URL: https://cumberland.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=728

Decision Maker:

Outcome:

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: Proposal: Residential development consisting of 163no.dwellings & associated infrastructure.   The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report which has been subject to a site visit on Monday 12 January 2026.   The Principal Planning Officer drew Members attention to the update report which included further representations and correspondence from the Environment Agency and the Local Flood Authority and amended a paragraph in the agenda report.   Slides were displayed on screen showing; wider location plan, location context plan, location plan, aerial plan, street scene, phasing plan, landscape concept and photographs of the site. An explanation of which was provided for the benefit of Members.   The Principal Planning Officer recommended that the application be refused for the following reasons:   1.    Policy HO2 (Windfall Housing Development) of the Carlisle District Local Plan 2015-2030 seeks to ensure that the scale and design of the proposed development is appropriate to the scale, form, function and character of the existing settlement. The scale of the proposed development would not be appropriate to the scale and character of Houghton. At present the majority of housing in Houghton is located in a linear form and this development would extend the historic core to the east. In addition, the policy seeks to ensure that sites are well contained within existing landscape features, physically connected to and integrate with the settlement, and does not lead to an unacceptable intrusion into the open countryside. The perception of this site is one of open countryside and not well contained or integrated into the village. The proposal would, therefore, be contrary to Criteria 1, and 3 of Policy HO2 (Windfall Housing Development) of the Carlisle District Local Plan 2015-2030. 2.    Criterion 8 of Policy SP2 (Strategic Growth and Distribution) states that within the open countryside development will be assessed against the need to be in the location specified. The applicant has failed to demonstrate an overriding need for the additional housing to be sited in this location.   Representation:   3 objectors spoke on the application.   The Parish Councillor spoke in objection to the application.   The Applicant spoke in support of the application.   Members highlighted that following the site visit carried out on Monday 12 January there was no separate emergency vehicle access, in response the Lead Officer – Flood & Development Management advised Members that the EVA had been designed as part of the single vehicular access, he did mention that this was an unusual arrangement however it had been done before.   Members discussed the 5 year land supply and that 1100 homes per year were to be delivered they questioned how many had been approved within the last financial year. The Policy Officer advised Members that monitoring was ongoing and could provide Members with the figures following the meeting.   Members were informed by the Policy Planning Officer that officers are currently working on an updated 5 year housing ladn supply position statement for Carlisle. Whilst this has not yet been published, work to date is indicating that the Council’s 5 year housing supply position will fall short of the housing requirement for Carlisle. Members were advised that despite this, the Carlisle District Local Plan 2015-2030 continues to be the adopted development plan for the area and polices contained therein should continue to be given appropriate wright in their decision. The likely harm, as detailed in the officer’s report, was considered to be capeable of outweighing other factors even in the event that a 5 year housing land supply cannot be deomnstrated. The Senior Lawyer drew Members attention to the amended paragraph 8.5 as contained in the Update Report.   A Member questioned if the Council had approved a windfall application of this size before, in response the Principal Planning Officer advised Members that there was no parameters in terms of number of houses each site is taken on its own merits.   Following further consideration of the application, a Member moved that the application be refused as per the Officer’s recommendation, this was seconded.   A vote was taken and it was unanimously agreed.   Resolved – That the application be refused.  

Date of Decision: January 14, 2026