Five homes at Land Adjacent to Candlewyck, Old Hall Road, Ulverston

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 Land Adjacent to Candlewyck, Ulverston. The application site is located outside (but adjacent to) the Ulverston development boundary and within Flood Zone 1.”

“On this basis, the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework are achieved as the proposed location, land use, and amount of development are acceptable. RECOMMENDATON 2.1 The application is recommended for approval. THE PROPOSAL 3.1 This application seeks ‘Permission in Principle’ for a residential development of 5 dwellings.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no relevant planning history on the site.

“SITE PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 There is no relevant planning history on site. CONSULTATION SUMMARY 6.1 Ulverston Town Council: Objection “Council noted this is situated just off a narrow country lane, popular with walkers and cyclists. It is in open countryside and Councillors said once this green space has been built on, it cannot be replaced. Council agree with the Civic Societies comments and therefore reject the application”.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the site sustainably located, the land use acceptable and up to five dwellings suitable in principle.

“Policy LA1.1 of the Local Plan Land Allocations DPD defines the development boundaries of the larger settlements, including Ulverston. The application site is located outside but immediately adjacent to the development boundary of Ulverston, a Principal Service Centre as set out in Policy CS1.2, and within Flood Zone 1. The site has good vehicular and pedestrian connection to the centre of Ulverston and; therefore, is considered to be sustainably located.”

“The proposed development benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework are achieved. Consequently, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and have regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable…”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The town council objected, while several consultees raised no objection; 33 objections cited countryside, flooding, traffic, access and wildlife concerns.

“The reasons for objection are as follows: - Visual harm, harm to the character of the area, and erosion of the countryside; - Flooding on land nearby; - Increased road traffic; - Accessibility 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 road for…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent spoke in support of the application.

The committee debate

Members discussed the footpath, incremental countryside harm, previous permissions, housing supply, landscape impact and the limits of permission in principle.

“Noting the potential impact of incremental harm members requested clarity on how they should factor this in when considering one permission in principle application at a time. The Senior Planning Officer explained that the proposal should be assessed on its own merits and that due to the undersupply of housing, the application was considered acceptable.”

“Members requested clarity on whether the footpath alongside the site had been viewed by officers. It was noted that as the application was for permission in principle it was not considered as necessary to view the site from the footpath when assessing the principle of development but specific impacts could be considered at the Technical Details Consent stage should members approve the application.”

Minutes

The decision

Permission in principle was approved, with an informative requiring technical details consent within three years.

“A fresh proposal to approve permission in principle, subject to the informative set out in the report was moved and seconded. Members reiterated their wish for any technical details stage application to come back to the Committee for consideration and explained that the lack of a five year housing supply and the support of the National Planning Policy Framework and Local Plan for the application were key in their proposal to approve.”

“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