5 dwellings at Rockfield Stables, Levens, Kendal

What was proposed

The application sought permission in principle for residential development of five dwellings.

“SUMMARY 1.1 The application seeks permission in principle for 5 dwellings at Rockfield Stables, Levens. The southern part of the site is located within Levens development boundary and the entire site is located within Flood Zone 1.”

“While the proposal is considered to be a departure from Policy CS1.2, LA1.1 and CS5 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy due to the projection beyond the development boundary, the proposed development benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development as the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply.”

Officer report

Public objections

Four objections and two comments raised concerns about countryside development, traffic, flooding, infrastructure, landscape, ecology, pollution, disturbance and residential amenity.

“REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 4 objections, 2 letters of comments have been received as part of the public consultation. A summary of the responses are listed below: - 2/3 of the site is outside of the development boundary for the village; - Conflict with the settlement policy and no justification for the rural area; - Previously/lawful used as stabling and has never been intended for housing; - Existing building could be reused for local business use; - Valued for…”

“, woodlands and wildlife; - Light pollution, noise and disturbance; - Residential amenity impacts. NATIONAL GUIDANCE & RELEVANT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 8.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The ward member, the parish council chair and a member of the public spoke against the application; the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

Members’ discussion

Members noted the site’s greenfield character and reservations, but considered the proposal acceptable in principle with further details to follow.

“Following comments from members that were not directly relevant to the permission in principle application, it was noted that the Technical Details Stage that followed would provide the opportunity to consider the proposal in full with the technical details.”

“Members noted their reservations over the application but also felt that in principle, the proposal was acceptable. It was felt that following submission of further details at the technical details stage, the Council would be able make an informed decision on the merits of the detailed proposal.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to approve permission in principle was moved and seconded, followed by a vote.

“A motion to approve permission in principle was moved and seconded.”

Minutes

The decision

Permission in principle was granted with a three-year expiry, a bat-survey informative and a requirement for a northern landscape buffer at the technical details stage.

“RESOLVED, that permission in principle be granted and that the following informatives be included on the decision notice:-”

“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.”

Minutes