Local Development Framework Consultation

Housing - Housing Optional Technical Standards

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Housing - Self-Build and Custom Build Housing

Q8. I believe the best option is Option 3.I believe the council should follow the lead of the Vanguard councils such as Cambridge by ensuring that a percentage of all building land is allocated for self-build. There should be more emphasis in granting building permission to developers to ensure that housing allows for those people who are looking to build first houses or down sizing from large houses to bungalows (which would have to be self-build as developers no longer build bungalows.)
Q9. This is supported by the number of people who are members of South Lakeland Self Build group who do not wish to build 5 bedroomed double garaged detached houses, but sensible affordable property in which to start families or to retire in.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Dear Sirs,
We monitor the emerging Development Plans on behalf of our client Essar Oil (UK) Ltd which operates the North West Ethylene Pipeline (NWEP). Whilst we would not have any specific comment to make on the current Public Consultation, we would like to take the opportunity to remind the Council of the need to take the MAH Pipeline into account when making Development Management decisions and this may be relevant to the drafting of policies.

If you have any concerns that your records are not up to date in respect of the NWEP, please let me know and I can arrange for maps to be forwarded to you.

Yours faithfully
Catherine Newton
BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI

Housing - Rural Housing - Exceptions Sites and Infilling & Rounding Off

Representation on behalf of Holker Group
Consultation Questions – Rural Exceptions Sites and Infilling & Rounding Off

10. For each sub-topic, which option do you think is appropriate?

No comment on Rural Exception Policy.

Infilling and Rounding off in Small Villages and Hamlets

Option 2 Adopt a new policy but simply amend the definition of infilling and rounding off.

11. For each sub-topic, if these matters are progressed in accordance with Option 2, comments are invited on the possible changes suggested, the nature and level of evidence required and whether these matters may be better reviewed in the forthcoming single Local Plan review from 2017

Infilling and Rounding off in Small Villages and Hamlets

The Core Strategy intention is that 11% of 8,800 dwellings (i.e. 968 dwellings) are to be completed in the District’s small villages and hamlets in the period 2003/04 to 2024/25. In the period 2003/04 to 2014/15 just 347 dwellings were completed. To be on target 528 dwellings should have been completed, so completions are just 65% of the target.

In addition to the 347 dwellings completed in the rural areas there are a further 228 dwellings with planning permission. So assuming all the outstanding planning permissions become completions before the end of the plan period there is a need to grant planning permission for at least 393 dwellings (968 – (347+228)), allowing, unrealistically, for no slippage i.e. consents granted but not fully implemented.

The implications of the Community Infrastructure Levy, for small site delivery, is not yet known. As is indicated below the 35% affordable housing policy has been a brake on housing delivery. The combination of the two costs to development is unlikely to improve delivery.

In order to address the under-performance in housing completions and encourage more sites to come forward, the following amendments to policy are suggested:-
1. The definition of “infilling” relates to a “vacant plot”. This is open to differing interpretations by planning officers – either a plot for one dwelling or a plot to accommodate several dwellings. It is suggested the definition is changed to ”the filling, or partial filling, of a gap in an otherwise built-up frontage”.

2. The definition of “rounding off” is currently very restrictive. It includes “the completion of an incomplete group of buildings on land which is already partially developed”. Clearly there is a deliberate distinction drawn here between partially developed and previously developed, with the latter having a clear NPPF definition. The reference to partially developed therefore allows the development of residential gardens, agricultural buildings, recreation grounds etc. Nevertheless for the most part, partially developed land will in fact be previously developed land. As there is little or no industrial legacy around small villages and hamlets, the reference to partially developed land is extremely restrictive and has meant very few rounding off sites have been granted planning permission or completed since the introduction of the infilling and rounding off policy in October 2010. A review of the 2015 Housing Land Position Report indicates that no site has been granted permission and is under construction based on the “rounding off” policy definition. The only rounding off consent is at Greenside Farm (SL/2013/0594) and this consent was granted contrary to the planning officer’s recommendation because it was not considered to be neither infilling and rounding off. The definition needs to change to allow rounding off opportunities to come forward. The new definition should be:- “the expansion of small villages and hamlets to an existing logical physical feature, such as walls, hedgerows, trees, or existing built development.”
There is no need to refer to “small-scale” in the rounding off definition as this is already within the CS1.2 policy.

3. Affordable housing requirements of 35% relate to any development of 3 dwellings or more. Again by reference to the 2015 Housing Land Monitoring Report that not one affordable dwelling has been delivered within small villages and hamlets on a planning permission granted since the introduction of this requirement in October 2010. For the most part housing schemes have been limited to 1 or 2 dwellings. The only small village or hamlet scheme with planning permission and includes an affordable housing element is the aforementioned Greenside Farm site. For this site the on-site provision has been reduced because of a lack of need in the local area. The affordable housing threshold needs to change from 3 or more to more than 10 dwellings to encourage more housing delivery in the small villages and hamlets and reach the targets envisaged by the Core Strategy for this category of settlement.


12. If you think a ‘small village or hamlet’ should be more closely defined, what do you think the definition should be?

There is no need to specifically define a small village or hamlet. Appeal decisions at Goadsbarrow (SL/2011/0490) and (SL/2012/0295) that settlements of 8 and 9 dwellings respectively constitute a hamlet. Inspectors may take the same view of a lower number of dwellings. Any more restricted definition than 8 dwellings would impact on the delivery of housing from this category of settlement.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

General Requirements for all Development

Policy S12 Crime and Design

The Constabulary seeks Council support in encouraging developers to consult with the Crime Prevention Design Advisor at the earliest possible stage and certainly prior to application. The intention is to address potential vulnerability in the layout of proposed development, thereby avoiding costly or wasteful delays in the planning process.

The elements of location, layout, landscaping and lighting must each be considered as part of the design of new development and these form part of the approach of the Secured by Design initiative. Unfortunately, developers are reluctant to embrace the other element of SBD, which is the incorporation of door and window products that have been tested to resist forced entry. Consequently, Secured by Design certification is usually only successful in housing delivered by Housing Associations or other 'Social' landlords. The Constabulary seeks Council support in encouraging all housing providers to achieve Secured by Design certification.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

General Requirements for all Development

Representation on behalf of the Cumbria House Builders Group (CHBG).
Consultation Questions for General Requirements
1. Which option do you think is appropriate?

Option 2: Condense requirements as referred to above into a new single or small number of development management general requirements policies that can be applied to any new type of development. Where other requirements may need to be applied additional policies would be adopted.

2. If you support the idea of such a policy what should it contain?


The new policy should seek to supersede and consolidate saved local plan policies in their entirety.

Housing - Housing Optional Technical Standards

Representation made on behalf of the Cumbria House Builders Group (CHBG)

Consultation Questions for Housing Optional Technical Standards

3. Which option do you think is appropriate?

Option 1: Maintain the current policy position

The CHBG are concerned about the impact of any additional requirements and the impact on viability and therefore the delivery of housing. Analysis of housing completions against Core Strategy housing requirements, indicates that only half the number of dwellings have been delivered in the period up to 31st March 2015, as indicated in the table sent in a separate email. [SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT] This is a major concern.

Housing delivery significantly below housing requirements can only have an upward pressure on house prices thereby exacerbating affordability issues.
We do not yet know the implications of the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy of £50 per sq.m for housing starts on sites granted planning permission since 1st June 2015.

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) requires planning authorities to consider the impact of using these additional standards as part of a Local Plan viability assessment. On the costs side, PPG recommends that authorities take into account the most recent Impact Assessment issued alongside the Housing Standards Review. This Assessment explains the historic background of the difficulties presented to house-builders of different planning authorities adopting different standards and therefore a move to encourage simplification and rationalisation of standards i.e. through the provisions set out within Building Regulations.

There must be legitimate and clear local need for standards to be set beyond the minimum requirements of Building Regulations.

Access to and use of dwellings
Access to and use of dwellings is covered by the requirements of Part M of the Building Regulations, that came into effect on 1st October 2015.

Part M4(1) requires that all new dwellings are “Visitable dwellings” (unless the optional requirements of M4(2) or M4(3) apply) and therefore specific standards for the approach to a dwelling, entrance, corridor widths, entry level sanitary facilities and services apply to all dwellings.

PPG indicates that planning authorities should indicate how they intend to approach demonstrating the need for Requirement M4(2) (accessible and adaptable dwellings) and/or M4(3) (wheelchair user dwellings), if they wish to apply these optional standards.

SLDC will need to research and provide evidence of need for each standard and determine the size, location and type of dwellings to meet any identified need if they are to progress such additional standards.

The CHBG will consider any evidence that SLDC might produce in terms of the need to go beyond Part M4 (1).

If SLDC are intent on progressing additional requirements in this regard there will need to be a consideration of the overall impact on viability given increased costs. This may require a review of other planning policy requirements that impact on site viability. If any other new planning policy requirements are imposed then these will also need to be considered as part of a viability assessment.

Internal Space Standards

SLDC already apply space standards for affordable dwellings in the context of SLDC Affordable Housing Guidance for Developers (updated 1st December 2015). As the Core Strategy refers to a requirement for 35% affordable housing, there is already control over a significant proportion of new build dwellings.

The imposition of space standards may preclude the provision of smaller open market dwellings in the future. This will have an implication for the price of dwellings. Put simply if the size of dwellings is to increase, then the price will also increase, which is most likely to have an impact on first time buyers. A 60 sq.m house will not have the same open market value as a 70 sq.m house. There is a danger that there will be some who are priced out of the market, who are too wealthy to be eligible for an affordable dwelling but not wealthy enough to afford the new increased entry level sized dwelling.

There will be viability implications for any increased space standards.

Water efficiency

South Lakeland is not an area of ‘water stress’ so there is no justification of any additional standards in this regard.

4. Should any of the optional standards be applied?

No.

a) Which ones and why?

Not applicable.

b) To all new homes or just a percentage/just in certain locations?

Not applicable.

SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL

Task A2-Establishing the Base Line

Policy Theme – Housing

This should be a little more expansive and not just refer to housing completions over the last two years. Housing completions are half the Core Strategy requirement as indicated in the above table. This should be highlighted.

Task A3-Identifying Sustainability Issues and Problems:Housing

Sustainability Issues/Problems – Housing affordability

The house price: income ratio in South Lakeland will be affected by the significant number of retired people living in owner occupied dwellings without a mortgage.

SP3 To provide everyone with a decent home

The questions are not just – if the policy will help meeting local housing needs by providing housing that is of appropriate quality and affordable or will the policy provide housing which is resource efficient etc, BUT will the policy limit the actual provision of new housing to meet Core Strategy housing targets?

Matrix

Provides a different definition to SP3 than “provide everyone with decent home”.

Appendix 2: Indicators and Baseline Data

Housing

There is no indicator that refers to net housing completions in totality. There must be a target to meet Core Strategy housing requirements. One cannot simply ignore the issue because completion rates are in fact only half the requirement.

There is no indicator that refers to net housing completions by settlement type i.e. Principal, Key and Local Service Centres or small villages/hamlets as set out in the Core Strategy.

House Price: Income Ratio – a reduction is more likely to occur if housing supply is in line with Core Strategy targets and the target is recognised.

Housing - Starter Homes Exceptions Site Policy

Representations made on behalf of the Cumbria House Builders Group (CHBG).

Consultation Questions for Starter Homes Exceptions Site Policy
5. Which option do you think is appropriate?

Option 1 Rely on national policy.

6. If a new policy is needed, what considerations should it address?

Not applicable

7. What are your views on the possible implications for planning policy in the District of the recent Government announcement on Starter Homes?

If it has local planning authority support then it will hopefully result in increased housing completions and widen housing choice.

If Starter Homes becomes part of the NPPF affordable housing definition this will assist in increasing housing provision.

Housing - Self-Build and Custom Build Housing

Representation on behalf of the Cumbria House Builders Group (CHBG).

Consultation Questions for Self-Build/Custom Build Housing
8. Which option do you think is appropriate?

Option 1 Maintain the current policy position.

9. Have you evidence which supports the case for Option 3?

CHBG does not support Option 3.

One needs to consider the type of plots self-builders and custom builders seek and the impact of providing specific plots on allocated sites. There are two sides to this issue:-

1. CHBG are sceptical that self-builders or custom builders actually seek plots on a large developments. Instead it is their perception that such builders seek either individual plots or small site schemes. SLDC will no doubt seek direct feed- back from those on the Register. SLDC’s Housing Monitoring Report 2015 shows a significant number of small sites with planning permission (631 dwellings on 375 small sites). These are available to self-builders and custom builders if they wish to acquire those sites. SLDC’s latest five year land supply assessment indicates that, in addition to small sites with planning permission, the authority anticipates 285 dwellings will be completed on small sites and a 357 dwellings completed in small villages, hamlets and the open countryside (most likely to be principally small sites) in the next five years.
2. Simply identifying plots on sites which are allocated and contracted to house builders, such as CHBG members, will create considerable difficulties. Apart from contractual difficulties, potential new house purchase customers may be discouraged from purchasing because of concerns and uncertainty of the nature of the self-build dwellings and the timing of delivery. This has an impact on both viability and deliverability. There are also practical concerns over start and finish of construction, the provision of services and health and safety management issues.

Economy, Town Centres and Tourism - Loss of Employment Sites and Premises

Representation on behalf of the Cumbria House Builders Group (CHBG).

Consultation Questions for Loss of employment sites and premises
20. Which option do you think is appropriate?

Option 2 (in part only) No longer rely on Policy E6 but there will be a need for a new policy that takes into account NPPF paragraph 22 which indicates that where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for employment purposes then alternative uses should be considered.

Quality Environment and Quality Design - Quality Design

Representation on behalf of Cumbria House Builders Group (CHBG).

Consultation Questions for Quality Design
35. Which option do you think is appropriate?

Option 2 Adopt a new policy setting out a list of specific design principles…

36. If a new policy is needed what should it contain?

Consolidate existing policy advice into a limited number of policies to encourage good quality design. Specific policy in relation to residential development.

If there are density and cost implications there must be viability considerations.

37. If a Design SPD is needed what should it include?

Not needed.

Quality Environment and Quality Design - Trees and Landscaping

Representation on behalf of the Cumbria House Builders Group (CHBG).

Consultation Questions for Trees and Landscaping

41. Which option do you think is appropriate?

Option 2 Adopt a new policy to consolidate and refine saved local plan policy.


42. If a new policy is needed should it:
(a) Incorporate only the requirements of the extant local plan policies into one new policy?

Yes

(b) Include additional or alternative new criteria/requirements/guidance? If so, what

No

Quality Environment and Quality Design - Sustainable Drainage Systems

Representation on behalf of Cumbria House Builders Group (CHBG).

Consultation Questions for Sustainable Drainage
45. Which option do you think is appropriate?

Option 2 rely on NPPF etc.

The CHBG would be concerned at proposals that add another tier of policy beyond the requirements of Cumbria County Council.

Any cost implications would have to be considered in a viability assessment.

46. If a new policy is preferable what should this contain?

Not applicable.

Quality Environment and Quality Design - Pollution

Representation on behalf of the Cumbria House Builders Group (CHBG).

Consultation Questions for Pollution
49. Which option do you think is appropriate?

Option 2 Rely only on NPPF and associated guidance

50. If a new policy is preferable what should this contain?

Not applicable.

Sustainable Communities and Health & Wellbeing - Green Infrastructure and Open Space

Representation on behalf of the Cumbria House Builders Group (CHBG).

Consultation Questions for Green Infrastructure
51. Which option do you think is appropriate?

Option 2 Adopt a new policy…
Current Core Strategy policy on open space requirements does not provide clear guidance on open space requirements within new developments.

52. If a new policy is needed should it be informed by a new Open Spaces, Sports and Recreation Study?

Yes.
a) At this stage?
Yes.
b) When a combined Local Plan is produced?
No.

53. Whichever option is chosen, should the policy position be supported by a Green Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document?
No.
a) At this stage?
Not applicable.
b) When a combined Local Plan is produced?
Not applicable.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Housing - Starter Homes Exceptions Site Policy

Option 2 is most appropriate.
80% cap should be the maximum, not the required - the cap could be lower.
There is a high demand for rented homes in the Grange area - the number of these would be reduced under this scheme - this is a concern.
The Neighbourhood Plan policies require more rented homes - so that provision in the area reflects demand and is related to (low) local wages.
Concerns raised about the quality of 'starter homes'.

Sustainable Travel and Access - Parking Provision

Option 2 preferred.
New policy should be realistic about the numbers of cars per house and make provision for cycle parking.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Please find attached the response from our call off consultant with regard to the above document which is currently out for consultation. Included within the report is the recommended options to be taken forward and also a request to ensure we are continued to be involved in this document as it progresses. If you require any further information or wish to discuss any of the points raised, please feel free to contact me.

Lindsay Alder, Assistant Asset Manager
Highways England
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Housing - Self-Build and Custom Build Housing

Dear Sir/Madam

We write on behalf of Cressbrook Developments Ltd in response to the above consultation exercise. Attached is a completed questionnaire and accompanying cover letter setting out the representations.

It is requested that these representations are taken into account as the Local Plan progresses and that we are also placed on the mailing list to receive updates on the various consultation stages of the Local Plan.

Please can you confirm safe receipt of these representations.

If there are any queries or you should wish to discuss the please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind Regards

Amy
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Economy, Town Centres and Tourism - Loss of Employment Sites and Premises

Option 1

Economy, Town Centres and Tourism - Kendal Town Centre and Canal Head

Q26: Option 2

Q27: It is essential that plans contribute to the vitality of the town centre, and reflect the Kendal Masterplan with a holistic view. Canal Head should be seen as part of the town centre (not edge of centre) and it is important that it remains as employment land, and not given over to retail.
Q28. Strong design principles, retaining employment land (where appropriate) but also maximising opportunities for town centre living (above the shops, edge of town centre etc) to help maintain a vibrant town centre.

Economy, Town Centres and Tourism - Retail and other Uses in Town Centres

Q29: Option 1

Economy, Town Centres and Tourism - Retail and Main Town Centre Uses Outside of Town Centres

Q31: Option 1
Q32a: We would like to see as strong a policy as possible set locally and consideration should be given to lowering the threshold for an impact assessment.
32b: Impact assessments threshold reduced to 1500 sq m and to ensure that the type of retail offer is considered – convenience and comparison goods.

Economy, Town Centres and Tourism - Hot Food Takeaways

Q33: Option 1
Protect primary shopping areas

Quality Environment and Quality Design - Quality Design

Q35: Option 2

Q36: Specific design principles to inform a design guide for Kendal.

Sustainable Travel and Access - Parking Provision

64. Option 2

65. We would like to see local parking standards adopted with a flexible approach as we are supportive of initiatives which encourage town centre living to ensure a vibrant town centre.
The protection and provision of town centre parking is vital with a focus on cheaper, long stay options on the outskirts of town for local employees etc to ensure central spaces are available for shoppers and visitors who will impact the local economy.

Quality Environment and Quality Design - Sustainable Drainage Systems

Q45: Option 2

The national standards in this area is already rigorous and additional local policies or burdens could encourage businesses to choose other local authority areas. We want to encourage businesses to come to the area. Local policies could be beneficial if they don’t impose more stringent measures and their impacts are carefully considered.

Sustainable Communities and Health & Wellbeing - Renewable and Low Carbon Energy

Q58: Option 3

The national standards in this area is already rigorous and additional local policies or burdens could encourage businesses to choose other local authority areas. We want to encourage businesses to come to the area. Local policies could be beneficial if they don’t impose more stringent measures and their impacts are carefully considered.

Response to your consultation

Thank you for including the MMO in your recent consultation submission. The MMO will review your document and respond to you directly should a bespoke response be required. If you do not receive a bespoke response from us within your deadline, please consider the following information as the MMO’s formal response.

Kind regards,

The Marine Management Organisation


The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is a non-departmental public body responsible for the management of England’s marine area on behalf of the UK government. The MMO’s delivery functions are; marine planning, marine licensing, wildlife licensing and enforcement, marine protected area management, marine emergencies, fisheries management and issuing European grants.
Marine Licensing
Activities taking place below the mean high water mark may require a marine licence in accordance with the Marine and Coastal Access Act (MCAA) 2009. Such activities include the construction, alteration or improvement of any works, dredging, or a deposit or removal of a substance or object below the mean high water springs mark or in any tidal river to the extent of the tidal influence. You can also apply to the MMO for consent under the Electricity Act 1989 (as amended) for offshore generating stations between 1 and 100 megawatts in England and parts of Wales. The MMO is also the authority responsible for processing and determining harbour orders in England, and for some ports in Wales, and for granting consent under various local Acts and orders regarding harbours. A wildlife licence is also required for activities that that would affect a UK or European protected marine species.
Marine Planning

As the marine planning authority for England the MMO is responsible for preparing marine plans for English inshore and offshore waters. At its landward extent, a marine plan will apply up to the mean high water springs mark, which includes the tidal extent of any rivers. As marine plan boundaries extend up to the level of the mean high water spring tides mark there will be an overlap with terrestrial plans which generally extend to the mean low water springs mark. Marine plans will inform and guide decision makers on development in marine and coastal areas. On 2 April 2014 the East Inshore and Offshore marine plans were published, becoming a material consideration for public authorities with decision making functions. The East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plans cover the coast and seas from Flamborough Head to Felixstowe. The MMO is currently in the process of developing marine plans for the South Inshore and Offshore Plan Areas and has a requirement to develop plans for the remaining 7 marine plan areas by 2021.
Planning documents for areas with a coastal influence may wish to make reference to the MMO’s licensing requirements and any relevant marine plans to ensure that necessary regulations are adhered to. For marine and coastal areas where a marine plan is not currently in place, we advise local authorities to refer to the Marine Policy Statement for guidance on any planning activity that includes a section of coastline or tidal river. All public authorities taking authorisation or enforcement decisions that affect or might affect the UK marine area must do so in accordance with the Marine and Coastal Access Act and the UK Marine Policy Statement unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

South Lakeland - Development Management Policies DPD

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback to the proposed consultation.

Network Rail is the public owner and operator of Britain’s railway infrastructure, which includes the tracks, signals, tunnels, bridges, viaducts, level crossings and stations – the largest of which we also manage. All profits made by the company, including from commercial development, are reinvested directly back into the network.

Our comments are as follows.

(1) Developer Contributions
It is noted that the Policy Theme – Sustainable Travel and Access (pg.17) states, “Ensure the infrastructure and services of the district’s railway lines continue to be improved (including at stations, such as signage and car and cycle parking).”
Where growth areas or significant housing allocations are identified close to existing rail infrastructure it is essential that the potential impacts of this are assessed. Many stations and routes are already operating close to capacity and a significant increase in patronage may create the need for upgrades to the existing infrastructure including improved signalling, passing loops, car parking, improved access arrangements or platform extensions. As Network Rail is publicly funded it would not be reasonable to require Network Rail to fund rail improvements necessitated by third party commercial development. It is therefore appropriate to require developer contributions or CIL contributions to fund such railway improvements; it would also be appropriate to require contributions towards rail infrastructure where they are directly required as a result of the proposed development and where the acceptability of the development depends on access to the rail network.

The National Planning Policy Framework states that councils should, “work with…transport providers to develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable development…or transport investment necessary to support strategies for the growth of …other major generators of travel demand in their areas.” Also, “encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion. In preparing Local Plan, local planning authorities should therefore support a pattern of development which, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport.”

The likely impact and level of improvements required will be specific to each station and each development meaning standard charges and formulae may not be appropriate. Therefore in order to fully assess the potential impacts, and the level of developer contribution required, it is essential that where a Transport Assessment is submitted in support of a planning application that this quantifies in detail the likely impacts on the rail network.

To ensure that developer contributions can deliver appropriate improvements to the rail network we would recommend that the South Lakeland - Development Management Policies DPD include provisions for rail. The policy should include the following:

A requirement for developer contributions to deliver improvements to the rail network, including any development that occurs as a consequence of the South Lakeland - Development Management Policies DPD.
• A requirement for Transport Assessments to take cognisance of impacts to existing rail infrastructure to allow any necessary developer contributions towards rail to be calculated.
• A commitment to consult Network Rail where development may impact on the rail network and may require rail infrastructure improvements. In order to be reasonable these improvements would be restricted to a local level and would be necessary to make the development acceptable. We would not seek contributions towards major enhancement projects which are already programmed as part of Network Rail’s remit.

Improvements to rail transport contribute to the public good and railway developments should not be expected to support other public projects. Our infrastructure projects and station developments and improvements support regeneration, increase the attractiveness of settlements and benefit communities.

LPAs are encouraged to consider contributions towards enhancements at railway stations in the same manner as highways improvements or local facility enhancements as a result of increased residences in an area. LPAs should give consideration to the need to seek contributions towards station enhancements as part of negotiations with developers prior to a planning application submission.

(2) Level Crossings
Network Rail would draw the council’s attention to the following (which applies to England only):
Town & Country Planning (GPD) England Order 2015
Procedure for applications for prior approval under Part 3
(5) Where the application relates to prior approval as to transport and highways impacts of the development, on receipt of the application, where in the opinion of the local planning authority the development is likely to result in a material increase or a material change in the character of traffic in the vicinity of the site, the local planning authority must consult—….
(c) the operator of the network which includes or consists of the railway in question, and the Secretary of State for Transport, where the increase or change relates to traffic using a level crossing over a railway.
Procedure for applications for prior approval under Class E
(5) On receipt of the application, where in the opinion of the local planning authority the
development is likely to result in a material increase or a material change in the character of traffic in the vicinity of the site, the local planning authority must consult—
(c) the operator of the network which includes or consists of the railway in question, and the Secretary of State for Transport, where the increase or change relates to traffic using a level crossing over a railway.

Councils are urged to take the view that level crossings can be impacted in a variety of ways by planning proposals:
• By a proposal being directly next to a level crossing
• By the cumulative effect of developments (including small developments) added over time in the vicinity of a level crossing
• By the type of level crossing involved e.g. where pedestrians only are allowed to use the level crossing, but a proposal involves allowing cyclists to use the route
• By the construction of large developments (commercial and residential) where road access to and from the site includes a level crossing or the level / type of use of a level crossing increases as a result of diverted traffic or of a new highway
• By developments that might impede pedestrians ability to hear approaching trains at a level crossing, e.g. new airports or new runways / highways / roads
• By proposals that may interfere with pedestrian and vehicle users’ ability to see level crossing warning signs
• By any developments for schools, colleges or nurseries where minors in numbers may be using the level crossing
• By any proposal that may cause blocking back across the level crossing
• By any proposal which may see a level crossing impacted by the introduction of cycling or walking routes

Where proposals impact the type or volume of user at a level crossing, Network Rail would seek to liaise with developers, the LPA, Highways and Public Rights of Way to mitigate the impacts of third party proposals. Therefore we would wish to see in the DPD a policy specifically related to level crossings.
Network Rail would wish to have included within the DPD a policy along the following comment lines:

1. Following monitoring of a level crossing we will notify the council of our concerns should the proposal or the impact from cumulative proposals in the area result in a material increase in the type and / or volume of users at this crossing.
2. An increase in type and / or volume of users may result in an increase in risk, in which case Network Rail will be required to undertake an assessment of how best to mitigate this risk.
3. In the event that mitigation measures are required. Network Rail would seek the support of the Local Planning Authority, together with that of Highways and Public Rights of Way to progress any necessary mitigation measures to ensure that the risk at any level crossing is either reduced or eliminated. This may be by, but not limited to undertaking the following actions:
a. Closure of the level crossing and replacement of the level crossing by a suitable bridge
b. Closure of the level crossing and diversion of any public right of way
c. Level crossing to remain open but mitigation measures to be installed (mitigation measures to be determined by the type and location of the level crossing)
d. Mitigation measures and bridge type to be determined following a Disability Impact Assessment
4. We would also seek support in principle from the Local Planning Authority, Highways Authority and Public Rights of Way for any necessary mitigation measures and that the Local Planning Authority, Highways Authority, Public Rights of Way would not act to prevent these mitigation measures.
5. That developers would provide funds (either via CIL or S106) to either fully fund or contribute towards funding of mitigation measures at level crossings. As Network Rail is a public body it is not reasonable to expect Network Rail to fund mitigation measures that are necessary as a result of third party commercial development.
6. It is recognised that many proposals are of a small or medium type and that it is not reasonable to expect the developer(s) to solely to provide funding for the mitigation measures, therefore we would seek LPAs support to pool contributions.

Should the Council be minded to approve any planning application, Network Rail would expect full support in undertaking the measures outlined above if required as a result of the new development.

(3) Solar Farms
Network Rail would very strongly recommend that a policy is inlcuded to ensure that any solar farms proposed within the LPA area are submitted with a Glint and Glare Report which should assess the proposal’s impact upon any railway infrastructure including the potential for panels to reflect light an dimpact upon a train driver’s ability to perceive signals.

(4) Wind Turbines / Wind Farms
That development of either wind turbine(s) or wind farms includes consideration f the impact upon any railway in the area, including shadow flicker, topple over and ground vibrations as well as the journey to site to determine if any low loading bridges could be impacted.

Regards

Diane Clarke TechRTPI
Town Planning Technician LNW

Development Management Policies Development Plan Document – Issues and Options Discussion Paper
Thank you for your email dated 6 November 2015, consulting North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) on the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document – Issues and Options Discussion Paper.
NYCC officers welcome the opportunity to engage in the preparation of DPDs with neighbouring authorities, and consider this part of the Duty to Co-operate on strategic matters.
NYCC officers from across our service teams have reviewed the Discussion Paper and have no comments at this stage.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Rushworth

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Housing - Self-Build and Custom Build Housing

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Green Infrastructure and Open Space

Qu 51: Which option do you think is appropriate?

Paragraphs 73 and 74 of NPPF place a slightly different requirement on Council’s than the previous PPG17 guidance on which the saved policies are based. For this reason Option 2 is the most appropriate.

Qu 52: If a new policy is needed should it be informed by a new Open Space and Recreation Study?

Yes – the Council do not have an up to date and robust Needs Assessment as required by paragraph 73 of the NPPF. As the Needs Assessment is required to help inform the preparation of policy the Needs Assessment should be undertaken at this stage. However, a combined Open Spaces, Sports and Recreation Study is not appropriate for playing pitches. The assessment of playing pitches requires a completely different methodology to that used by other open space typologies. There is also a separate methodology for non-pitch outdoor sports. Guidance can be found on our website and is referenced in the Planning Practice Guidance:

Playing Pitch Strategy Guidance: http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/playing-pitch-strategy-guidance/
Non pitch outdoor/indoor sport guidance: http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/assessing-needs-and-opportunities-guidance/

Qu 53: Whichever option is chosen, should the policy position be supported by a Green Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document?

Yes – paragraph 74 of NPPF no longer requires local standards to be set because developer contributions must be related to specific sites. In particular the Playing Pitch Strategy and Indoor/Outdoor Sports will result in a site specific action plan that can be used to help develop appropriate developer contributions. The action plans will be updated annually which means any developer contribution formula and process can contained within the SPD can be more easily amended to reflect actual needs than if it was embodied in a Local Plan policy.

The evidence base is likely to take 12 months to complete so any SPD could not be prepared at this stage.

Community Facilities

Qu 56: Which option do you think is appropriate?

Paragraphs 73 and 74 of NPPF include buildings used for sport and recreation purposes fall within the definition of community facilities. NPPF place a slightly different requirement on Council’s than the previous PPG17 guidance on which the saved policies are based. For this reason Option 2 is the most appropriate.

Qu 57: If a new policy is needed should it:

(a) be applied district-wide, certain areas only?
(b) be applied to all community facilities, certain types only?
(c) be applied to proposals for residential use only? or all non-community use development?

(b) apply to all community facilities because many buildings have a multi function which may include sport and recreation – the Council do not have an up to date and robust Needs Assessment as required by paragraph 73 of the NPPF. As the Needs Assessment is required to help inform the preparation of policy the Needs Assessment should be undertaken at this stage.

I hope these comments are helpful but if you have any queries please contact the undersigned.
Fiona Pudge BA (Hons) BTP MRTPI
Planning Manager

Quality Environment and Quality Design - Quality Design

The following comments refer to the observation that maintenance of urban biodiversity is not mentioned in the document, specifically to wildlife which is dependent on man and his dwellings. Bats are well protected under current legislation. However certain bird species such as the swift, do not enjoy this level of protection leaving them vulnerable to disturbance and loss of habitat. South Cumbria is fortunate in having a large contingent of properties which are of an age and construction which make them ideal for nesting swifts and also other predominantly house nesting birds such as house sparrows. However inappropriate development can reduce the opportunities for these birds to find places to nest as older buildings get repaired and changed. In the long term making provision in new and substantially altered buildings which provides nesting opportunities for these birds will contribute to the long term viability of these species.
My request therefore is that section 5 (Quality Environment and Design) should be extended to include another sub section specifically to cover the issues of urban diversity. The topic is broader than just specifically focused on one species such as swifts and there is also some justification for including consideration under section 6, Sustainable Communities. The presence of wildlife in urban areas can have a significant and positive impact on the quality of life of those people who live and work in towns and villages.
The swift is one species which I am particularly concerned about. Its numbers have declined significantly in recent years and continue to do so, the loss of nesting sites in urban areas regarded as probably the main reason. Swifts could be protected by ensuring adequate provision is made where building changes are reviewed within the planning framework, to ensure their well being is considered. This is particularly relevant in situations where swifts are known to use a particular building as a nest site. Their long term future could also be addressed by ensuring provision is made in new buildings and substantially altered ones for such features as nest boxes and integral nest bricks.

The comments below are made in respect of their relationship with the comments made above re. SASscoping report.

In broad terms in section A1 Policy Theme – Quality Environment and Quality Design the aims/objectives/implications seem to cover the need to consider urban diversity, although the PPPSI’s may not necessarily support the need to specifically consider species such as swifts.
A3 should include mention, in the Quality Environment/Design section, of the vulnerability of urban species due to unsympathetic development and inadequate long term provision for certain species in new developments.
A4 Sustainability Assessment Framework. EN1 could be said to include appropriate provision for Urban Diversity but there is no specific mention of it as part of the scope. EN2 and EN3 should mention urban diversity specific issues explicitly.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Dear Policy Team,
South Lakeland –Development Management Policies
I offer comment on behalf of the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups in response to the questions raised in paragraph 3.48 of the above consultation document.

Neither option 1 nor option 2, in isolation, will meet the policy requirement. What is needed is a combination of the two together with a further policy element which sets out criteria to deal with planning applications which may come forward.

This new policy should specifically deal with applications which are submitted, even where no need has been identified, as required by national policy as set out in DCLG’s Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS). Paragraph 10 of PPTS requires that Local Plans set out criteria for dealing with applications even where no need has been identified.


Yours sincerely,


A. R. Yarwood,

Quality Environment and Quality Design - Trees and Landscaping

Under this section, we prefer option 2, the development of a new policy in relation to trees and woodland.

We would like to see this policy include both individual trees, groups of trees and woodland. Paragraph 5.14 gives a fairly good high level indication of the key benefits of trees, woods, hedgerows etc. We would like to see a policy of retaining existing trees and woods wherever possible. It is important to state clearly that ancient woodland and ancient/veteran trees need to be given a very high level of protection, as once lost they cannot be replaced. We favour wordings which state that loss of these habitats should be permitted "only under wholly exceptional circumstances".

In the case of trees outside woods which are not in the ancient or veteran category, it is good practice to require that any tree which is removed must be replaced by at least two others wherever possible. This recognises that not all newly planted trees will survive and also the fact that it will take many decades for a newly planted tree to provide similar biodiversity or amenity benefits to one which has been removed.

Where we would like the policy to go much further is in requiring significant new planting of trees and woods, particularly where opportunities present themselves as part of new development. This is mentioned in the section on green infrastructure but it would be good to include it also in the trees policy.

Including targets for tree planting and/or woodland creation is often useful. Some local authorities have adopted targets in terms of planting a fixed number of trees over a given period (for example one tree for every child in the council area?), for increasing the tree canopy cover or for improving people's access to woodland. On the last of these, Woodland Trust has developed an Access to Woodland Standard, from which woodland creation targets can be derived: it aspires that everyone should have a small wood of at least two hectares within 500 metres of their home and a larger wood of at least 20 hectares within 4km of their home. Details of this can be found in our Space for People report which can be downloaded from our website at www.woodlandtrust.org.uk .

We would like to see the trees and landscaping section of the document developed further into a comprehensive policy covering all aspects of trees and woodland. This could include some issues which are covered under green infrastructure in the consultation document.

I would be happy to talk to your officers further about any of the issues I have raised. Please contact me on 08452 935 564 if you would find this helpful..... Nick Sandford

General Requirements for all Development

Section 2: Since the Core Strategy was adopted in 2010, core planning principles and the definition of sustainable development has changed with the introduction of the NPPF which now includes references to culture as part of the social aspect of sustainable development. This should be reflected in any updated policy.

Section 2: Since the Core Strategy was adopted in 2010, core planning principles and the definition of sustainable development has changed with the introduction of the NPPF which now includes references to culture as part of the social aspect of sustainable development. This should be reflected in any updated policy.

Sustainable Communities and Health & Wellbeing - Community Facilities

The importance of planning for culture and community facilities is emphasised in the National Planning Policy Framework by being included as a core planning principle (item 17). This is supported by guidance in item 70 of the NPPF which states that to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services that the community needs, planning policies and decisions should guard against unnecessary loss of valued facilities. Also to ensure that established facilities and services are retained and able to develop for the benefit of the community.

Further, Item 156 states that local planning authorities should set out the strategic priorities for the area in the Local Plan. This should include strategic policies to deliver the provision of health, security, community and cultural infrastructure and other local facilities.

It is vital for the local plan to safeguard and protect existing cultural facilities which benefit and support sustainable communities which might otherwise be traded in for more commercially lucrative developments.

We recommend an updated policy along the lines of:

Cultural and Community Facilities
The council will resist the loss or change of use of existing cultural and community facilities unless replacement facilities are provided on site or within the vicinity which meet the need of the local population, or necessary services can be delivered from other facilities without leading to, or increasing, any shortfall in provision, and it has been demonstrated that there is no community need for the facility or demand for another community use on site.

The Policy should also contain criteria for encouraging the provision of new facilities to serve the growing population in the District.

For clarity and consistency, we also recommend that a description for the term ‘cultural and community facilities’ is provided in the Glossary and accompanying text that would obviate the need for specific examples and recommend: cultural and community facilities provide for the health, welfare, social, educational, spiritual, recreational, leisure and cultural needs of the community.

Dear Sir / Madam

SOUTH LAKELAND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT POLICIES DPD – ISSUES AND OPTIONS DISCUSSION PAPER

Thank you for your consultation seeking the views of United Utilities in response to the Development Management Policies DPD – Issues And Options Discussion Paper. Please find attached a letter (Ref: DC-15-3439) setting out the comments of United Utilities in response to the consultation.

We trust our comments will be afforded due consideration in the preparation of the emerging Local Plan. If you have any questions upon reviewing our comments or wish to discuss our representation in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact me.

I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of the consultation response for our records.

Kind regards

Gemma
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]