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

24/01/2020 - Progress Report ref: 4278    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Lake Administration Committee

Made at meeting: 24/01/2020 - Lake Administration Committee

Decision published: 19/02/2020

Effective from: 24/01/2020

Decision:

Members thanked the Operational Lead Delivery and Commercial Services for the comprehensive and clear report.

 

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.


24/01/2020 - 2020/21 to 2024/25 Draft Budget ref: 4275    Recommendations Approved

To note the draft budget estimates for the financial years 2020/21 to 2024/25 prior to their submission to Council as part of the final budget report.

Decision Maker: Lake Administration Committee

Made at meeting: 24/01/2020 - Lake Administration Committee

Decision published: 19/02/2020

Effective from: 24/01/2020

Decision:

The Finance Specialist presented the 2020/21 – 2021/25 Draft Budget which provided Members the opportunity to consider the funding available to deliver Lake services.

 

The Finance Specialist referred to Appendix 1 to the report (Revenue Budget Pressures) which excluded recharges for current and future years, explaining that this was due to the fundamental restructuring of the Council’s staffing as part of the Customer Connect Programme.  It was planned to calculate recharges in Autumn 2020 when the new operating model had been in place for six months. The Finance Specialist also drew Members’ attention to an anomaly in Appendix 1 to the report and, in response to a request, undertook to amend and recirculate the document.

 

RESOLVED – That the latest draft estimates be noted prior to their submission to Council for approval as part of the overall Draft Revenue Budget 2020/21 to 2024/25.

Wards affected: Ambleside & Grasmere; Bowness & Levens; Windermere;

Lead officer: Helen Smith


24/01/2020 - Progress Report ref: 4277    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Lake Administration Committee

Made at meeting: 24/01/2020 - Lake Administration Committee

Decision published: 19/02/2020

Effective from: 24/01/2020


24/01/2020 - Progress Report ref: 4276    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Lake Administration Committee

Made at meeting: 24/01/2020 - Lake Administration Committee

Decision published: 19/02/2020

Effective from: 24/01/2020

Decision:

The Operational Lead Delivery and Commercial Services introduced the progress report, advising Members that meetings of the Windermere Lake Action Steering Group and the Windermere Lake Action Delivery Group had been held late in 2019.    Attached at Appendix 1 to the report were the notes of the Windermere Lake Action Plan Steering Group.  He explained that the Part II Appendix to the report set out progress on actions of the Windermere Lake Action Plan.

 

Note – Members voted to move into Part II in order to discuss Appendix 2 to the report.


24/01/2020 - Update on commercial leases and annual encroachments ref: 4279    Recommendations Approved

update Members about commercial leases and annual encroachments around the Lake and the current position in relation to debt recovery actions.

Decision Maker: Lake Administration Committee

Made at meeting: 24/01/2020 - Lake Administration Committee

Decision published: 19/02/2020

Effective from: 24/01/2020

Wards affected: Ambleside & Grasmere; Bowness & Levens; Windermere;

Lead officer: Linda Fisher, Julia Krier, Josie Smith, Danielle Walls


30/01/2020 - Planning Application SL/2019/0735 - Plot of land adjacent to The Langdales, Levens ref: 4273    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 30/01/2020 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 18/02/2020

Effective from: 30/01/2020

Decision:

Erection of a dwelling including access, design landscaping, layout and scale (revised scheme LS/2018/0938) (Dawn Osliff).

 

Note – Councillor John Holmes said that he had been contacted by the applicant regarding a committee procedural matter. He explained, however, that he was not biased or predetermined and he remained in the Chamber and took part in the discussion and voting on the item.

 

The Planning Officer presented Planning Application No. SL/2019/0735 which sought reserved matters approval for a single dwelling on an unallocated site in the village of Levens. He explained that the principle of residential development of the site had been established by the grant of outline planning permission in 2018 and the reserved matters application included access, design landscaping, layout and scale. The Planning Officer displayed plans and photographs which outlined the proposals. He explained that the site was currently part of the garden of Langdales, the neighbouring property to the north and the adjacent dwelling to the south, Applegarth, was a single storey bungalow. The current application was a resubmission of a previous refusal by delegated powers and since the original application the applicant had made an amendment to the plans to relocate the garage. However, there had been no change to the scale and design. The Planning Officer informed Members that the design was of good quality and would relate well to the existing dwelling, Langdales. He drew Members’ attention to the late representations, which had been circulated prior to the meeting, and he highlighted the applicant’s submission of amended floor plans which demonstrated that the development would comply with Policy DM11, relating to accessible and adaptable homes. The Planning Officer explained to Members that the Parish Council had objected on highway safety grounds, however, the Highway Authority had been satisfied that the proposal provided adequate space for parking and turning and did not have any adverse impact on highway safety. He informed Members that the key reasons for refusal were the impact of the scale; layout; and the relationship with the adjacent dwellings, which would result in a significant overbearing impact on the habitable room windows in the rear elevation of Applegarth.

 

Mr David Parry addressed the Committee in support of the application and enquired if the documents and indicative plans, submitted by the applicant prior to the meeting, had been passed to Members as he wished to refer to these during his address to the Committee. As the documents had not been made available to Members of the Committee, a motion to defer the application was proposed and seconded. In light of the motion to defer the application, Mr David Parry requested permission to proceed with his address to the Committee without the said documents. The proposal to defer the application was therefore withdrawn by Councillor Lancaster who requested that it be noted in the minutes that an offer to defer had been made. Mr David Parry proceeded to address the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Kevin Holmes, Ward Member for Bowness and Levens, addressed the Committee on behalf of Levens Parish Council in opposition to the application.

 

Note – The Committee voted to adjourn for a break at 12.19 p.m. and reconvened at 12.25 p.m. when the same Councillors were present, with the exception of Councillor Anne Hutton.

 

At this point in the proceedings, copies of the documents and indicative plans, submitted by the applicant prior to the meeting, were circulated to Members. The Committee proceeded with the agreement of the meeting to consider these plans.

 

Ms Dawn Osliff, the applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Interim Development Management Team Leader responded to matters raised during public participation and clarified that the grant of outline planning permission did not guarantee that reserved matters permission would be granted. He informed Members that the overbearing impact on Applegarth had been considered and Officers had been unable to support the application for the reasons set out in the report. The Interim Development Management Team Leader referred to planning history of the terrace of four dwellings at Quarry Foot and outlined the differences between the two applications.

 

The Planning Officer and the Interim Development Management Team Leader responded to questions raised by Members. They confirmed that there had been no objections received from neighbouring properties and outlined the requirements for Policy DM11. In response to a question regarding distances between neighbouring property windows, the Interim Development Management Team Leader informed Members that there were no statutory guidelines, however, there were general standards adopted by numerous authorities used to assess the impact of development proposals. In response to a further question, the Interim Development Management Team Leader confirmed that there was no issue with the concept of a building on the site and that it was the size, massing and impact of the proposal which was not acceptable.

 

The recommendation contained within the report to refuse the application was moved and seconded.

 

Members agreed the site visit had been very beneficial and gave consideration to the overbearing and oppressive nature of the proposal on the neighbouring property Applegarth.

 

At this stage in the proceedings, acknowledging the fact that Applegarth had been orientated with windows facing the common boundary and that an application for a terrace of four dwellings had recently been approved, a Member suggested approval of this application. This was not seconded.

 

Deferral was suggested by a Member in order that discussion be facilitated with the applicant.

 

Attention was drawn to the need to take a vote on the motion on the table, which was to refuse the application on the basis of the recommendation set out in the Planning Officer’s report.

 

The motion to refuse the application was put to the vote and lost.

 

A motion to approve the application was proposed and seconded.

 

Members gave consideration to the fact that outline planning permission had been granted and agreed that the neighbouring property Applegarth had historically been constructed at an angle, which was beyond the control of the applicant. Consideration was given to whether the proposal would be substantially overbearing to the neighbouring property Applegarth.

 

The Interim Development Management Team Leader provided guidance and advice to Members that the position and orientation of Applegarth were a matter of fact to be taken into account. Upon discussion, it was proposed that the reason for approval of the application was that the proposed development by reason of its scale, layout and relationship with adjacent dwellings, would not result in a significant overbearing impact on the habitable room windows in the rear elevation of Applegarth, the dwelling to the south.

 

Members gave consideration to the motion to approve the application.

 

The motion to approve the application was put to the vote and lost with the Chair’s casting vote.

 

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 that application and for the resubmission for a more acceptable proposal. 

 

A motion to defer the application was, therefore, proposed and seconded and it was

 

RESOLVED – That a decision on Planning Application SL/2019/0735 be deferred to enable discussion between the applicant and Planning Officers with regard to a more acceptable proposal.


30/01/2020 - Planning Application SL/2018/0715 - Land to the east of Park House Drive, Heversham ref: 4271    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 30/01/2020 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 18/02/2020

Effective from: 30/01/2020

Decision:

Residential development of six dwellings, including two affordable dwellings with parking and amenity space (Cumbria County Council).

 

Note – Councillor John Holmes said that he had been approached (lobbied) by an objector regarding the proposed development. He explained, however, that he was not biased or predetermined and he remained in the Chamber and took part in the discussion and voting on the item.

 

Councillor David Webster declared a pecuniary interest in this item by virtue of the fact his wife was employed by Cumbria County Council and he left the Chamber during the discussion and voting on the item.

 

Councillor Gill Gardner declared a pecuniary interest in this item by virtue of the fact she was employed by Cumbria County Council and she left the Chamber during discussion and voting on the item.

 

Councillor Pete McSweeney declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item by virtue of the fact he was an elected Member of Cumbria County Council. He explained however, that he was not biased or predetermined and remained in the Chamber and took part in the discussion and voting on the item.

 

The Planning Officer presented Planning Application No. SL/2018/0715 which sought outline planning permission, with some matters reserved, for a residential development including associated parking and amenity space. He displayed plans and photographs which outlined the proposals and he explained that site plans were for illustrative purposes and that the outline application before Members was for six houses and the access point. He went on to highlight the topography of the site and he referred to the site visit. The Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the late representations which had been circulated prior to the meeting and which included a number of documents submitted by local residents. He outlined the key issues for consideration which included the landscape impact and whether the application complied with all five criteria of the Development Management Development Plan Document (DMDPD) policy DM13. The Planning Officer stated that the site appeared visually well contained by existing landscape features and did not lead to an unacceptable intrusion into open countryside. In addition a ‘Landscape Strategy Plan’ would reinforce the physical and visual containment of the site with new planting, which would be secured by conditions and a section 106 agreement. The Planning Officer outlined the separation distances from the existing houses on Park House Drive and advised Members that there would be a minimum gap of 22 metres. He explained that representations submitted had highlighted concerns regarding the adequacy of the approach road which included concerns regarding the access and the steepness of Dugg Hill. He informed Members that the County Development Design Guide indicated a road width of 5.5 metres and that the existing carriageway of Dugg Hill was 4.8 metres wide. He explained he had requested comments from the local Highway Authority and that they had raised no objections and had stated that the design guidance set out recommended attributes for roads which allowed for flexibility.

 

The Planning Officer went on to inform Members that a number of representations had been received regarding surface water drainage and flood risk. He explained that the application site was within flood zone 1 and that the surface water flooding experienced at Park House Drive was caused by pooling of water and that the Lead Local Flood Authority had been satisfied that the surface water generated by the proposed development could be dealt with via a sustainable drainage condition.

 

In concluding his presentation the Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the recommendation at page 31 of the agenda pack and highlighted the inclusion of an amendment to the Section 106 agreement which required a plan for the implementation and long-term management and maintenance of a landscaping scheme to the south east boundary.

 

Note - At this point in the proceedings the Chairman introduced Mr John Cummings from the Planning Advisory Service and informed Members that Mr Cummings was observing the Planning Committee meeting.

 

Local residents Diana Jordan, John Owen, Rebecca Batstone and Hilary Robertson addressed the Committee, on behalf of themselves and other local residents, in opposition to the application.

 

Mr Matthew Towers, the Applicant’s Agent, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Planning Officer responded to concerns raised during public participation. He reiterated that he had pressed the Highways Authority and the Local Lead Flood Authority regarding the concerns raised by local residents and both had responded that they were satisfied with the scheme and had raised no objections. He explained that a reference to green belt made by one of the residents was not relevant to this application. He also reiterated the fact that the Neighbourhood Plan supported modest growth in the village and that the recommendation was a balanced one, taking into account all material matters.

 

The Planning Officer responded to questions raised by Members. He stated that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provided guidance regarding flood risk assessments and informed Members that there was generally no requirement for a flood risk assessment for developments of this size in flood zone 1. Existing surface water flooding was an issue, however, the Local Lead Flood Authority had confirmed that they were satisfied with the conditions within the recommendation. The Planning Officer clarified the guidelines regarding the carriageway width and displayed plans which outlined the configuration of the carriageway and footpath and explained that further consideration would be given to these in the reserved matters application. In response to a query regarding the access point to the adjoining field, the Planning Officer informed Members that the applicant had confirmed that the field was currently accessed by a gate at the northern boundary.

 

Note – The Committee voted to adjourn for a break at 11.12 a.m. and reconvened at 11.15 a.m. when the same Councillors were present.

 

In response to a query from a Member as to whether the development was in the open countryside and whether it should be considered as rounding off or infill, the Planning Officer informed Members that the application had been assessed using the relevant criteria as set out in policy DM13 and that the site was not an exception site. Members were advised that it was important that they considered if the application complied with all five criteria of the Development Management Development Plan Document (DMDPD) policy DM13.

 

A motion to approve the application was proposed and seconded and it was

 

RESOLVED – That the application be approved subject to:-

 

(a) a section 106 agreement to secure:

 

      I.        the provision of two affordable dwellings for intermediate housing (discount sale / shared equity or shared ownership);

    II.        a financial contribution of £4,800 towards the improvement of off-site open space, sport and recreation; and

   III.        a plan for the implementation and long-term management and maintenance of a landscaping scheme based upon the principles shown on the approved drawing 1587-1-1 Revision A,  “Landscape Strategy Plan”.

 

(b) and the following conditions:-

 

Condition (1)   The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates:

a)         FIVE YEARS from the date of this permission; or

b)         the expiration of TWO YEARS from the final approval of the reserved matters, or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matters to be approved.

Application for the approval of the reserved matters must be made not later than THREE years from the date of this permission.

 

Reason            To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

Condition (2)   Details of: (i) the access (save for the point of vehicular access from Park House Drive); (ii) appearance; (iii) landscaping (in accordance with the principles established on Landscape Strategy Plan 1587-1-1 Revision A); (iv) layout; and (v) scale (hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

 

Reason            To ensure a satisfactory standard of development on site.

 

Condition (3)   The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

           DGBU405507/02/A, Location Plan

           D241-001, Topographic Survey

           1587-1-1 Revision A, Landscape Strategy Plan (landscaping principles only)

(All other drawings and related information, including drawing DGBU405507/01/B (Proposed Site Layout) and drawing DGBU405507/03 (Proposed Site Section A-A) have been considered as illustrative only, except for establishing the position of the proposed access to the site from Park House Drive).

 

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

 

Broadband

 

Condition (4)   None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be first occupied until connected to the necessary infrastructure to enable access to high speed (superfast) broadband.

 

Reason            To comply with policy DM8 (High Speed Broadband for New Developments) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

Accessible and Adaptable Homes

 

Condition (5)   The dwellings hereby approved shall be constructed to meet the Building Regulations M4(2) standards for accessible and adaptable homes.

 

Reason            To comply with policy DM11 (Accessible and Adaptable Homes) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

Landscape implementation

 

Condition (6)   Matters of landscaping reserved for further approval by condition 2 shall comprise details of both hard and soft landscaping, including the proposals shown on Landscape Strategy Plan 1587-1-1 Revision A.  The hard landscaping details shall comprise: (i) proposed finished levels or contours; (ii) means of enclosure; (iii) finishes for car parking areas, and other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas not proposed for adoption; (iv) incidental structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting, etc.); and (v) an implementation timetable. The soft landscaping scheme shall include details of: (i) existing trees and hedges to be retained; (ii) planting plans; (iii) written specifications and schedules of proposed plants noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities; (iv) an implementation timetable; and (v) (except where addressed by the obligations contained within the section 106 agreement associated with this development) a schedule of landscape maintenance proposals for a period of not less than five years from the date of completion of the scheme. Thereafter, the approved landscaping scheme shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the agreed details and timetables.

 

Reason            To safeguard and enhance the character of the area and secure high quality landscaping in accordance with policies DM1 (General Requirements for all Development), DM2 (Achieving High Quality Sustainable Design) and DM4 (Green and Blue Infrastructure, Open Space, Trees and landscaping) of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

Condition (7)   No development shall commence until those trees and hedges to be retained, as shown in the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment (Arboricultural Impact Assessment for Trees on Land Adjacent to Park House Drive, Heversham, All About Trees, 11th July 2018), have been protected in accordance with an Arboricultural Method Statement that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Thereafter, the agreed protection shall be retained for the duration of the construction works.

 

Reason            To safeguard and enhance the character of the area and secure high quality landscaping in accordance with policies DM1 (General Requirements for all Development), DM2 (Achieving High Quality Sustainable Design) and DM4 (Green and Blue Infrastructure, Open Space, Trees and landscaping) of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

Condition (8)   Those reserved matters listed in condition 2 relating to the design of the proposed houses shall include details of finished floor levels.

 

Reason            To safeguard and enhance the character of the area in accordance with policy DM1 (General Requirements for all Development) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

Residential amenity

 

Condition (9)   Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no fences, gates or walls shall be erected within the curtilage of any dwellinghouse along the common boundary with numbers 4 to 10 Park House Drive, save for the erection and/or repair of any fences, gates or walls approved in compliance with condition 2 and 6. 

 

Reason            To safeguard the amenity of adjoining residential properties in accordance with policy DM1 (General Requirements for all Development) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

Biodiversity

 

Condition (10)Those reserved matters listed in condition 2 relating to the design of the proposed houses and the associated landscaping of the site shall be accompanied by proposals that demonstrate an environmental net gain in biodiversity. In this case that could be achieved by, amongst other possibilities, the incorporation of the bird/insect boxes.

 

Reason            To meet the requirements of policy DM4 (Green and Blue Infrastructure, Open Space, Trees and landscaping) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document and paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Access

 

Condition (11)Matters of access reserved for further approval by condition 2 shall comprise details of the design, construction, drainage and method of lighting for the proposed carriageway, footways, footpaths, cycleways etc. These details must include longitudinal/cross sections and must demonstrate the geometry necessary for vehicles to turn, load and unload in a manner that allows entry to, and exit from, the site in a forward gear. The details also need to accord with the standards laid down in the current Cumbria Development Design Guide, except where those standards are exceeded by the requirements to accommodate the refuse collection vehicles operated by South Lakeland District Council.

 

No individual dwelling hereby approved shall be first occupied until the carriageway, footways, footpaths, cycleways etc. serving it have been completed in accordance with the agreed details.

 

Reason            These details are required to be approved before the commencement of development to ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy DM1 General Requirements for all Development) of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document and Policy CS10.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.

 

Parking

 

Condition (12)Matters of layout reserved for further approval by condition 2 shall include car parking at a ratio to meet the expectations of the Cumbria Development Design Guide, or such other ratio as shall be justified by a bespoke assessment. No individual dwelling shall be first occupied until parking to the agreed ratio has been provided to serve its needs. Thereafter, the approved parking shall be kept available for use at all times.

 

Reason            To ensure that all vehicles can be properly and safely accommodated clear of the highway.

 

Construction

 

Condition (13)No development shall commence until a Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The CMP will include

           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;

           proposed wheel washing facilities;

           measures to control noise and vibration from plant, equipment and development processes– this to include any rock pecking and excavations;

           measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction;

           construction site lighting designed to negate light spillage from the site boundary.

 

Reason            To safeguard future residents and protect amenity of nearby residents from unnecessary noise disturbance.

 

Condition (14)No construction plant and/or machinery shall be operated on the premises before 0800 on weekdays and 0900 on Saturdays, nor after 1800 on weekdays and 1300 on Saturdays, nor at any time on Sundays or recognised public holidays.

 

Reason            To safeguard future residents and protect amenity of nearby residents from unnecessary noise disturbance.

 

Surface water

 

Condition (15)No development shall commence until a surface water drainage scheme, based upon the hierarchy of drainage options listed in policy DM6 of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document, together with an assessment of the site conditions, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The assessment of the site conditions must include an assessment of existing surface water flood risk and any mitigation measures needed to ensure that flood risk is not increased within the site or elsewhere.

The surface water drainage scheme must accord with the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015), or any subsequent replacement national standards.

None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be first occupied until the approved surface water drainage scheme has been completed and made operational.

 

Reason            To promote the use of a sustainable surface water drainage scheme in accordance with policy DM6 (Flood Risk Management and Sustainable Drainage Systems) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

Condition (16)None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be first occupied until a management and maintenance plan for the surface water drainage scheme for the lifetime of the development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. As a minimum the plan shall include:

a.         Arrangements for adoption by an appropriate public body, statutory undertaker, or private management company; and

b.         Arrangements for inspection and ongoing maintenance of all elements of the surface water drainage scheme to secure its effective operation for the lifetime of the development. 

The development shall subsequently be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved management and maintenance plan.

 

Reason            To promote the use of a sustainable surface water drainage scheme in accordance with policy DM6 (Flood Risk Management and Sustainable Drainage Systems) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

Informatives

 

Note (1)           In the exercise of its judgement in determining the appropriate balance of considerations, the Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application proposal, taking into account all material considerations. Material considerations include planning policies and any representations that may have been received preceding the determination to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.  The Local Planning Authority is satisfied that its processes and practices are compatible with the Human Rights Act and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

 

Note (2)           The developer’s attention is drawn to the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the obligations this imposes, separate from the planning process, in respect of protecting wildlife. 


30/01/2020 - Planning Application SL/2019/0745 - Bel Air, Brigsteer Road, Kendal ref: 4272    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 30/01/2020 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 18/02/2020

Effective from: 30/01/2020

Decision:

Change to ground levels to front garden to create a hard standing for parking (part retrospective) (Revised scheme of Planning Application SL/2018/0850) (Ms H Gardner).

 

The Planning Officer presented Planning Application No. SL/2019/0745 which sought permission for a revised scheme of an unauthorised development to create a parking area with store underneath, which had been erected on site without planning permission. She explained that Planning Application No. SL/2018/0850 had sought retrospective planning permission to retain the development, however this had been  refused by virtue of its scale and position, as it created an overly dominant street scene which adversely affected the character and appearance of the area of Kendal and the amenity available at nearby residential properties. The Planning Officer displayed plans and photographs which outlined the application and drew Members’ attention to the late representations which had been circulated prior to the meeting. The late representations detailed further information, provided by the applicant’s agent, on site drainage, the containment of surface water within the parking area and a soakaway at the base of the parking area. The Planning Officer stated that the detail was considered appropriate to control surface water drainage on site. She advised that if Members’ were minded to approve the application and were of the opinion that details of surface water drainage were required prior to first use of the amended development, this could be added to any decision made. The Planning Officer also read out the consultee response from SLDC’s Arboriculture Officer. The Planning Officer informed Members that the key issues applicable to the application were the visual impact on the street scene and character of the locality and the impact upon neighbouring amenity. She reiterated that the current development on site was unauthorised and informed Members that the proposed application sought to reduce the parking area to a level which was no higher that 300mm above the original sloping ground level which would reduce its impact on the neighbouring occupier. The wall enclosing the parking area would be retained and a two metre high fence had been proposed, which would screen the retained side wall, as a benefit to the adjoining neighbour. The Planning Officer also detailed the proposed alterations to the access.

 

Mr Chris Garner, of Garner Planning Associates Ltd, addressed the Committee on behalf of Mrs Rose Brennand resident of Sun Brick, in opposition to the application.

 

Ms Kate Bellwood addressed the Committee on behalf of her client, the applicant, in support of the application.

 

The Interim Development Management Team Leader further outlined the history of both planning applications and explained that the applicant had been under threat of enforcement action, however, as they had been engaged with Development Management, the approach had been to resolve the issue without formal action. The Planning Officer highlighted that, should the application be approved, Condition 1 required the development to be completed within three months from the date of the permission.

 

The Planning Officer and the Interim Development Management Team Leader responded to questions raised by Members and displayed further plans and photographs to clearly outline the proposals.

 

A motion to approve the application was proposed and seconded and it was

 

RESOLVED – That the application be granted subject to the following conditions:-

 

Condition (1)   The development hereby permitted shall be completed within 3 months from the date of this permission.

 

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:

Drawing Title: 'Site Location Plan'

Drawing Number: 501/02 'Proposed Plans & Elevations'

Received by the Local Planning Authority 11/09/2019

 

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

 

Condition (3)   For avoidance of doubt any section of the perimeter wall (not including the front boundary wall) of the parking area which measures over two metres in height shall be reduced to two metres and retained at this height unless otherwise approved by the Local Planning Authority.

 

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

 

Condition (4)   For avoidance of doubt as detailed on Drawing Number 501/02 the proposed parking area shall sit no higher than 300mm above the original ground level.

 

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

 

Condition (5)   Access gates, if provided, shall be hung to open inwards only, away from the highway,

 

Reason            In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy DM1 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document and Policy CS10.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.

 

Condition (6)   The hereby approved parking area shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or otherwise bound, the material must be porous.

 

Reason            In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy DM1 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document and Policy CS10.2 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.

 

P & P Statement

                       

In the exercise of its judgement in determining the appropriate balance of considerations, the Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application proposal, taking into account all material considerations. Material considerations include planning policies and any representations that may have been received preceding the determination to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.  The Local Planning Authority is satisfied that its processes and practices are compatible with the Human Rights Act and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.


30/01/2020 - 2020/21 to 2024/25 Draft Budget ref: 4274    For Determination

To note the draft budget estimates for the financial years 2020/21 to 2024/25 prior to their submission to Council as part of the final budget report.

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 30/01/2020 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 18/02/2020

Effective from: 30/01/2020

Decision:

The Finance Lead Specialist presented the 2020/21 – 2024/25 Draft Budget which provided Members the opportunity to consider the funding available to deliver planning services.

 

The Finance Lead Specialist referred to Appendix 1 which excluded recharges for current and future years and explained that this was due to the fundamental restructuring of the Council’s staffing as part of the Customer Connect Programme.  The salary costs, having previously been charged to the Development Control cost centre, had been charged to departmental budgets. It was planned to calculate recharges in autumn 2020 when the new operating model had been in place for six months.

 

RESOLVED – That the budget draft estimates be noted.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Helen Smith