Up to four homes at Land East of Springfield Road North of Dragley Beck, Ulverston

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because the site was sustainably located, the residential use was acceptable and up to four homes could fit on it.

“The site has good vehicular and pedestrian connection to the centre of Ulverston and, therefore, is considered to be sustainably located. As the site is sustainably located within the development boundary and not affected by significant flood risk, the location of the development is considered acceptable. Land Use 9.18 Policy CS3.1 of the Core Strategy supports small-scale housing developments within Ulverston.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The town council objected, while 61 objections raised concerns about traffic, flooding, wildlife, safety, residential amenity and the area’s character.

“SITE PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 There is no relevant planning history on site. CONSULTATION SUMMARY 6.1 Ulverston Town Council: Objection “Cllr M. Hornby said Springfield Road is already extremely busy with three schools and this proposal would increase traffic and therefore the danger of a potential accident. Cllrs J. Drake and S.A.”

“The reasons for objection are as follows: - Visual harm, harm to the character of the area; - Flooding on land nearby; - Increased road traffic; - Impacts on residential amenity; - Accessibility and safety for pedestrians; - Increased flood risk; - Brownfield development should be preferred; - Potential for use as holiday accommodation; - The need for affordable housing and not larger dwellings; - Harm to wildlife; - Harm to the dark skies; - The suitability of the adjacent…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Senior Planning Specialist presented the application and answered questions, with the Senior Development Manager commenting on future committee involvement.

Members’ debate

Members were concerned about wildlife, flooding and the number of objections, but recognised that permission in principle limited the issues they could decide.

“Members commented on the nature of PIP decisions, noting that the decisions were being taken out of the hands of members and that the application had limited areas for the committee to scrutinise and object to due to the limited scope of PIP decisions.”

“During discussion on the item, members requested that the 61 objections from residents be taken forward should they approve the application. It was noted that members could add an informative to ensure appropriate attention was given to flooding and the wildlife corridor.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to approve, with an informative requiring a wildlife survey focused particularly on bats, was moved and seconded before the vote.

“A motion to approve the application, subject to the addition of an informative requiring a wildlife survey paying particular attention to bats was moved and seconded. It was also restated that members wished to ensure that the 61 objections from residents be applied to any future application.”

“RESOLVED, that Permission in Principle be approved, subject to the following informatives:-”

Minutes

The decision

Permission in principle was approved with informatives requiring technical details consent within three years and information on ecology, biodiversity, flooding and highways.

“(1) This permission in principle (PIP) shall cease to have effect three years after the date of this Decision Notice. The technical details consent (TDC) relating to the proposed development must be granted prior to the expiration of the PIP; and…”

“(2) The technical details consent (TDC) application shall be supported by information demonstrating acceptable impacts on European Protected Species, biodiversity net gain, flood risk, and highways safety.”

Minutes