Four bungalows at Land off Ellerbeck Brow, High, Brigham

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for four bungalows, access from Ellerbeck Brow and associated infrastructure, with most design details reserved for later approval.

“The application seeks outline planning permission for the erection of four bungalows, with access from Ellerbeck Brow, and other associated infrastructure.”

“As the proposal has been submitted in outline, with only the access as a detailed matter, the appearance, scale, layout and landscaping of the proposal would form reserved matters. That said, an indicative site layout plan has been submitted by the applicant to give an indication as to how the site could be developed.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site is agricultural land northeast of Brigham, behind existing homes, mostly outside the settlement boundary, with fields to the north and east.

“The application site relates to a piece of agricultural land immediately to the north east of the village of Brigham, to the rear of existing housing which all either faces or is accessed from Ellerbeck Brow. Other than the site access point, the remainder of the site lies outside of the defined settlement boundary of Brigham, as identified on the Allerdale Local Plan Policies Map.”

“The main part of the site is formed by one roughly rectangular shaped field and a section of another field to the south east, which would provide the site access from Ellerbeck Brow, between existing development. Levels across the site rise from the west and to a lesser extent from the south before falling again to the north and east. A number of trees are located to the site boundaries, along with hedgerow to the north.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to conditions, considering the four homes acceptable despite limited policy weight against development outside the settlement boundary.

“The proposal does not meet the criteria as set out in policy S3 of the ALPP1 for development outside of defined settlement limits. This weighs against the proposal, although the policy conflict can only be attributed limited weight in the absence of a demonstrable 5 year housing land supply, as it forms part of a failing strategy.”

“In terms of benefits, the proposal would provide four new dwellings in a relatively sustainable location, which would make a limited, yet valuable contribution to the Council’s deficit in housing land supply. This should be attributed moderate weight in the planning balance. The proposal would also bring construction and supply chain jobs, places for the economically active to live, increased local spend and greater choice in the local market.”

Officer report

What residents said

Ninety-five neighbour objections raised concerns about highway safety, traffic, flooding, wildlife, rural character, sustainability, previous refusals and harm to residential amenity.

“Highway Safety / Traffic • Site entrance is constrained and close to an existing dwelling • Creating an access on a bend, with a steep hill and narrowing the road will cause safety issues • Parked cars obscure visibility • Ellerbeck Brow and Brigham are used as diversion route when accidents occur on the A66 • Bell mouth junction is not appropriate • Danger to children crossing roads / pedestrians in general / cyclists • Vehicles speed through the area • Forcing no.2 to…”

“Other Issues • Previous refusals being material considerations in the determination of this application • The local plan on building has been met for Brigham with Kirkcross/ St Bridget`s and Butterfields.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, a parish councillor and the agent spoke, respectively, in objection, in objection and in support of the application.

What members discussed

Members discussed housing supply, highway works and the pavement, biodiversity net gain, and the robustness of the highway assessment.

“A Member questioned the 5 year housing supply, if this was Cumberland wide or the former Allerdale area. In response the Senior Planning Officer advised that until a new local plan is adopted the plan used is the former Allerdale area.”

“A Member queried that the developer would take over our highway to build a larger pavement and asked the Highway Officer in attendance if this was unusual. In response the Flood and Development Management – Highway Officer advised Members that it was not unusual for the developer to take over the highway, he advised Members that this application had been looked at rigorously and was very robust.”

Minutes

How members voted

A motion to accept the officer recommendation was not seconded; a refusal motion was then seconded and passed with three votes for, one against and three abstentions.

“A Member moved to accept the Officer’s recommendation, this was not seconded.”

“A vote was taken: 3 voted in favour of refusal, 1 against and 3 abstentions.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application because traffic near Brookside’s private amenity space would cause increased noise, disturbance and possible headlight glare.

“Following further consideration of the application a Member moved to refuse the application due to the detrimental impact on residential amenity. This was seconded.”

“RESOLVED – that the application be refused, due to the use of the proposed access will materially increase traffic movements within close proximity to the private amenity space associated with the dwelling ‘Brookside’, located immediately adjacent to the current agricultural entrance.”

Minutes