Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Mr P Turner and Mr D Wilson.

To note any changes in membership.

There were no changes in membership of the Committee for this meeting.

Mr P McSweeney declared a non-prejudicial interest in Agenda Item No 7 – Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 – Section 53 Application to add a public Right of Way at Arnside Knott in the Parish of Arnside: District of South Lakeland, as the area was in his division and he has had sight of correspondence from some of the local residents to the MP.  However, he confirmed he was not pre-determined in anyway.

RESOLVED,     that the press and public not be excluded during consideration of any items of business.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting held on 1 December 2022 (copy to follow)

RESOLVED,     that, the minutes of the meeting held on 1 December 2022 be agreed with the following amendment:-

On Minute No 80 – Application Reference No 1/21/9007 Section 73 Application to vary Condition 2 of Planning Permission Ref 1/20/9013 ….. in the third paragraph, second last sentence, change the word ‘was’ to ‘to’ so it now reads ‘ He drew members’ attention to the…’.

[Electoral Divisions: Lakes]

To consider a report by the Executive Director – Economy & Infrastucture (copy enclosed)

Members considered a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure, which detailed an application from Mr Carss to correct unit No.CL78 Grasmere Common, Grasmere.

The Application related to a parcel of land around 236.80 square metres in area which formed part of the grass verge adjacent to the stone wall of a property called Howe Top.

The tract of land called Grasmere Common was provisionally registered as common land on 29 May 1968 under Section 4 of the Commons Registration Act 1965, pursuant to application number 220 made on 18 April 1968 by The National Trust.

The provisional registration, being undisputed, became final on 6 April 1972 and the land became register unit CL78 Grasmere Common, Grasmere.

The Applicant claimed that the provisional registration map was correct as it did not include the Application Land and was true to the plan attached to the National Trust Application.  However, the later final register map incorrectly, according to the Applicant, included the Application Land and showed it as forming part of CL78 Grasmere Common.  The Applicant claimed that this was a mistake made by the Registration Authority and requested the removal of the Application Land from the Register of Common Land.

The Commons Officer took members through the report and detailed the objections received during the application process. 

Six objections were received and duly served on the applicant.  Four of the objectors had concerns about possible future plans to build a garage and the detrimental effect this would have on the agricultural landscape, however, the officer concluded that they were not of a relevant nature having regard to the criteria set out in Section 19(2)(a) of the Commons Act 2006.

The remaining two objections came from Mr Craddock on behalf of the Open Spaces Society and Mr Byrne, and these were explained to members.

All objections were forwarded to the Applicant and his representative on the expiry of the notice period.  A reply was received from the Applicant’s representative on 1 March 2021.    The Registration Authority also wrote to Mr Craddock to ask him to provide specific evidence as to which commoners may have relied upon the register of common land and may suffer detriment if the Application Land was removed from the register. 

The Applicant was given an opportunity to make oral or written representations to these objections, and he chose to make a further written representation via his solicitor dated 1 June 2022. 

The Commons Officer detailed the representation to members, and explained she wrote to the Applicant via his solicitor on 28 September 2022 stating that the Council did not consider that Section 19(5) of the Commons Act 2006 applied in this case and invited him to make oral representations, which he did.

The Officer had considered the Application and all available evidence.  On the face of it, there did appear to have been a mistake made by the Registration Authority in including the Application Land as part of Grasmere common on the final register map.  However,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

[Electoral Divisions: Kent Estuary]

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy & Infrastructure (copy enclosed)

Mr P McSweeney declared a non pecuniary interest in this item as the area was in his division and he has had sight of correspondence from some of the local residents to the MP.  However, he confirmed he was not pre-determined in anyway.

Mr Betton arrived at the meeting during consideration of this item but did not vote.

The Committee considered an application which had been received to add a section of public footpath at Arnside Knott in the parish of Arnside. 

Members were presented with the evidence regarding the route and asked for a decision on whether to proceed with the next stage of the process by making a legal order.

The Countryside Access Officer said this application had been received in May 2013 and was accompanied by 10 user evidence forms claiming to have used the route on foot for pleasure for a period of years ranging from 9 to 44(50?). 

Fencing was placed on the claimed path in 2010 and consequently brought the path into question.

The claimed path ran from Queen’s Drive to High Knott Road, Arnside via the site of an old quarry and was surveyed initially in 2013 and more recently in July 2022. 

At the time of the first survey, the route between the lower and upper quarry levels was fenced off and an amount of cut tree limbs prevented access to, or sight of, any desire lines between those two points.  A gap in a chain link fence nearby only gave access to the edge of the quarry and the precipitous cliff face. 

The more recent 2022 survey found that the site was still fenced off and considerably more overgrown.

Eight of the users claimed to have used paths for periods of 20 years or more.  However, those users have not all followed the same path/route.

A letter had been sent out asking the users to clarify which path they had actually used on a blank map but only two maps were returned.  One was from the applicant who depicted a line which was different to the one he had claimed in his user form and also different to the application plan, and the other map returned had no name on or covering letter, so it was impossible to compare with the original route claimed.

In determining these applications the Council’s role was to consider whether or not the available evidence supported the claim made in the application.

In order to negate an application a landowner or objector needed to provide evidence that the claimed route had not been used as a right of way. 

The user evidence produced showed that the claimed section of path had been used by some members of the public on foot for an uninterrupted period in excess of 20 years.  However, not all users had walked the same path.  Guidance suggested that at least 6 people need to have used the same claimed route for 20 years or more.

Apart from the photographs, none of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure (copy enclosed)

The Chair referred to the Update Sheet circulated in advance of the meeting, and reminded members of the need to read this information in advance of any decisions being taken.

The Development Control and Regulation Committee considered a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure which detailed a request to extinguish the unrecorded public footpath that passed over the railway at Bayley/Bailey Lane, Grange Over Sands.

In 2017 Cumbria County Council received a request from Network Rail to divert the unrecorded public footpath that passed over the railway at Bayley/Bailey Lane pedestrian level crossing.  On the 13 August 2019 this Committee approved the making of an order but because of objections, the case was submitted to the Secretary of State for resolution.  A public Inquiry was held over two sessions in November 2021 and January 2022 and the subsequent decision by the Inspector on 5 September 2022 was that the order should not be confirmed. Having considered all the evidence the Inspector did not accept the case for closure of the crossing.  She also recommended some changes to the crossing to improve its overall safety.

Cumbria County Council placed a temporary traffic regulation order at the request of Network Rail on Bailey Lane Level Crossing in 2017, when Network Rail physically closed the crossing because of a near miss incident. The closure has been extended a number of times but would expire on 6 April 2023.

The County Council had now received a request to extinguish the crossing.  Note the previous request was to divert the crossing but the outcome would be the same. Network Rail believed the level crossing was demonstrably unsafe for continued pedestrian user and could not reasonably be made safe.

In the request Network Rail disagreed with the Inspector’s decision not to confirm the diversion order and asserted that as the company had provided a nearby underpass, there was no longer any requirement for the crossing to be re-opened.

Network Rail had said that if the crossing was legally extinguished it would dedicate the underpass as a public right of way and make improvements to the alternative connecting routes.

The Countryside Access Officer took members through the report in detail, highlighting specifically the consultation, and responses received to this, and the County Council’s assessment of the application.

The Countryside Access Officer said whether the crossing should be closed on the grounds that it was in the interests of safety to the public was a complex argument that was very difficult to evaluate.

Nevertheless, an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State, after sitting for seven days at a public inquiry and hearing evidence called by both sides, including the expert witnesses called on behalf of Network Rail to support its case the crossing should not be reopened, refused to confirm an order to divert, effectively close, the crossing and determined that the crossing should be reopened with some recommended improvements.

Network Rail disagreed with the Inspector’s findings and believed the crossing should be closed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

[Electoral Divisions: Yewdale]

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy & Infrastructure (copy enclosed)

Following the reconvening of the committee 4 members had left the meeting.

Members had before them a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructurewhich detailed a Section 73 planning application to planning permission 1/22/9004 extension including internal and external alterations to building to form a sixth form campus for pupils from James Rennie School to amend condition 2 to allow new external fire escape stair, removal of lift shaft projection and alterations to the windows in the previously approved extension.

Planning permission was sought for the erection of a new fire escape and deletion of lift shaft projecting from the roof and alterations to the windows previously approved under planning permission 1/22/9003, which involved internal and external alterations to the building to form a sixth form campus for pupils (aged 16+) from James Rennie School, California Road, Carlisle.  To date this permission had not been implemented, but it would be implemented once this amendment obtained planning permission.

The Planning Officer explained that the reason this required planning permission was because the development had not commenced to convert the church to school accommodation at this current moment in time.  Therefore, the use of the building was still as a church, which did not have any permitted development rights, until such time planning permission 1/22/9003 was implemented.

The officer took members through the report in detail and informed them that there had been no representations or objections made.

Any environmental impacts would be minor during the overall construction activities which would last for a maximum of 6 months.  Once the building was fully operational the only noise impact would be at break time and be people talking to each other externally.

The Planning Officer considered the inclusion of the emergency staircase to be essential to the safety of operations within St Edmunds Church.  The emergency staircase would allow appropriate external emergency access from the first floor. 

The proposed development was in accordance with the development plan, there were no material considerations that indicated the decision should be made otherwise and with the planning conditions proposed, any potential harm would reasonably be mitigated.    

Upon conclusion of the discussions the recommendation was moved and seconded and voted upon.  The vote was unanimous.

RESOLVED,     that planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions set out in Appendix 1 to this report.

[Electoral Divisions: Various]

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure (copy enclosed)

To note that these are applications that have recently been determined by the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure in accordance with the schemes of delegation.

RESOLVED,     that the list of applications determined under delegated powers be noted.

[Electoral Divisions: Various]

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure (copy enclosed)

To note that these applications that have been submitted to the County Council but are not ready/appropriate for presentation to the Committee of for determination under delegated powers and/or have been recently withdrawn or determined as invalid or not requiring planning permission etc.

RESOLVED,     that, the list of applications proposed to be determined under delegated powers be noted.

[Electoral Divisions: Copeland]

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy & Infrastructure (copy enclosed)

This item is just for noting.

The Manager - Development Control and Sustainable Development updated the Committee on the West Cumbria Mine application determined by the Secretary of State for DLUHC, and on the possible grounds for the current Judicial Review submission.

RESOLVED,     that the update was noted.

[Electoral Divisions: Various]

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure (copy enclosed)

To note the Committee’s Forward Plan.

The list of applications to be considered at future meetings was discussed.

RESOLVED,     that the Forward Plan be received and noted.

The next meeting will be held on 28 February 2023 at 10.00am at County Offices, Kendal.

The next meeting of the Committee will be held on 28 February 2023 at 10.00am, County Offices, Kendal.