2006/0038 / Neil Price Ltd / 12/01/2006
WARD/PARISH: / CASE OFFICER: / STATUTORY DATE:
Walney North / Leanne Largue
01229 894712 / 08/03/2006
LOCATION:
Longlands, Mill Lane, Barrow-in-Furness
PROPOSAL:Erection of a detached bungalow inluding provision of Klargester Biodisc sewage system for both proposed dwelling and Longlands Cottage (resubmission of application 2005/1536 in a revised form)
LOCAL PLAN:
POLICY F4
New development will be permitted if foul sewers and sewage treatment works of adequate capacity and design are available or will be provided in time to serve the development. The proliferation of small private package sewage treatment plants and other types of discharge direct to watercourses within sewered areas will not be allowed. The use of septic tanks will, in consideration with the Environment Agency, only be considered if connection to the mains sewerage is not feasible and only then if ground conditions are satisfactory and the plot of land is of sufficient size to provide an adequate subsoil drainage system.
Housing Chapter Review January 2006
POLICY B2
Applications for residential development on unallocated sites will be permitted where they accord with the sequential approach of the Structure Plan and also satisfy the following criteria:
i) The site is located within the built up area of existing settlements or the development cordons identified in Policy B12; and
ii) The siting, scale, layout and design (in the materials and form of the buildings) of the development is sensitive to the local environment, it promotes the principles of ‘Secure by Design’ and adequate parking provision is made; and
iii) Adequate access arrangements can be provided, including servicing the site by the public transport and by cycle routes; and
iv) The development is laid out in a way that maximises energy efficiency; and
v) The development will not result in the loss of land which has a recognised or established nature conservation interest; and
vi) The development must not cause an undue increase in traffic passing through existing residential areas such as to be detrimental to residential amenity or highway safety; and
vii) Adequate water supplies, foul and surface water sewers and sewerage treatment facilities exist or can be provided; and
viii) 'A risk-based approach will be adopted for development in or affecting flood risk areas to minimise the risk of flooding associated with the site and the potential effect development of the site might have elsewhere through increased run off or a reduction in the capacity of flood plains. This shall be in accordance with the sequential characterisation of flood risk set out in Table 1 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 25 'Development and Flood Risk;' and
ix Where contamination is suspected, a desk study is undertaken and if necessary a site investigation is undertaken and remediation strategy submitted.
POLICY B3
For allocated and unallocated sites the Authority will expect a density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare with higher densities sought in accessible locations and/or where consistant with good urban design principles.
Affordable Housing
POLICY B4
Within the urban boundaries of Barrow and Dalton applications for new dwellings or conversions of existing buildings on suitable brownfield sites in residential areas or on the peripheries thereof will be permitted provided the design, siting, layout and access arrangements are satisfactory. This means that the development must also satisfy the criteria of Policy B2. This Policy will also apply to land currently or last used for employment purposes or with planning permission for employment use where the proposal involves the provision of housing for which a specific need has been identified and where the location is considered suitable by the Authority, or such housing is mixed with employment uses, or the existing use is an un-neighbourly or non-conforming one by reason of excessive traffic generation, noise or disturbance to local amenity.
Subdivision and Backland Development
SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:
The scheme presents an opportunity to improve the standard of sewage treatment for Longlands Cottage this mitigates the affect on a non-mains drainage solution of the proposed dwelling.
NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
REPRESENTATIONS:
Occupiers of 1-5 Saunders Close, Longlands Cottage, Longlands House, Mill Street, 31 Promenade, Barrow. All informed. No representations received.
Supporting Statement – Jim Baird, Neil Price Ltd. – (Dated 01/03/06)
“Further to our telephone conversation today following the referral of Longlands application please find enclose a response from Unite Utilities – the foul drains from the Saunders Close dwellings are contained within their gardens and therefore not available for adopted connection from Longlands – the drain shown on the plan looked at by the members is a surface water drain.
Unite Utilities
“Jim, just to confirm our earlier telephone conversation, there are no foul public sewers in Saunders Close. The only foul sewer in the general vicinity of your site is in the verge of Mill Lane outside the Adult Training Centre.
Supporting Statement – Jim Baird, Neil Price Ltd. – (Dated 07/03/06)
“As per our telephone conversation today and a subsequent discussion with Neil price , he will install a klargester type BB bio disc sewage treatment plant which would serve up to 12 people or 3 households (Klargester work on 1 person per bedroom) - therefore since there would be a total of 10 bedrooms should the bungalow be approved shared between the 3 properties a type BB would suffice. A connection will also be provided to the boundary of Longlands House, should in the future that particular building want to connect to the sewage works. But be aware that Neil Price cannot himself form this possible future connection for legal and liability reasons. It would be the responsibility of the owner of Longlands House and the other properties to reach legal agreement covering liability and maintenance.
CONSULTATIONS:Cumbria Highways
“I have no objections to the proposal and would re-iterate the comments made in my earlier response, that ideally, the property should benefit from a turning area within its own curtilage and that the front boundary should be kept to 0.9m high.
In addition, I would ask, in the interests of accessibility and convenience that the applicant makes up the verge area to a footway on the Mill Lane boundary (approximately 9m). This will provide a continuous pedestrian link from the fire station down to the promenade.”
Environment Agency
“The Agency has considered the proposal and wishes to comment as follows:
The Agency has received interim correspondence from the applicant, please see enclosed copy letter, in which they submitted details of the proposed discharge and stated the impracticality of discharge to the public sewer. These details have now received the approval of the Agency.”
Copy letter to Mr. J. Baird from the Environment Agency
“Thank you for submitting details on the proposed discharge of septic tank to land via a septic tank to soakaway at NGR SD 18202 69412. Under the provisions of the above legislation you do not automatically require the formal consent of the Agency for this category of discharge. However, if it is necessary the Agency can exercise control over the discharge or allow it subject to conditions.
The Agency has assessed the potential impact of the proposed discharge and provided the proposal remains in accordance with the details you have submitted and the soakaway system complies with the requirements of the Building Regulations 2000 Section H2 it should not pose a risk of contamination to underground or surface waters. It is therefore not our intention to serve a Prohibition Notice in respect of this discharge at this stage. However, if the circumstances change and pollution is caused a Prohibition Notice may be served in the future.
If the above proposal is connected with any planning permission please inform your local planning authority and building control department of our decision.”
United Utilities – 18 January 2006
“I have no objection to the proposal.”
Estates and Development Manager – No response received.
OFFICERS REPORT:The application was deferred from the previous committee meeting of 21st March 2006 as members were minded to refuse the scheme. The original report is attached below, following a draft reason for refusal based upon the views expressed at the meeting:
The Council has operated a long standing policy of resisting non-mains sewage systems within the urban area. Approval of the proposal would run contrary to this stance and could result in the proliferation of non-mains sewage solutions to the detriment of the urban area.
Members may also wish to make reference to Circular 03/99 which states the following:
“If by taking into account the cost and/or practicability, it can be shown to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that connection to a public sewer is not feasible, a package sewage treatment plant incorporating a combination of treatment processes should be considered.”
I have asked the applicant to submit details of the costing of the scheme to ascertain whether connection to a public sewer is feasible in economic terms.
A further consideration should be whether a more intensive use of the site, where mains connection would be feasible, would be acceptable or whether a low density development, which relies on a private treatment package would be the preferred option.
My original report follows on:
The application was reported to the committee on 28th February for member’s consideration. The application was subsequently deferred to the following meeting as it was felt that further clarification was required regarding the position of the mains sewers. Members asked the applicant to investigate the possibility of connection to what appeared to be a public foul sewer in Saunders Close.
United Utilities have clarified that the drain along Saunders Close, shown on the United Utilities map, is a surface water sewer. The nearest foul sewer and possible connection point is therefore the one considered previously on Mill Lane, as shown in Appendix A. The distance from the
proposed dwelling to the highway is approximately 70 metres. A further 80 metres of drainage would be required along Mill Lane to the connection point. The foul sewers serving properties in Sanders Close are located in the gardens of the properties such as these with no right of connection. There are no other sewers in this section of Mill Lane.
With this in mind, members are asked to reconsider the previous report which is below for your reference:
The application site is an area of land within the curtilage of Longlands, Mill Lane. Members will be aware of the previous application for the erection of a detached bungalow on the site (2005/1536) which was considered by committee in November 2005, a copy of the report is enclosed as Appendix B for your reference.
The application today is a resubmission of application 2005/1536 in a revised form. The application is for the erection of a detached bungalow, however it now includes the provision of a Klargester Biodisk Sewage System for both the proposed dwelling and Longlands Cottage.
A representation has been received from a member of the public which raises two main issues. Firstly, there is concern regarding the impact upon a number of mature trees on the site. Secondly, there is concern that the scheme would set a precedent for further development within the green wedge.
With regards to the trees, none would be lost as a result of the application. However low growing branches over the access drive could be damaged by construction vehicles. A scheme of tree management to be implemented prior to any development could deal with this issue. A further condition requiring a scheme of landscaping along the boundary to the north-east will ensure that the development is well screened from the Promenade and views across Walney channel.
I believe the second issue regarding with principle of development was resolved in my previous report to committee, which stated the following:
The site is included within a wider area of land between Vickerstown and North Scale that is allocated as green wedge by policy D4. This policy seeks to protect important green spaces within the urban area from inappropriate development, although it does make reference to the need to consider brownfield opportunities rather than prevent all forms of development.
As you are aware, there is some planning history linked to the site. In 2004, an application was refused by committee for the erection of 25 dwellings (2003/1235). The subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Inspector, who considered, amongst other issues, the following:
“The proposal would represent a considerable increase in scale over that of the existing buildings. The replacement and sub-division of the open area with dwellings, boundary treatments, hard surfacing and roads would detract from the spaciousness of the site, leading to an increase in the built up frontage along this section of Mill Lane. The scale and form of the proposed development would destroy the largely open character of the appeal site and would seriously undermine its contribution to providing urban space and visual relief”
From the inspectors report it would appear that the scale and layout of the development, with several houses proposed adjacent to the highway, were the main reasons for refusal as it was felt that the proposal would be detrimental to the character of the green wedge. Whilst the issues are finely balanced, I believe that a much smaller development, such as the one proposed, may be acceptable for the following reasons. The site cannot be used as a setting for recreation, therefore the only issue appears to be the impact upon visual relief. I believe this will be minimal, as views to the community woodland at the rear are limited from this point. The dwelling has been positioned close to existing buildings in an attempt to retain the open aspect of the site and ensure the dwelling does not appear as an isolated development.