the collection of recyclable materials which would remove the need for separate vehicle trips and would cut emissions. In addition, the cooking oil from the restaurant would be recycled to create a bio-fuel which would be used as fuel for McDonald’s delivery vehicles. Alongside this, all power used within the proposed restaurant was to be green energy provided by Npower. Furthermore, the Planning Officer made reference to a condition within the report, relating to the applicant providing bat and bird boxes at the Next Ness nature reserve. However, Cumbria Wildlife Trust had confirmed that nest boxes were not installed on nature reserves without a viable nest box project and therefore the nest boxes were not viable at the Next Ness nature reserve. Consequently the condition would be omitted from the decision notice, should approval be granted. In concluding his report the Planning Officer stated that the proposed development was considered to accord with the principles of sustainable development set out in the South Lakeland Strategy Policies CS1.0, CS1.2 and CS1.3; the proposed use satisfied the requirements of the sequential approach and the development was in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS7.5 and Development Management Policy DM23; and the development would not have any significant adverse impacts on the amenity of local residents or the local environment and was in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS8.10, Development Management Policy DM1, DM2 and the National Planning Policy Framework. He went on to clarify that condition 15, the provision of bat and bird boxes, would be omitted and confirmed two additional conditions, as included in the late representations, which covered delivery and waste collection times and the opening hours which were to be 6.00 a.m. to 12.00 a.m.

 

Peter Howlett, a local resident, addressed the Committee. He began by emphasising the protection of plant and animal life and he highlighted Section 1.35 of South Lakeland District Council’s Development Framework Core Strategy which stated that South Lakeland District Council should “manage and nurture plant and animal life and protect and improve the man-made environment”. Mr Howlett moved on by stating that McDonald’s remained one of the biggest contributors to fast food litter in the UK and that single use plastics made up a large proportion of the litter which contributed to the global plastic pollution crisis. He raised the point that a drive-thru McDonald’s in Ulverston would inevitably threaten the nearby water courses and the biodiversity of Morecambe Bay. Mr Howlett then argued that the commitment by McDonald’s to have staff perform three litter picks per day and provide bins along Ulverston Canal was farcical, as he believed that it would exacerbate the problem as it mitigated the concept of ‘take your litter home’ and raised confusion over who would be emptying the bins. Mr Howlett moved on to highlight the impact on the climate and local pollution levels which he believed the proposed restaurant would have. He went on to state, that a drive-thru would encourage idling engines at the site which was a major contributor to CO2 emissions. Mr Howlett then informed Members that McDonald’s proudly claimed that they sold a quarter of a million burgers every hour, and that the link to global deforestation as an impact of the mass produced beef market and its impact on the environment was undeniable. He informed Members that McDonald’s gave away the largest amount of small toys in the world, the majority of which were immediately thrown away, which further highlighted his point regarding the global plastic pollution crisis. Mr Howlett concluded his address by informing Members that the proposed restaurant failed on local and national policy and on planning objectives and he urged the Committee to reject the proposal as the decision was likely the first real test of South Lakeland District Council’s green pledge and that it presented an opportunity for the Council to show that those words really meant something.

 

Councillor Judy Filmore addressed the Committee. She began by stating that the proposed restaurant would contradict South Lakeland Local Development Framework Core Strategy. Councillor Filmore continued by arguing that the local economy should be sustainably managed to create prosperity through promoting local businesses and providing development sites for indigenous businesses. She emphasised her point by highlighting that McDonald’s workers would mostly be on minimum wage until the age of twenty-five, and informed Members that the applicant was a multi-national company and that the money spent on the proposed development would not help the local economy but instead help McDonald’s shareholders. Councillor Filmore moved on to highlight the uniqueness of Ulverston, which she believed, relied heavily on thriving independent local businesses and money being spent supporting them. She highlighted to Members that the proposed development would bring seven local businesses into direct competition with McDonald’s. Councillor Filmore then moved on to emphasise the health and well-being issues that she linked to the proposed development and pointed out the statistic that one in five children aged 10 to 11 was currently obese and World Health Organisation statistics stated that overweight children were more likely to be overweight in adulthood. She then highlighted to Members that a medium portion of fries in McDonald’s contained 24% fat. Councillor Filmore concluded her address by asking Members to consider the impact on the local economy and stated that the health and wellbeing of local children should not be compromised and highlighted that in saying no, there would likely be, a brownfield site available for a local business, which would enhance the local economy.

 

Councillor Phillip Dixon addressed the Committee. He began by reminding Members that he had served as Health and Wellbeing Portfolio Holder for South Lakeland District Council and highlighted the three objectives within the portfolio: to improve health and wellbeing for local people; to improve transport and increase the number of people walking and cycling; and to improve air quality across the district. He moved on to inform Members that the Council had statutory responsibility for clean air and that a drive–thru, at the proposed site, would definitely damage the air quality of the area. Councillor Dixon concluded by highlighting that the proposed restaurant went against everything that the Council was trying to achieve through its policies which focused on health and wellbeing and on addressing the impact of climate change.

 

Chris Nicholls, McDonald’s Franchisee at the proposed development, addressed the Committee. He began by informing Members that he currently ran eleven separate McDonald’s restaurants, including two in Barrow in Furness and that during the Planning Application process he had been fully compliant and had provided all of the necessary information. He had also given due consideration to the letters of objection and the petition. Mr Nicholls highlighted that McDonald’s was aware of the issue of litter originating from their restaurants and that it worked incredibly hard to prevent litter from spreading and he informed the Committee that the teams at his restaurants were required to litter pick within a large radius of the restaurants. He informed Members that his restaurants had completed 200 litter picks so far this year and that plastic straws had been removed from the supply chain. Furthermore, he stated that he had ambitions to remove all single use plastics from the supply chain and was indeed working towards this. Mr Nicholls informed Members that planned to invest in local charities, as he had done at all eleven of his restaurants, and wished to immerse his business in the local area and employ local people who would be the heart of his business. He went on to highlight that his commitment was clearly represented by the career progression of  90% of his management staff, who had commenced employment at the lowest levels and with training opportunities had worked their way up to management roles at his establishments. Mr Nicholls then informed Members that at all eleven of his restaurants he worked closely with the Police in order to prevent anti-social behaviour, which had been cited as a major issue associated with McDonald’s restaurants. In order to mitigate the issue, he had provided staff with the opportunity to attend courses to train them on how to deal with anti-social behaviour, so that they were well informed on how to deal with such issues. Mr Nicholls concluded his address by reiterating his point that he had twenty years of successfully running his businesses, and remained fully committed, as ever, to working hard within the local community.

 

The Interim Development Team Leader responded to concerns raised during public participation. He began by acknowledging Mr Howlett’s comments, which were of relevance to any development, however he stated that it was important to ensure that Members were considering the application site and proposed usage only and that the identity of the applicant was not a material consideration. He moved on to highlight that SLDC had consulted with the Wildlife Trust in order to assess the impact of the proposed development on local wildlife and the ecological environment and, regarding the impact of litter, there was a need to take reasonable steps to mitigate its impact and the Interim Development Team Leader stated that the Section 106 Agreement would include the funding of litter bins along the local canal. The Interim Development Team Leader informed Members that the impact on the local economy would be minimised by the fact that the proposed restaurant would be a greater distance from the town centre than other locally run establishments and he added that while health and wellbeing was vitally important and that the Council had a Health and Wellbeing Strategy, the  distance between the proposed restaurant and the local schools, alongside the large element of choice in the surrounding area, meant that the proposal was not considered to be in a particularly sensitive area.

 

The Planning Officer then added, in response to a question raised by Mr Howlett, that SLDC Street Scene Team would empty the bins on the site and the surrounding area after the applicant’s pledge had ended and in regards to the recycling centre, there were plans to relocate the recycling centre alongside Booths supermarket.

 

The Interim Lead Specialist Legal, Governance and Democracy drew Member’s attention to a typographical error in the financial benefits to Local Authorities from the development section of the report, which referred to Section 115 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which should be Section 155 of the Act, advising that the section was not yet in force.

 

Members thanked Officers for the comprehensive report and raised questions on the payment of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The Interim Development Team Leader, in consultation with Officers, confirmed that the square meterage of the proposed site meant that the development was exempt from CIL.

 

Members gave consideration to the highways impact and the risk of further congestion on the A590 and raised concerns regarding the impact of litter and requested that a more far reaching network of bins be provided to compensate for people taking their food to local beauty spots. The majority of Members welcomed the proposed development and agreed that it was in an appropriate location, on a brownfield site with parking.

 

RESOLVED – That the application be accepted subject to the following conditions:

 

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

 

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

 

Condition (2)   The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location Plan Dwg No 7134 AEW 8526 1001 received 15th February 2019

Proposed Site Plan Dwg No 7134 AEW 8526 1004 received 15th February 2019

Proposed Floor Plan and Roof Plan Dwg No 7134 AEW 8526 1006 received 15th February 2019

Proposed Elevations Dwg No 7134 AEW 8526 1005 received 15th February 2019

 

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

 

Condition (3)   Before development above damp proof course commences on site, arrangements shall be made with the Local Planning Authority for the inspection of all external facing and roofing materials to be used in the development hereby permitted. The samples shall then be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development constructed in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason            To ensure the use of appropriate materials and to ensure the development is of a high quality design in accordance with Policy CS8.10 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and Policy DM1 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

Condition (4)   Foul and surface drainage shall be drained on separate systems.

 

Reason            To secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution and to accord with Policy CS8.8 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and Policy DM6 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

Condition (5)   Full details of the surface water drainage system (incorporating SUDs features as far as practicable) and a maintenance schedule shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to development being commenced. Any approved works shall be implemented prior to the development being completed and shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the schedule. The drainage scheme submitted for approval shall be in accordance with the principles set out in the Flood Risk Assessment dated February 2019 proposing surface water discharging to the adjacent ditch drains surrounding the site.

 

Reason            To secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution and to accord with Policy CS8.8 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy and Policy DM6 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

Condition (6)   No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall provide for:

i.          The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

ii.          Loading and unloading of plant and materials;

iii.         Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the

                                    development;

iv.        Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during 

construction;

v.         No burning of waste to take place;

vi.        Measures to avoid excess dirt on adjacent roads;

vii.        Measures to control noise and vibration from plant, equipment and procedures – this to include any rock pecking and excavations.

The approved Construction Method Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.

 

Reason            To safeguard the amenity of adjacent residential properties and to accord with Policy DM1 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document and paragraph 127 (f) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Condition (7)   Construction works, including site preparation, earthworks, start-up of machinery, deliveries and unloading of equipment and materials shall not take place outside the hours of 08.00 – 18.00 Mondays to Fridays and 09.00 – 13.00 on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays, Public or Bank Holidays.

 

Reason            To safeguard the amenity of adjacent residential properties and to accord with Policy DM1 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document and paragraph 127 (f) and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Condition (8)   During the construction phase of the development the developer shall fully comply with the conclusions and recommendations detailed in the Phase One and Phase Two Assessments by Pam Brown Associates dated May 2018. Before the building is first brought into use, a validation report and statement from a competent person, detailing the contamination assessment, including any found during development, any remediation undertaken, and also reference the Phase One and Phase Two Assessment, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason            To ensure that risks from land contamination are minimised, in accordance with Policy DM7 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document and paragraph 170 (e) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Condition (9)   Prior to the building being first brought into use a validation report confirming that the odour/ventilation extraction system (including the effectiveness of the filtration/treatment process) is as indicated in the Odour Control Report and fully compliant with recent guidance for commercial kitchens, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason            To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy DM1 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document and paragraph 127(f) and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Condition (10)Prior to the building being first brought into use a validation report confirming the conclusions set out in the Noise Impact Assessment dated February 2019 by Loven Acoustics, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason            To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy DM1 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document and paragraph 127(f) and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Condition (11)Refuse and recycling shall be stored and managed in accordance with the Waste Management and Recycling Statement received by the Local Planning Authority on 15th February 2019 and thereafter maintained.

 

Reason            To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy DM1 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document and paragraph 127(f) and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Condition (12)No works or development shall take place until a full specification of all proposed tree and shrub planting has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The specification shall include the quantity, size, species, and positions or density of all trees to be planted. All trees shall be planted in accordance with the agreed specification and times and in accordance with British Standards BS4043 – Transplanting Root-Balled Trees and BS4428 - Code of Practice for General Landscape Operations.

 

Reason            These details are required to be approved before the commencement of development to safeguard and enhance the character of the area and secure high quality landscaping in accordance with Policy DM4 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

Condition (13)No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include:-

i.          Proposed finished levels or contours;

ii.          Means of enclosure;

iii.         Car parking layouts;

iv.        Other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas;

v.         Hard surfacing materials;

vi.        Minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc.);

vii.        Communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, inspection covers, support and;

viii.       Retained landscape features such as trees together with details of how they will be protected during construction.

Soft landscape works shall include planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment), schedules of plans, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities and an implementation programme.

The agreed scheme shall be carried our as approved to the agreed timetable. Any trees/shrubs which are removed, die, become severely damaged or diseased within five years of their planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees/shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

 

Reason            These details are required to be approved before the commencement of development to safeguard and enhance the character of the area and secure high quality landscaping in accordance with Policies DM1, DM2 and DM4 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

Condition (14)No development shall begin unless and until a scheme for the provision of external lighting has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include full details of the location, design, illuminance levels, light spillage and hours of use of all external lighting within the site. The approved lighting scheme shall be implanted in full prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved.

 

Reason            These details are required to be approved before the commencement of development to safeguard and enhance the character of the area and to minimise light pollution in accordance with Policy DM2 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

Condition (15)Deliveries and waste collection shall not take place other than between the following hours:-

06:30 – 22.00 Monday - Saturday.

09:00 – 18:00 Sundays and Bank or Public Holidays.

 

Reason:           To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with Policies DM1 and DM2 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document and National Planning Policy Framework Chapter 12, Achieving well-designed places - para 127.

 

Condition (16)The drive through restaurant and takeaway shall not operate other than between the following hours:-

06:00 – Midnight – Monday to Sunday

 

Reason:           To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with Policies DM1 and DM2 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document and National Planning Policy Framework Chapter 12, Achieving well-designed places - para 127.


27/06/2019 - Planning Performance and Appeals Update ref: 4121    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 27/06/2019 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 08/08/2019

Effective from: 27/06/2019

Decision:

The Planning Performance and Appeals Update was presented by the Interim Development Management Team Leader. He outlined the performance in the current quarter and the changes since the last meeting and responded to questions raised by Members.

 

RESOLVED – That the report and contents of Appendices 1 and 2 to the report be noted.

 

Note – At this point in the proceedings Members voted to exclude the press and public in order to receive a verbal update from the Interim Development Management Team Leader with regard to development at Monton, Cart Lane, Grange-over-Sands.


27/06/2019 - A Report on Monthly Enforcement Activity ref: 4120    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 27/06/2019 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 08/08/2019

Effective from: 27/06/2019

Decision:

The Enforcement Officer introduced the Monthly Enforcement Report which outlined enforcement activity between 1 March and 30 April 2019.

 

In response to a question regarding Monton, Cart Lane, Grange-over-Sands the Chairman proposed that the response to the question be dealt with, at the end of the agenda, prior to the close of the meeting and following the exclusion of the press and the public.

 

Further questions on 11/11a Market Street, Ulverston and Storth Ltd, Moss Lane, Burton in Kendal were answered by the Officer.

 

RESOLVED – That

 

(1)        the contents of Appendix 1 to the report be noted; and

 

(2)        the actions of officers in closing cases as set out in Appendix 2 to the report be endorsed.