Four homes at Land adj to Brackenridge, High Hesket, Carlisle

What was proposed

Reserved matters approval was sought for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for four dwellings linked to an appeal-approved outline permission.

“The application seeks reserved matters consent for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, attached to appeal approval APP/H0928/W/21/3283769, LPA ref 21/0189. The details submitted relate to four dwellings.”

“This reserved matters application is for 4 dwellings on the application site and seeks approval of those matters reserved for further approval by the outline planning permission granted under planning appeal reference APP/H0928/W/21/3283769, LPA reference 21/0189. Those matters are (a) access; (b) appearance; (c) landscaping; (d) layout; and (e) scale. Each of these is assessed further in this report.”

Officer report

The site

The 0.3-hectare grassland site lies between the A6 and High Hesket, behind existing homes and near the primary school.

“The application site is a 0.3ha (0.75 acre) area of grassland which lies between the A6 highway and the village of Hesket, which forms part of the Key Hub of High and Low Hesket. The site is located to the rear of existing dwellings lying within the main part of the village of High Hesket and at Doctors’ Lane. High Hesket primary school is located beyond the main part of the development site to the south although adjacent to a proposed footpath.”

“The site is slightly elevated above the A6 with the site topography sloping from the west up to the east, continuing to gently rise up to the rear boundaries of the existing dwellings in High Hesket. The boundaries to dwellings and the school are predominantly timber fencing and stone walls…”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping were acceptable, subject to conditions and compliance with the outline permission.

“It is recommended that reserved matters consent be approved subject to conditions. Conditions attached to the outline consent remain relevant.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways raised no objection, Environmental Health had no objection or comment, while United Utilities considered the drainage proposals unacceptable.

“United Utilities: Not acceptable. In summary: - The drainage proposals are not acceptable with no robust evidence seen that the proposal has thoroughly investigated, and are not in line with, the National Standards for Sustainable drainage systems. - No connections to the public sewer system will be allowed for surface water without robust investigation and demonstration there are no other more sustainable options. It is for the applicants to demonstrate this.”

“Environmental Health: No objection/comment. Having considered the information and plans provided, the proposed layout of the dwellings should meet the requirements of condition 12. Under the terms of condition 12 of the outline permission the applicant will need to provide details which demonstrate the remediation measures they have proposed and outlined in the memo P21- 013-MO2v2 and the email dated 9 October 2025 specifying the details of the acoustic fence and the…”

Officer report

People who spoke

A local resident and a residents’ representative spoke against the application, while the applicant’s planning consultant spoke in support.

Committee discussion

Members discussed waste collection, the application’s timing, traffic concerns and which matters could be reconsidered after the appeal decision.

“Councillor M Eyles queried if the changes to domestic waste collection had been considered as part of the application. The Area Manager responded that they could not confirm if this was the case but that a condition attached to the outline permission required a waste collection and storage scheme to be approved before works could commence.”

“Councillor C Atkinson highlighted that the original outline application had been submitted in 2021 with the Appeal being heard in 2022. Following this a full application had been received in 2024. This meant that local residents had been waiting for over 5 years for a decision and he sought clarity on why this had taken such time and if the standard 3 year limit for development had not expired.”

Minutes

The vote

The recommendation was proposed and seconded, with seven members voting in favour and one against.

“The recommendation were therefore proposed and seconded with 7 in favour and 1 against, and it was;”

Minutes

The decision

Reserved matters consent was approved subject to conditions, including the conditions attached to the outline permission.

“RESOLVED, that the reserved matters consent be approved subject to the following conditions:”

“This decision notice constitutes an approval of matters reserved under Condition 1 of Planning Permission APP/H0928/W/21/3283769, LPA reference…”

Minutes