Local Development Framework Consultation

DM4 Green Infrastructure, Open Space, Trees and Landscaping

I have two immediate comments to make.

Policy DMP4
Whilst the planting of some trees on new developments is appropriate it is only sustainable if locally native species are used. There is too much fragmentation of the natural habitat and part of this can be attributed to the use of non-native tree and shrub species which are often invasive. Please consider adding Only trees and shrubs native and appropriate to the character of the area should be used.

Policy DMP5
This policy fails to recognise government policy on the creation and maintenance of the English Coastal Path. I suggest you include an addition to the policy to say that New development is proposed affecting the route or amenity of users of the English Coastal Path should fully recognise the status of the National Trail. Development should be planned to avoid disruption to the route and, where there is no alternative to affecting e route, en a suitable alternative route that meets e requirements of the DEFRA agreed Scheme should be provided.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

1) Overall, I feel the document is written to almost exclusively interpret 'development' as housing. I feel therefore that more attention must/ought be given to ensure other types of development are given sufficient mention. I appreciate that there is mention... But generally reading through it does generally read as if the predominant assumption is development = housing. For instance... Page 47 (rural exception sites) is clearly orientated toward housing.... It pays insufficient attention to other types of development on greenfield sites.

2) Section 5.6 on renewable and low carbon energy (pages 70 & 71). I feel this whole area needs further work. There are a number of points: I feel that there ought be a definition of what is meant by the terms "renewable" and "low carbon". I feel the policy is insufficiently future-proofed (the policy presently relates to wind turbines, solar, hydro etc. but does not take into account new technologies (such as battery storage), and others technologies yet to become viable. On this basis there needs to be additional means by which planning applications can be judged as acceptable or unacceptable. The draft policy at present is too welcoming, and does not allow sufficient means of discernment. I don't know the total number of square miles that are under the planning control of SLDC (25 square miles... 30 square miles... 35 square miles?) what is evident is that with the enlarged National Parks, that the actual available space in South Lakeland for low carbon/renewable energy schemes is small. Without the ability to discern what might be 'good' low carbon/renewable, from 'bad' low carbon/renewable, then the potential is that the small space covered by SLDC might be inundated/overwhelmed with these types of development. There needs to be more discretionary terms. I would advocate the opinion of local people would be an important consideration (there is no mention of this presently). The current phraseology is too limited towards historical understanding of 'low carbon/renewable' and leaves the door too wide open for speculative applications that may have significant detrimental impact.

3) Where there is mention of views within the policy... There ought be specific reference to public views and wider views (such as bullet 2 on page 12: Policy DM2 - achieving high quality design). "Development proposals must respond appropriately to local context, landscape and built environment setting and impact on PUBLIC & WIDER views by:.."

Some specific feedback...
Page 12 - policy DM2 - achieving high quality design.
In bullet 1 I think you have a word missing.
It reads currently "Development proposals must respond appropriately to local and settlement character and reinforce and promote local distinctiveness by:"
I think it ought to read as follows:
"Development proposals must respond appropriately to local LANDSCAPE and settlement character and reinforce and promote local distinctiveness by:"

Pages 25 & 26 - there is no mention of the status of rights of way whilst development is taking place - is an important consideration.

Additionally,
Is there a meeting where the draft development management policies will be discussed, considered and approved? Is such a meeting open to members of the public? And can members of the public request to speak? In which case, I'd like to register to speak please.

Any questions on my feedback, please feel free to contact me.

Many thanks,
Regards,

Jo Willmott

[SEE ATTAHCED DOCUMENT]

DM1 General Requirements

I reaffirm my comments on the Draft document made on 16/12/16 in particular:
to replace the verb 'must' with should, which would also be consistent with para. 2.1.1 and at the very least include 'as applicable' in an emboldened opening clause.

C Ashton

New Policy: DM25 New Agricultural Buildings (including Sustainability Appraisal)

An appraisal is too onerous and unjustified for farm businesses, many of which are dispersed holdings as is traditional in Lakeland

C Ashton

DM18 Tourist Accommodation

This is too restrictive, especially as the locations visitors want to stay in are rural and where sufficient land can be available and be affordable to the entrepreneur, who are not just farmers.

C Ashton

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

I understand there is a very sort time window now for suggestions to the review of Development Management Policy. As Westmorland Pub Preservation Officer for the Campaign for Real Ale, I would on behalf of our branch, be grateful if you would consider the policy from the Norwich branch. I understand this to be considered the ideal position from CAMRA headquarters perspective.

I hope you are able to consider this and find it helpful.

https://www.norwich.gov.uk/info/20199/local_plan/1457/development_management_policies/22

DM3 Historic Environment

Thank you for your consultation in relation to the revised Development Management Policies DPD. The Trust is disappointed that our comments made to the initial consultation in October 2016 do not appear to have been taken forward by the LPA.
I have reattached our previous consultation response and would ask that these minor changes are considered by the LPA in respect of the amended policies detailed below:


Paragraph 2.3 - Policy DM3 - Historic Environment - The Trust would like to see reference made within the supporting text to this policy that the former Lancaster Canal and supporting infrastructure are heritage assets.

DM4 Green Infrastructure, Open Space, Trees and Landscaping

Thank you for your consultation in relation to the revised Development Management Policies DPD. The Trust is disappointed that our comments made to the initial consultation in October 2016 do not appear to have been taken forward by the LPA.
I have reattached our previous consultation response and would ask that these minor changes are considered by the LPA in respect of the amended policies detailed below:

Paragraph 2.4 - Policy DM4 - Green Infrastructure - Reference should be made within paragraph 2.4.1 to the Kendal-Lancaster Canal as a potential source of green infrastructure/open space. This would better reflect that the former canal is more than just a recreational route.

DM2 Design

The Constabulary appreciates the opportunity to participate in this consultation.

Proposed changes to Policy DM2 are particularly relevant in our proactive work to reduce crime through the planning process.

The wording of Principle 4 is acknowledged and welcomed, but it may be enhanced and consolidated as follows:

"4. Development proposals should create and maintain safe and secure environments through designing out crime and designing in community safety by:

• integrating security measures as part of the design
• ensuring public and communal spaces, buildings, streets and paths are directly overlooked through natural surveillance. Routes must be designed to serve the development rather than provide unrestricted public access
• ensuring there is clear and obvious demarcation between public and private spaces utilising appropriate physical boundary treatments or landscaping elements and ensuring buildings directly address streets and routes avoiding presentation of blank frontages or gables
• consulting with the police Crime Prevention Design Advisor an early stage"

Developers must appreciate that effective crime prevention measures go beyond just environmental layout. For example, physical measures (i.e. the specification of doors, windows and other barriers) have equal importance in disrupting criminal activity. Council Policy already refers to the requirement for appropriate physical measures - in S13 (Security in Town Centres) and S14 (Shop Fronts) relating to security grilles and glazing. Therefore, it shall be helpful if developers are required to demonstrate what other measures shall be incorporated to comply with Principle 4.

It may also be useful to review the Shopfront Design Toolkit 2004 (page 6) and to consider the wording of DM20:

• Incorporate designs for security at an early stage of the process.
• Visually acceptable means of improving security include the use of toughened glass to prevent vandalism, laminated glass to prevent theft, shatter proof adhesive films on existing glazed areas and internally mounted lattice grilles.

It is now feasible to dispense with unsightly shutters, by the deployment of exterior doors compliant with a recognised security standard (e.g. LPS 1175 ) and including laminated glazing compliant with BS EN 356:2000, LPS 1270 or specialist ‘Hammerglass’.
Professional measures, such as security fog generators or forensic fluid contaminant sprays (all installed internally) will contribute very discreetly to the overall security package. The ‘traditional’ measures of intruder alarms and CCTV are still viable and technology continues to improve the effectiveness of these devices.

I shall be pleased to discuss any crime prevention or security related issues arising from this policy consultation and may impact on other items in the Development Plan Document.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Consultation on Development Management Policies DPD
We have considered the potential development sites within our Network Distribution Area and conclude that they could have an impact on our infrastructure. With the information supplied, it is not possible to determine the exact impact on our assets.

As each development takes place, they will be reviewed during the usual planning application process.

The applicant should be advised that great care should be taken at all times to protect both the electrical apparatus and any personnel working in its vicinity.

The applicant should also be referred to two relevant documents produced by the Health and Safety Executive, which are available from The Stationery Office Publications Centre and The Stationery Office Bookshops, and advised to follow the guidance given.

The documents are as follows:-
HS(G)47 – Avoiding danger from underground services.
GS6 – Avoidance of danger from overhead electric lines.

The applicant should also be advised that, should there be a requirement to divert the apparatus because of the proposed works, the cost of such a diversion would usually be borne by the applicant. The applicant should be aware of our requirements for access to inspect, maintain, adjust, repair, or alter any of our distribution equipment. This includes carrying out works incidental to any of these purposes and this could require works at any time of day or night. Our Electricity Services Desk (Tel No. 0800 195 4141) will advise on any issues regarding diversions or modifications.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

DM1 General Requirements

Mouchel have reviewed the proposed alterations to the South Lakeland Draft Development Management Policies DPD, as published for consultation in June 2017 on behalf of Highways England
While the amendments are more in line with the expectations for general guidance for all developments, we continue to be of the opinion that Policy DM1: General Requirements lacks detail to sufficiently address the need for more precise local transport guidance that reflects current national guidance.
The additional detail and guidance provided within the reasoned justification is welcomed, and does provide Highways England with some comfort regarding cumulative impact assessment—which is a key consideration for the SRN—yet should also be considered as the basis for providing more detail within policy requirements.
In particular, we must point out the need for the inclusion of a statement stressing the need for engagement with all stakeholders at the earliest opportunity, as following the withdrawal of assessment thresholds it has become even more essential to ensure assessment requirements are adequately scoped beforehand.
While these policies do not necessarily have immediate and explicit implications for the operation and safety of the SRN, Highways England’s key guidance document, The Strategic Road Network: Planning for the future (2015), sets out in paragraph 78 that:
“When we are formally consulted upon local plan documents we will seek to provide a recommendation as to the soundness of proposed policies and proposals in relation to their interaction with the SRN”
Paragraph 79 then sets out those matters which highways England are likely to have particular regard to, which includes:
“The sustainability of policies, specifically in relation to potential impacts on and around the SRN.”
Ensuring the promotion of sustainable transport, and sustainable development in general, throughout the planning process will have long-lasting and tangible benefits for the SRN, reducing the need to travel long distances for everyday purposes via private vehicle.
It is hoped this requirement for extra wording can be provided however please feel free to contact any of the above or the report provided.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

DM1 General Requirements

POLICY DM1: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT
The purpose mentions “historic” as does the reasoned justification (para 2.1.1) yet the policy itself does not mention it.

DM3 Historic Environment

POLICY DM3: HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

Opening paragraph
• The NPPF recognises the importance of setting and therefore this should be included in this opening paragraph.

Assessing Significance and Impact
• It would be helpful if for clarity, that when referring to degree of significance it is clear as to what this refers to – is it the grade of the asset or what the asset's significance is.
• The bulleted list should read as a list of things which should be included within an assessment of development proposals.
• The policy (and others) should be clear and consistent in its uses of terms such as listed buildings, non-designated and designated assets, historic environment and etc.
• Given the first section of the policy appears to apply to the historic environment, heritage assets and their setting; it might be worth using this?
• It would be helpful to refer to harm as the test is to whether any harm is necessary and can be justified through substantial public benefits.

Nationally designated heritage assets
• The title only needs to refer to heritage assets, in line with the terminology in the NPPF and given the content of the following text.
• The policy refers to “affecting” which could be positive or negative and the sentence needs to be amended.
• As drafted it appears to imply that provided the information included in the bulleted list is submitted, the proposal will be supported. Rather it should read that the proposals should demonstrate the following.
• We welcome reference to Heritage at Risk, however as drafted it is a statement rather than a policy. Maybe it just needs rewording to say something that is more DM –led e.g. The Council will encourage proposals that secure the future of heritage assets identified at risk on Historic England’s Heritage at Risk Register. However, South Lakeland has a mix of assets some SM and others LB etc, therefore it needs to sit in the right place so that it applies to all.


Archaeological sites
• The starting point for any application that affects a SM or site of national importance is that development will not be permitted where it harms these types of assets. However, this does not appear to be the starting point of this policy. IT appears to suggest that provided the information is submitted in the bulleted list to accompany the application then the application will be supported. The list is what is required to accompany an application and it is the harm which is important and the policy needs to reflect this.
• There is no mention of the types of archaeological assets that exist. SM and those of national importance are considered to be of the highest significance and should be treated accordingly.
• Reference to national policy or legislation would sit better within the supporting text.
• The policy should also have a section on how it will deal with non-designated assets or unknown assets.
• It should also make it clear that the information to support an application should be proportionate to the significance of the asset and may include desk based and/or field evaluation. Given the high significance of SM and those of national importance it should be clear that preservation in situ swill be the preferred approach but when this is not justified in terms of the tests in the NPPF then the policy should outline what the applicant will need to do including possibly excavation, recording, interpretation etc.

Locally designated or identified heritage assets

Conservation areas

• Conservation areas are not a local asset – they are statutory and are covered under the Act, therefore it shouldn't sit beneath this title.
• Again like mentioned above, the policy should clearly outline the Council's starting position on conservation areas, and the bulleted list should represent what needs to demonstrated/submitted to determine the application and the level of harm.

Non-designated heritage assets of local significance
• Whilst we welcome the inclusion of a policy to cover these types of assets, the policy would benefit from a rejig to show the Council's starting position on applications affecting these types of assets (paragraph 4)
• It would be helpful to finish off the policy with a sentence on when the loss of the asset is permitted what will be required e.g. survey, recording and deposited with the HER.

Historic Parks, Gardens and Landscapes
• This should sit in the designated section above.
• The opening paragraph should outline the Council's starting position for any applications that affect these types of assets (see above)
• Paragraph 2 appears to attempt to defined what makes a good proposal and would get planning permission. This should be reworded.

Substantial harm and the demolition or complete loss of heritage assets
• The opening paragraph appears to attempt to determine what substantial harm is which may or may not apply to all assets. The policy should allow for each application to be considered on a case by case basis.
• The policy would benefit from outlining that where demolition is proposed the following list of points needs to be demonstrated rather than if you include the following list, LBC/PP will be granted
• Paragraph 133 of the NPPF refers to funding not possible, feasible would refer to something different.
• Bullet 18 and 19 as drafted appears to infer that this justifies substantial harm.

Public benefits
Has this already been covered by the above?

Reasoned Justification

Para 2.3.4
Last three lines – this line does not appear to sit well within the text and is not factually correct so it would be best if it is deleted e.g. SMC is administered by Historic England not the LPA.

Para 2.3.6
The NPPF recognises the importance of setting and this should be mentioned here.

Para 2.3.7
See comment on main policy which needs to be reflected in the supporting text e.g. level of asset’s significance reference. Not sure what “reversibility in design mitigation” means.

Para 2.3.8
See comment on main policy which needs to be reflected in the supporting text. Note the reference to the need to undertake a heritage assessment here is mentioned and this needs to be reinforced within the policy.

Para 2.3.9
This outlines the Council’s position on non-designated heritage assets and this should be included within the Policy.

Para 2.3.10
This doesn’t appear to be in the right position in the text.

Para 2.3.11
The content of this paragraph is rather confusing and should be made clearer as to what it is requiring. Is the Council proposing public benefit requirements that are different to the requirements of the NPPF? It is not clear.

Para 2.3.12
As this follows on from above, is this a list of requirements for the Council’s test of benefits or national?

Updated Optional Housing Standards - Evidence Topic Paper

Update Optional Housing Standards - Evidence Topic Paper

Historic England do not have any comments to make on this topic paper

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

DM6 Flood Risk Management and Sustainable Drainage Systems

I represent the Levens Hall Estate but also a number of other farming businesses and families that live and work alongside the Kent Estuary, all of which are located south west of Levens Bridge.

Storm Desmond brought chaos to areas such as Kendal, Keswick and Cockermouth but it also produced the highest recorded flood to the lower reaches of the River Kent. This resulted in Levens Hall being flooded on the ground floor for the first time in recorded history, an event that cost our business £120,000 and damaged some of the historic fabric of the building. Other farm businesses and residential premises were also affected and for a time the A590 to Barrow was blocked.

The floods aren’t just getting worse because of global warming but in our area there is a far greater man made influence in the form of the river defence/bund surrounding the Ninezergh Farm fields (owned by the Dalham Estate). This defence was built during the early 1990’s and gained planning permission without the detailed hydrological surveys and river mapping techniques that are available today. At the time it was hoped the bund would help the farming community and since then we have found that it has a direct influence on the severity of the flooding, not only at Levens Hall but also surrounding farms by preventing a natural flood plain from forming, therefore stopping flood water from leaving the area.

Flooding around the estuary and at Levens Hall isn’t a new phenomenon. Every year the River Kent breaches its banks and often reaches our car park and even the garden, resulting in a two to three day clean-up operation to remove debris brought by the river, costing us thousands of pounds each time. During the unsettled periods before and after Storm Desmond these areas were flooded eight times.
Before the bund was erected our highest recorded flood was in 1898, since it was built we have had seventeen floods higher than that, Storm Desmond beat the previous record by nine inches.

The Ninezergh Farm river defence is harming local businesses and livelihoods. The Levens Hall Estate supports thirty two jobs and welcomes 35,000 visitors each year. If current trends continue our business will become uninsurable and lasting damage will be inflicted on a grade one listed property.

We require the help of the SLDC and the Environment Agency to remove this bund and allow a natural flood plain to form.

Richard Bagot

DM18 Tourist Accommodation

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

New Policy: DM25 New Agricultural Buildings (including Sustainability Appraisal)

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Thank you for consulting the National Trust in regard to these changes. We have no specific comment to make. We are broadly supportive of the proposed amendments.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

DM6 Flood Risk Management and Sustainable Drainage Systems

The N E Kendal Flood Action Group welcomes the revised approach to policy DM6 in the current draft of this DPD. In particular we support the following elements :
• The three bullet points under "location of development - Avoiding areas of Flood Risk", referring to capacity to store flood water, lifetime safety, not increasing flood risk elsewhere, and not compromising implementation of any adopted flood risk strategy.
• The requirement for the approach to surface water drainage to be based on an independent assessment of site conditions
• The table showing which documents must be submitted at each stage of the planning process,

However, following a constructive meeting with SLDC officers on 21 June 2017, we consider that changes to and clarifications of the policy wording are required to ensure that the policy is capable of being used to refuse development that would either flood, or increase flood risk elsewhere. Currently some of the wording is too imprecise, and in some places ungrammatical and any proof reading should ensure that there are no soft "loopholes" of wording that would enable developers to gain planning consent at Appeal against the intention of the policy.
For example the FLAG believes that:
The location of development bullet points should say that development should be refused if it cannot be demonstrated that the criteria would be met. Whilst this is not the “positive wording” government guidance suggests, the NPPF does allow such wording in the case of flooding, and it puts the burden of proof on the developer rather than any public authority.
Discussion of surface water should include a section on overland run off from outside the site, e.g. where the proposed development is adjacent to farmland or upland areas.
Groundwater should be taken account of in all sites where this is raised in either an SFRA or in the independent assessment of site conditions, not just where required to protect vulnerable aquifers.
Cumulative effects of the proposed development together with other new or proposed developments should be considered.
We agree that the Design of Sustainable Drainage Systems should use the most up to date guidance available locally and nationally, but are not sure whether this should restricted to adopted guidance. In some cases, given the specific local problems in Cumbria and Kendal in particular, new and emerging science on aspects such as sub-regional and local rainfall and climate change
should be capable of being a material consideration, leading to potentially higher standards of design to address flooding.
In addition we are concerned that the design requirement to utilise naturally wet areas of a site as Sustainable Drainage Systems risks inaccurate calculations of attenuation, in effect directing site rain water from non- permeable areas into low lying areas of the site that already provide natural attenuation for upland run off and seasonal springs, and which would be full to capacity in winter storm conditions.

To summarise we welcome the broad approach but believe that the policy wording is not precise enough to refuse any development that would either flood itself, or increase flood risk elsewhere, including in situations where developers are failing to take account of the special local circumstances in many parts of our District. Therefore we consider the policy is sadly still unsound because it fails to ensure that the NPPF's requirement to make sure that development that increases flood risk elsewhere is not permitted.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

DM18 Tourist Accommodation

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

South Lakeland Draft Development Management Policies DPD – Proposed Main Changes

Thank you for your notification received on the 16 June 2017 in respect of the above.

Having reviewed the proposed changes, I can confirm that we have no specific comments to make.

New Policy: DM26 Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show People (including Sustainability Appraisal)

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]