Decision details

2/2018/0495 - Full planning permission for the erection of eleven dwellings, with details of access and associated works, Land south of Abbey Court, High Harrington, Workington

Decision Maker: Development Panel

Decision status: Refused

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No




Mr Ray Dodd and Mr Dean Foster spoke against the application


Councillor Hilary Harrington spoke against the application


The Agent David Staniland spoke in support of the application




The report recommended refusal.


The Planning Officer introduced the item and, referring to the officer’s report, reiterated that the application sought full planning permission for the erection of eleven dwellings with offered as affordable.


He confirmed that members had visited the site in the morning asessing the experience from the public rights of way and any impact on the adjoining, existing dwellings. The site comprised of undeveloped land to the rear of the existing residential development of Little Croft and Abbey Court. It was uneven but largely level with a significant drop to the rear. There was a watercourse and wooded area below, some 30 metres to the south.


The planning officer described the planning history with two previous outline applications refused for 4 dwellings in 1998 and 2014. He confirmed the officer’s opinion that the site was considered generally sustainable in terms of location on the edge of a Principal Centre with a range of services and facilities nearby. However, it was considered that the development introduced an uncharacteristic linear pattern of development out of keeping with the area.


It had been rejected at an early stage as a housing site allocation for Part 2 of the Plan. This was due to the planning history of refusals, the constraints of the site and the impacts that the development would bring.


In short the proposals were considered to constitute unacceptable ‘backland development’. The impacts from the development were considered by officers to outweigh any benefits from the provision of housing and therefore the ‘tilted balance’ falls towards a recommended refusal.


The Planning Officer continued by confirming that the Town Council recommended refusal and there had been 14 letters of objection.

The late list showed the applicant had challenged the reasons for refusal with specific evidence regarding traffic movements and impact upon residential amenity. Officers did not consider this changed the assessment of the proposal; members were able to assess the relationship of the existing dwellings to the site access that morning and, whilst a matter for consideration, members could consider the amenity issue in the round and not purely based on the applicant’s analysis.


Members noted the representations received in respect of the application, the main grounds of which were set out in the report.


Questions were asked of the speakers and the officers and debate followed relating to access, traffic, and the PROW/Footpath.


Councillor Miskelly moved to refuse the application as per officers recommendation.


The motion was seconded by Councillor Munby.


A vote was taken on the motion to refuse, 11 voted in favour of the motion, 0 voted against and 0 abstentions. The vote to refuse was unanimous.


The motion was carried.




Refused as per officers recommendations







Report author: Shona Reid

Publication date: 06/02/2019

Date of decision: 05/02/2019

Decided at meeting: 05/02/2019 - Development Panel

Accompanying Documents: