2005/1438 / Bridgewater Developments Ltd / 26/08/2005
WARD/PARISH: / CASE OFFICER: / STATUTORY DATE:
Ormsgill / Jason Hipkiss
01229 894764 / 19/10/2005
LOCATION:
Former Yard and Garage at,Elm Road,Barrow-in-Furness
PROPOSAL:Erection of 15 terraced and 2 semi detached dwellings
LOCAL PLAN:
POLICY B2
Applications for residential development on unallocated sites will be permitted where they satisfy the following criteria:
i)The site is located within the built up area of existing settlements or the development cordons identified in Policy B11; and
ii)The development will not result in loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land; and
iii)The siting, layout and design (in the materials and form of the buildings) of the development is sensitive to the local environment and adequate parking provision is made; and
iv)Adequate service and access arrangements can be provided, including servicing of the site by the public transport network and by cycle routes; and
v)The development of the site will not result in the loss of open areas which are important to the character and appearance of housing areas or settlements, or that are used as amenity areas by the public; and
vi)The development is laid out in a way that maximises energy efficiency; and
vii)The development will not result in the loss of land which has nature conservation interest; and
viii)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.
POLICY B3
For unallocated sites the Authority will expect a density of 30 dwellings per hectare though lower densities will be accepted where this is in the interest of the economic regeneration of the area. However, within the area covered by Central Barrow Inset and Dalton Conservation Area, fairly high overall net development densities (around 70 dwellings per hectare) will be favoured on residential sites, consistent with primarily two or three storey development and good standards of amenity.
POLICY B4
Within the urban boundaries of Barrow and Dalton applications for new dwellings or conversions of existing buildings on suitable 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.
Highways proposed in housing developments must be designed and constructed to adoptable standards
POLICY B2 – Housing Chapter Review
Applications for residential development on unallocated brownfield sites will be permitted where they 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, layout and design (in the materials and form of the buildings) of the development is sensitive to the local environment and adequate parking provision is made; and
iii)Adequate service and access arrangements can be provided, including servicing of the site by the public transport network 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
SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:A previously developed urban location that, in principle, accords with national guidance and local planning policies that encourage sustainable development by maximising brownfield sites. Parking provision has been revised to ensure compliance with County standards.
NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Loss of views
REPRESENTATIONS:
The Occupiers of 52-64 (evens) Laburnum Crescent, 1-48 Maple Street, 4, 5, 7, Elm Road, 1-44 Beech Street, 1-8 Cedar Road, 1-16, 20-40 (evens) Lime Street, BarrowBoroughCemetery, Devonshire Road, Barrow in Furness all informed.
The Occupiers, 41 Beech Street, Barrow in Furness
“We are writing with some concern about the proposal, more so as for the parking,
Beech Street is bad enough at the moment, trying to park outside our own house is like a lottery, how on earth is there going to be enough space for more cars to park in Elm Road, given that each new owner of these houses will bring with it a car or two”.
The Occupier, 5 Lime Street
“I have a couple of comments about the above planning application:
- The safe and correct removal of the asbestos roofing on the current garages.
- With the loss of the garages, there will be more cars parked on the adjacent roads and extra houses will mean even more cars. This, inconjunction with the number of children in the area and the number of vehicles driving irresponsibly in the area could lead to traffic accidents. Therefore I would like to see traffic calming introduced onto the following streets, Cedar Road, Pine Road, Willow Road, Alder Road, Lime Street, Beech Street, Maple Street, Sycamore Grove, Laburnum Crescent, Elm Road and Oak Road”.
The Occupier, 2 Cedar Road, Barrow in Furness
“We welcome the proposed development of Elm Road.
As we are the only property adjoining the development I wish to point out that there is a window on the side elevation which can be fully opened and look into my property. I think the design of the window could be changed and frosted glass put in the window so it does not invade my privacy.
There should be a boundary wall between Cedar Road and Elm Road. It should be of brick construction and be 2 metres high. If the proposed development goes ahead when the garages are demolished it will reveal part of my garage extension not pebble dashed because of the closeness of the garages. I wish this to be made good”.
The Occupier, 5 Cedar Road, Barrow in Furness
“I refer to your letter dated 7th September 2005 in connection with the development of land situated off Elm Road Barrow in Furness. I called into the Town Hall recently to inspect the plans and have the followingcomments/objections to make regarding the proposed housing development: -
- The development includes for the provision of a garage, presumably for each individual unit. At present vehicles park adjacent to the gable ends of Lime Street, Beech Street and Maple Street. Will vehicles be able to exit the garages when a vehicle is parked opposite ? If they cannot, where will they park'? If they park on the road outside the new houses, it will seriously hamper traffic movement along Elm Road, especially onerous for emergency vehicles.
- With three storey units, the new buildings will seriously hinder light to existing housing.
- Parking in the area is generally at saturation point and a further seventeen three bedroomed dwellings, with the possibility of more than one car per property will add to the difficulty of parking for the existing residents in the neighbouring streets.
- The parking problem could be exacerbated further by the demolition of the existing 28 garages. Where will the vehicles stored in these garages be parked in future?
- Again seventeen three bedroomed houses will attract families with children. Is a play area proposed, as at the present time the smaller children have no alternative but to play on the street
I trust you will consider the points I have raised, when making your recommendations to the Planning Committee”.
Forresters Solicitors
“We represent The Occupier of 48 Maple Street, Barrow-in-Furness, LA14 5DY.
She wishes to object to the proposal to erect 15 terraced houses and two semi-detached dwellings on this site.
She understands that the houses are to be three storeys high and she is most concerned that the light to her property will be affected and that her bedroom, in particular, will be overlooked.
There are also concerns about the extra number of cars which will materialise as a consequence of this development. Some 24 garages are to be demolished, which must inevitably mean that the vehicles from these properties will be driven on to the street. The addition of a 17-home estate could well add a further 34 vehicles to be accommodated, some of which will no doubt be parked on the street, since most families have two cars nowadays and the garage will accommodate one.
Our client believes the proposal constitutes an over-intensive use of the site and that the proposed development will not be in keeping with the character of the existing properties. She suggests that a two storey development with off set drives enabling the cars to park on their drives would be more appropriate for the site and its surroundings.
Finally, our client is concerned by the proposal to build an alley up against the boundary wall on the Maple Street end of the development. She makes the point that there will be very little natural light in this alley and suggests that it is an undesirable feature of the proposed development. In her view, if the matter is to proceed, at the very least a gate and extensive lighting should be provided to discourage undesirables from loitering in is vicinity.
The Occupier asked you to reject the current plans and to request the developer to resubmit with a lower, less intrusive development where the proposal for car parking have been properly thought through”.
The Occupiers, 60 Laburnum Crescent, Barrow in Furness
“I am writing to you with regards to the above planning application and have some concerns and objections for the proposals of the site. The streets around the mentioned area are already congested and problematic for car parking. I feel that any further dwellings in this area will only further exacerbate an already over crowded situation, especially giving to the fact that to accommodate the houses garages are to be removed. I also have issue with the increased traffic to the area, which is difficult at present and potentially could increase significantly. I feel that any additional dwellings will only pose a further risk to the existing residents in this area and compromise our well being especially in emergency situations when vital services need to access the area. I would like to know how the removal of asbestos will be undertaken and how this will effect people living in the area. I would appreciate being giving details of when the meeting will be taking place as I would like to attend and address these issues to the committee”.
The Occupier, 4 Elm Road, Barrow in Furness
“I wish to strongly object to the proposed erection of 17 houses an the above mentioned site as three storey houses right opposite my house, and in such close proximity, would totally block what little natural daylight my property gets. I would be overlooked straight into my living room. The huge number of houses an such a small site also worries me.
I am also concerned about all the extra traffic which would be generated by so many new properties. I understand that each house has its own garage but when any of my family park outside my house, access to those garages would be denied. Also most people tend to use their garages for storage and leave their cars an the street, which would create an even bigger problem than we already have with parking in the area. Access for emergency vehicles could also be a problem as large vehicles already have difficulty negotiating the tight turns onto Elm Road from Maple Street, Beech Street and Lime Street.
If the proposed properties were not so intensive, two storey and set further back with off street parking facilities they would be much better”.
The Occupier, 46 Maple Street
“I wish to object to the proposed erection of 17 houses on the above mentioned site on the grounds of increased traffic volume. The potential for up to 40 extra cars, on the streets in this area, where there are already parking issues, would cause serious problems for existing householders and an added danger to the children who play on the streets. I am also worried that with all the extra cars on the streets access for emergency vehicles would be restricted as the turnings at top of Maple Street, Beech Street and Lime Road, all of which adjoin Elm Road, are already tight for large vehicles. Also I am not happy that the houses proposed are three storey and are so close to Elm Road which, I feel, will block a lot of natural light from my property.”
The Occupier, 17 Beech Street
“Following recent reports of a proposed housing development on Elm Road, I am writing to express some concern about the number of proposed dwellings and the possible impact on the surrounding area, with particular concern for the volume of traffic and the problems with regard to parking facilities. I do realise that people need to be housed and such projects are to be applauded in suitable areas. As you can see, I live in Beech Street, and at present it is quite possible to experience difficulties in parking within the vicinity of one’s house. I do worry what could happen should there be a high percentage of cars owned by prospective house buyers, and can foresee major problems for the people of Elm Road, with a knock on effect for the people of Beech, Lindal, Lime & Maple Streets possible even onto Cedar Road.
I hope that the proposed scheme has considered the problem of parking in what can be a quite congested area.”
The Occupier, 40 Maple Street
“We strongly object to the building of flats or any other construction across the top end of Maple Street and Beech Street for the following reasons:
a)The whole area is now congested with vehicles, some causing obstruction, to add more to the population in this region is sheer madness.
b)Also the peaceful view overlooking the cemetery would be taken away and as we have a child at rest there we would find this rather distressing if this was taken away.
There are plenty of open spaces in Barrow why crowd people into an already heavily populated area.”
The Occupier, 48 Maple Street, Barrow in Furness
“I apologise that I am unable to attend the meeting on 08/11/05 because of work commitments. Following on from the report and revised plans I would like to add the following comments.
I note from the Planning Officer's report that he assumes the houses opposite the development have only non-habitable rooms facing the new houses. This is NOT the case as the existing house's living accommodation main window is directly opposite the new houses, and as such will lose almost all their natural daylight and be overlooked.
Also I am concerned as to what exactly the Maple Street end of the development will be as the Planning Officer's report says that the original alleyway is no longer on the plans. Will the space between the developer's land and my property, which adjoins it, be closed off altogether to stop youths congregating (as I am sure they will if this piece of land were to be left accessible).
I note that on the revised plans there is to be a new pavement outside the existing houses. This will make an already narrow road even narrower and, with the increase in the volume of traffic that these houses are bound to produce, more dangerous.
Finally, the Planning Officer's report states that there are to be no provision for children as the Schneider Road playing fields are a short distance away and whilst this is true Schneider Road is a very busy road and most parents will not allow their children to cross it to get to the playing fields which are only used occasionally for football and never just by children playing. This leaves children of all ages playing in and around the streets which can already cause problems of noise and nuisance with footballs etc and with more children than ever (the new houses are family houses) this problem will only get worse”.
CONSULTATIONS:Cumbria Highways – 12th September 2005
“Unfortunately, I am unable to support the application on highways safety grounds, mainly due to the lack of forward visibility at Lime Street, Beech Street and Maple Street. The minimum requirement would be 25 metres and this is not achievable due to the terraced nature of the properties.
The application also does not provide adequate off street parking. One space per dwelling is insufficient in this location and will clearly result in unacceptable on-street levels. Due to the nature and number of vehicle crossing points required, the footway would undoubtedly act as a parking area for vehicles, the footway effectively having to be lowered along its full length to permit vehicle access.