Local Development Framework Consultation

My wife isabel and I are writing as residents and owners of Green Acres, Milnthorpe Road, Holme. We were originally invited on the fact finding day by Cllr Brian Cooper, for the above, as our property is on the boundary line of the field behind us, owned by the Stothert family. At the time we thought we had in fact sold our property and felt somebody else more involved and resident, would be a better representative. However, unfortunately our buyer dropped out because his searches suggested a major development in the fields to the rear, in his words, “ Green Acres would be surrounded by a large housing estate”.

The field forms one of the highest points in the village and along with the field to the North, is in full and plain view as you approach the village from Milnthorpe. From what we have seen and heard, when entering the village we will be confronted with a large housing estate, which we feel is not in keeping with the rural feel and attractiveness of the village, which we have now.

We would like to suggest that any development on the higher elevations be of a low rise nature, or even form some part of the allocated green/open space, as any building on this high ground will have an overbearing effect on the four or five dwellings at this end of the village.

Aside from the aesthetic considerations, there are concerns regarding traffic movements into and out of this area. With the proposed number of dwellings, I would estimate somewhere in the order of 350 to 400 movements per day, possibly more with delivery vehicles.

For anybody travelling north say to Kendal or south to Lancaster they would probably follow Milnthorpe Road towards Burton. This would send them through one of the most constricted parts of the village, starting at Mayfield Avenue (with the possibility of a ‘rat run’ through Pear Tree Park up to North Road, again with constrictions at the primary school, or toward Burton with a blind constriction at the canal bridge.

All this increased traffic will put a strain on access around the village and with the added safety considerations, I would feel would be detrimental to the character of the village.

We do question the density of the scheme and wonder if the village has the amenities and utilities to cope with another 250 or more souls. We would ask is SLDC hell bent on creating more and more ‘dormitories’ for Kendal and Lancaster?

We gather from various people that Russell Armer are going to be the builders and that it is a done deal and that they have their plans ready for submission, which implies to us they have had conversations with SLDC? This is a little disconcerting!

Whilst we do not welcome this development, we assume it will go ahead with or without our approval, we would only ask can it be a smaller, less overbearing scheme with quality of build and space a focus, more in keeping with our current village.

We will be going along to the Parish Hall tomorrow for the drop in for the brief and will no doubt be writing again.

Thank you.


Derek Grace & Isabel Thomas

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

1. Traffic

At the present time the site is said to accommodate 79 homes accessed entirely from Milnthorpe Road beyond the current boundary. A fair estimate of the number of cars which will use the location is two per household(158) plus say 20 for a third family member giving a total of 178 vehicles. This in itself will generate approx 356 car movements per day out and in onto Milnthorpe Road. Add to this visitors to site (Van deliveries, services ,friends etc.) then the figure could easily be 400 movements per day.

The question to be asked is which way will the flow of traffic go on Milnthorpe Road? Drivers who require to go to Carnforth or the M6 will turn left out of the development and drive through the centre of the village creating further blockages in the stretch in front of the Post Office or North Road if they choose to go towards Junction 36. Cars going towards Carnforth must pass through Burton in Kendal which already has severe pinch points in the main street. Burton has its own housing development plans which together with the possibilty of 400 car movements from Holme, will have an intolerable detrimental affect on the village. It is important that Burton Parish Council are part of the consultation process and asked to comment.
If vehicles turn right out of the new proposed development then similar problems are likely to ensue. Cars will use Elmsfield Lane to access J36 or go to Kendal via Endmoor. Elmsfield lane as you know is a single track road and already is suffering from the impact of satnav. If the traffic goes towards Milnthorpe then it must pass through Whasset which again is single file and dangerous. Likewise Beetham Parish Council should be included in the consultation.
My conclusion is that South Lakes District Council (SLDC) must carry out an independent Traffic Impact Assessment to support their proposals and reduce the number of houses to be built if the report indicates unacceptable traffic flows which would impact on the quality of life for existing residents in the neighbourhood. The question of speeding traffic through the village also needs to be addressed by SLDC.

2. Housing Layout

The design, layout and landscaping for the proposed development must not be dictated by the developer whose main interest is in maximising his profit from the sale of houses. SLDC should stipulate the minimum plot sizes to be greater than is normal and I suggest that garages should not be integral with the houses to ensure that properties are kept reasonably apart (Detached houses should not be a shoulders width apart!). With regard to Affordable Housing, then the positioning of these should be spread throughout the development, thus avoiding a look of a scheme within a scheme. As Holme is a rural location with a high density of car ownership, then off road parking for three vehicles per household should be provided.

Over all, if my suggestions were taken on board I would expect the size of the development to reduce. It would be useful if a representative of the Parish Council could be involved in drawing up the developers brief to ensure that the people of Holme continue to live in a village they can be proud of.

With regard to ensuring that all homeowners are aware of the implication of this large scale development in the village, then I agree that a major notice in the Parish Newsletter should be made as soon as possible, encouraging them to submit their comments to SLDC.

Regards,

Niven Ballantyne

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

• There are number of man holes that are soakaways in the field behind avenue, that are not included within the development plan. Why is this?

• An increase in green space should/could be utilised in and around existing buildings on Mayfield Avenue

Access Point via Mayfield Avenue
The proposal that access to the site via Mayfield Avenue should be reconsidered due to a number of reasons: Firstly, it is my belief that no vehicle access should use Mayfield Avenue access due to a number of reasons:
• Increase large industrial traffic during construction and increase “rat run” traffic once construction complete.
• This area is used by many children for recreation, both on the large playing field and the three play grounds in very close proximity to the site
• Capacity of Mayfield Avenue is not conducive to accommodating increased vehicles due to the width and layout of roads, and the high use of on street parking.


Increased Traffic Through Holme
• The traffic levels through Holme will increase due to proposed developments in Milnthorpe, Holme and Burton resulting in congestion and increased traffic through the village.

• The houses on Mayfield Avenue that currently back on to the field have experienced garden flooding in recent years and the decrease of green land will only increase the risk of further flooding.

• The field behind Mayfield avenue is a flood risk according the environment agency and all construction should take into account any knock on effects to houses and potential further environmental effects.

• Privacy – All actions should be taken to ensure privacy to the existing households in the area.

Our vision for this site is for it to meet the village needs. Affordable housing for our young families and Bungalows for the elderly wishing to downsize.

We live at ... and fully understand the need for new housing. Our main concern is the traffic and having a through road from Milnthorpe road to North road as was indicated at the meeting, we feel that would be a bad idea. It would be used as a cut through.

No through road access other than for cyclists and pedestrians.

We would suggest Mayfield Ave development as a cul de sac with Bungalows & landscaping, dealing with the water logged areas on this site and the Milnthorpe road development as a Family estate.

A good quality child play area would be good for the community.

Please take into account off road parking. Most house holds need space for two cars these days. Parking is already an issue in the village especially through Pear tree park, people are parking on pavements and opposite one another in the evenings causing problems with access and larger vehicles having trouble getting past. Emergency vehicles would not get through, a concern we have raise before.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Affordable homes for local people and families are important - properties in this area are expensive.
There should be some homes designed specifically for those with limited mobility, including wider doorways for wheelchair access and a good-sized wetroom, again with those with restricted mobility in mind.

A major problem on Pear Tree Park and Mayfield Avenue is that home-owners persist in parking on the road, rather than in their parking space(s). I know that every home on the Pear Tree/Mayfield development has at least one allocated parking space and most have two; it seems that some people just don't want to walk the few extra yards to/from their off-road space. Therefore I suggest that parking spaces are right next to their homes.
Road access to the new development should be from Milnthorpe Road ONLY. The potential secondary point outlined on the map could be dangerous on two counts:-
a) it is on a bend
b) it is right next to the SLDC open space where children play most days, especially in the summer.
Foot/pushchair access onto Pear Tree Park at this point would give pedestrians a safer route through towards the primary school.
A further point re the SLDC open space - this was designated as a play area ONLY, however, it is used every day by dog-walkers; a potential health risk to the children, some of whom enjoy running around bare-footed. There is just one very small sign prohibiting dog-walking, which is obviously insufficient. I suggest that this play area is fenced and gated at both ends, with very clear signage prohibiting dogs.

The east end of the development is damp and has a hedgerow with trees - a haven for wildlife.
I think that the whole of this area should be reserved as public open space, with just one wide footpath from the main development through to Pear Tree Park, giving access towards the school. A mix of small trees planted alongside the footpath would enhance the whole development.

As already stated above, motor-vehicle access should be from Milnthorpe Road only, however, pedestrian access into PearTree Park would give safer foot access to the school.

Parking areas (and roads where possible) to be porous, to restrict any flood/drainage problems.

Design principles - ALL homes should have high "green credentials" (fitted solar panels, rainwater recovery, very high levels of insulation, etc, etc) especially for the affordable homes, and homes for people with restricted mobility.

I would like to see a ban on second homes in all developments in the area (Burton in Kendal and Milnthorpe, as well as here in Holme). Potentially difficult, but this might be addressed by putting a local occupancy restriction on all homes (they would not all have to be classed as "affordable")
Reference the SLDC open space - this was designated as a play area ONLY, however, it is used every day by dog-walkers; a potential health risk to the children, some of whom enjoy running around bare-footed. There is just one very small sign prohibiting dog-walking, which is obviously insufficient. I suggest that this play area is fenced and gated at both ends, with very clear signage prohibiting dogs.

We are very surprised that Holme Village is due to again have more development taking place as we feel it is now getting over developed. We would like the site to have a properly thought out start and finish plan and timescale for such. we would also like the site to be properly finished and not left for the housebuilder to rush off onto their next development and leave things unfinished such as the finish of the roads, new fences put up not just the old ones left to go rotten and unsafe. For the council to liaise with the new homeowners and the housebuilder at the end of the build to make sure the site is of a satisfactory level and all plans including the landscaped have been adhered to and finished.

The site should be aesthetically pleasing and not dominate the skyline. Wider roads and pavements should be made available as the ones on Pear Tree/ Mayfield and Twinter Bank are not fit for purpose. Safe walking paths and cycle paths should be provided.

Wildlife on the site should be protected and taken into consideration. Local materials should be used wherever possible to reduce the carbon footprint and support local businesses.

A through road from Milnthorpe Road onto Mayfield Avenue should not be adopted as has been suggested. This would cause a rat run/short cut for motorists and any road in from Milnthorpe road should be in the form of a loop and exit onto Milnthorpe Road.
There is already cause for concern for access for emergency vehicles due to cars double parking on Pear
Tree park and Mayfield Avenue.

The sewage system does not seem to be coping at the moment with apparent weekly visits to take waste away to other sites. How may times and at what cost will this sewage plant need to be upgraded?

The properties will be going over a large hill which will be clearly visible on the skyline. Any such development should bear this in mind and build low rise buildings/bungalows for example. Affordable homes for locals should be equally dispersed between other houses and not placed in a block of flats for example. Smaller low cost houses would be better than flats as they are more aesthetically pleasing and are easier to re-sell due to demand. We value Holme being a village community with green open spaces and this should be taken into consideration.

The village already has a lot of community facilities including a recreational field on Milnthorpe road providing football/ archery and tennis. There is a cricket pitch and field behind the school and numerous play areas. Due to the nature of a development increasing the population of a village and potentially raising the numbers of school children at the school maybe the house builder can donate a sum of money to the village school to extend and/or improve facilities( this might not be possible as the school appears to have been extended to its maximum and possibly could not be extended further) or to one of the above mentioned groups to improve/build needed structures to support these groups such as changing rooms for the football teams etc.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Key issues have been clearly identified but will they be delivered? Key aspects, which we would like to see delivered are:
• to ensure the site’s existing biodiversity value is protected and enhanced and opportunities to increase biodiversity value are fully realised.
• to ensure development mitigates flood risk and provides sustainable urban drainage system.
• to ensure the layout, design and positioning of development is sensitive to existing levels of residential amenity provided to neighbouring residential properties.
We particularly value the biodiversity of the site and feel that this could be further enhanced by sensitive development.

The overall vision for the site should include a design and layout that responds sensitively to the site’s edge of Holme/open countryside setting and existing green features.
The vision should also aim to provide a mix of well-designed and energy efficient homes meeting current and future local housing needs (including some affordable housing reserved for local needs).

We totally agree with the aspiration for an area of public open space in the Pear Tree Park area but this should not simply be a grassy area with a few ornamental trees. There are lots of these in Holme!
The open space should enhance the biodiversity of the site. We have personally recorded over 40 species of bird on the site, 17 of which are listed as being of conservation concern (8 are red listed, as being of global concern and 9 are amber listed, as being of local concern). In the winter of 2016/7 a barn owl was regularly seen hunting over the area. The site is also important for small mammals, such as hedgehogs (30% decline in the last 10 years (Wildlife Trusts)) and voles (an important food source for barn owls). The brief should seek to improve the green infrastructure in order to enhance this biodiversity. Specifically the brief should protect the existing trees and hedgerow on the site, which form a crucial wildlife corridor.
The brief could also take advantage of the waterlogged nature of the eastern part (field) of the allocation site and around the mature hedgerow which separates the larger two fields by developing a wetland/pond, which would both enhance the biodiversity and potentially ease flooding issues in other parts of the site (currently in the gardens of neighbouring properties).

The brief should aim to promote safe active travel from and through the site. 73 houses are proposed for the site and assuming each household has an average of 2 cars and that the majority of residents will travel by car to work and shop and for leisure purposes, this will generate a large number of journeys and extra traffic. Measures such as traffic calming, separation of cars and cyclists/pedestrians, safe routes for children to cycle/walk to the primary school and for residents to cycle/walk into the village should all be taken into account. Sufficient car parking (for residents and visitors) should be provided and roads should be wide enough (with separate pavements) so that cars are not parked on pavements.

The brief should pay particular attention to the current flood risk on the site and ensure development mitigates flood risk and provides a sustainable urban drainage system. There is currently an area of both low and medium surface water flooding within the south eastern part of the most eastern part (field) of the allocation site. In addition, the field boundary area, between the most easterly field and the fields allocated to the west, are at risk from surface water flooding.
73 houses and the associated drives, roads and pavements will increase the surface run off and increase the existing flood risk. The brief must address this issue and not simply allow development to occur and leave the problems to be dealt with later.

The site actually extends beyond the existing village envelope (on Milnthorpe Road) and is in clear view from neighbouring hills such as Farleton Knott and Dalton Crags. Therefore it is crucial that the brief should seek to promote a design and layout that responds sensitively to the edge of Holme/open countryside setting and the existing green features. In particular it should aim to provide a mix of well-designed and energy efficient homes. Moreover the development should be sufficiently spaced out so that there is room for parking and separation of vehicles and cyclists/pedestrians (unlike in the existing Peartree Park development, where the houses are squashed together and the roads are narrow with insufficient space for parking, resulting in vehicles being parked on pavements and increased traffic risks).

As previously stated we totally agree with the aspiration for an area of public open space in the Pear Tree Park area but this should not simply be a grassy area with a few ornamental trees. There are lots of these in Holme!
The open space should enhance the biodiversity of the site. Specifically a wetland/wildlife area would be a welcome asset for the village.

The brief should give specific guidance on issues such as:
• the constraints and opportunities for the site
• consideration of flood risk issues
• environmental Sustainability

Holme Parish Hall Meeting, 27th. April 2017

Further to the above meeting in respect of the proposed LADP for “Holme - East of Milnthorpe Road” and, as provided for in the public Invitation, I attach hereto a copy of my “Comments” upon the Surface Water Drainage aspects thereof.

This response is predicated by the expression of interest spelled out in your “Proposals Documents Summary – April 2017” in regard to those three specifically listed aspects listed in your “Proposals Document” text.

In this context it is with regret that I advise that the proposals therein, in my professional opinion, do not adequately comply with the criteria you list, particularly in respect of the “Drainage” matters and the justifications for this assertion are as set forth in those “Comments”.

Regards,
R.B.F. Nicholson, C.Eng., M.I.C.E.
(Stakeholder - as Owner of “Silvercroft”)

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Consideration should be given to sight lines, in particular from where the site meets Pear Tree Park.

Present long distance views of the Lakeland Fells and short distance views of meadows should be maintained from the road.

The present sight lines to the north and north west for motorists and pedestrians prevent the present development seeming too urban. To block these views would be detrimental to the ambiance of the area and the well being of residents and passers by.

Care in laying out the site plan, siteing open space and incorporating the damp area of the land could be combined to enhance the development

Following the development brief consultation event I would like to raise the following comments for consideration.

I live at no 66 Mayfield Ave backing onto one of the designated building sites.

1. My property and the adjoining properties suffer from excess water running onto our gardens from the field and areas of our lawns are damp and soggy except in very dry periods.
There are two manhole covers in the field at the back of our garden presumably soak always but they are not affective. In fact the area appears as a flood risk zone on the environment agency website. Building in the field behind our properties would I feel increase this flooding issue and was experienced by the older bungalows on Mayfield ave following the construction of our properties.

2. Access to the site. Pre and post construction. It was indicated that access to the site would be via Milnthorpe road with eventually a roundabout in place. I feel the access from Mayfield ave should be a cycle path only and emergency vehicle access. Otherwise there is the potential for this to be used as a rat run through to Milnthorpe road.
Currently there are no road markings or right of way indicators and a lot of young children play in this area which would make it unsafe with lots of lorries and eventually a big increase in traffic in the area. Potentially there could be an increase of about 140 vehicles which in a small village may have an impact on traffic movement.

3. If building does take place behind the existing properties I feel there should be a sufficient barrier put in place to protect the existing residents privacy and to avoid excessive noise that the residents would be subjected to on a daily basis.

Thanks.

Dave Thomson.

In my opinion the right key issues have been identified for this site.
I would like to see a small number of AFFORDABLE houses delivered for local families and elderly people. I do not perceive a great need for more open market housing on this site.
As I greatly value the views across the site to the Silverdale AONB and the Lakedistrict fells, as well as the view giving me a rural feel, I would like to see as much open land as possible left within the development area.
The trees and larger hedgerows should be left for the benefit of wildlife. Really my view is that the green area to the east of the development should be left as it is now, except access should be allowed to the general public.

A small number of affordable homes for local people, built close to Milnthorpe road and for the 25% green area to be as the description says a green open area.

The 25% of land at the eastern end of the development designated for informal public open space should just be left as it is, open space. In reality we are talking about a small area approx. 1ha. If this cannot be left as open space within the overall development, we may as well give up.
The SLDC public open space, which is already in place next to the eastern end of the development boundary, is already designated for children to play on. I note a number of signs had originally been put up telling people that the area is for children to play on and dogs are not to be exercised there. Unfortunately all these signs have been removed except for one. The result of this is that a number of people are exercising their dogs on this field with results that do not always accord with the health of the children playing on the field. To facilitate dogs being exercised, I suggest the open space of the new development be an area where people can exercise dogs without potentially affecting the children. I would also suggest that there is no need for the expense of formal tracks on the land, dogs and people will soon make their own tracks,.

Vehicle access should only be from Milnthorpe road. Mayfield avenue and Pear Tree Park road are already used as a "rat run" between Milnthorpe road and North road, with consequent dangers to children and adults. Pedestrian/cyclist access at present farm gate on Mayfield avenue would be acceptable, if it is ensured that off road motorbikers are not encouraged. Surely it is better to design out the potential rat runs at the start, rather than talking about retrofitting speed limits or bumps afterwards.

After having had the presence of builders and their associated equipment within 30 yards of my property for a 6 year period (the length of time it took to build phase 3) and the consequent nuisance, I feel we have have had our fair share of disturbance. Please ensure builders only access the site from Milnthorpe road and not Mayfield avenue/Pear Tree Park.
Please ensure that modern regulations are put on the building process and the developer is peferably one that is part of the "considerate builder" association.

Adequate and improved drainage should be ensured from this new development considering that a lot of the land is waterlogged for much of the year. A number of properties on Mayfield road are sufferng drainage issues at present, without new developments taking place.

Affordable housing should be targeted at local people who need it i.e. young and elderly people. Large houses that attract people from outside the area should be given low priority or not included. This will help the site to respond sensitively to the site's edge of Holme/open countryside setting and the need for green features.

I would suggest it is imperative to maintain open space for local people to access and enjoy. If it is deemed that more allotments are required, this could be a place to achieve that (as long as unsightly structures are controlled).

Not at the moment.

Thank you for your consultation in relation to the development briefs. Having reviewed the documents the Canal & River Trust have no comments to make.

Kind regards,

Tim Bettany-Simmons

The Constabulary acknowledges and welcomes the reference to crime prevention and community safety in this consultation - APPENDIX 1: Relevant Adopted Planning Policies S12 Crime and Design

The development of this land raises negligible archaeological implications and so I do not advise that archaeological issues need to be considered in the development brief.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

The development is shown to be adjacent to or affect Electricity North West operational land or electricity distribution assets. Where the development is adjacent to operational land the applicant must ensure that the development does not encroach over either the land or any ancillary rights of access or cable easements. If planning permission is granted the applicant should verify such details by contacting Electricity North West, Estates and Wayleaves, Frederick Road, Salford, Manchester M6 6QH.

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.

Other points, specific to this particular application are:-

East of Milnthorpe Road
Specific Letter – 132kV F Tower line crosses the site over the site. No Towers are located within the boundary.
The council have made note of this on page 10 of the report. Suggest they contact ENW to discuss before detailed planning works commence on this site. Clearance to the OHL will have to be maintained during construction works and afterwards.

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.


Electricity North West offers a fully supported mapping service, at a modest cost, for our electricity assets. This is a service which is constantly updated by our Data Management Team who can be contacted by telephone on 0800 195 4141 or access the website http://www.enwl.co.uk/our-services/know-before-you-dig!

It is recommended that the applicant give early consideration in project design as it is better value than traditional methods of data gathering. It is, however, the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate the exact relationship on site between any assets that may cross the site and any proposed development.

Yours sincerely,

Electricity North West

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Development briefs mentioned below. Highways England has no specific comments to make with regard to these documents as it is felt they do not lie near to the SRN and will therefore not effect the safe running of the network.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Please find below the response from Holme Parish Council;

" The part of the document referring to Holme reflects the current needs of our community. However, the council would like to emphasise the need for 25% of the land allocated for the East of Milnthorpe Road development to be retained for recreational use. This land would need to be suitable for a variety of recreational activities and therefore not 'boggy'. The village is in need of suitable recreational land so the growing population has an area to meet and take part in various activities. Due to the nature of Holme, there are few safe areas for children and adults to exercise safely. Holme should retain and improve upon its community spirit and without a suitable area, a sense of community could be further weakened."

Kind regards,

Allison Watts
Clerk to Holme Parish Council

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Thankyou for consulting the National Trust on these development briefs.

We have no comment to make.

Best wishes

Richard Pearse MRTPI
Planning Adviser

Network Rail has no comments to make.

Thank you for consulting North Yorkshire County Council on the Phase 3A and 3B Development Brief Consultations.

As an Officer response it would not appear that there are any strategic cross boundary issues. Therefore, at this stage we have no comments to make.
We trust you find this helpful and we welcome the continued engagement on the Local Plan as it develops.

Michelle Saunders
Senior Policy Officer

My comments are in relation to the evidence base that is proposed to be used to determine the formal open space requirements.

Paragraph 73 of NPPF requires planning policy and decisions to be informed by a robust and up to date assessment of need. South Lakeland does not have an up to date assessment of need for indoor and outdoor sport. Instead the development briefs make reference to accessibility standards from an out of date Open Space Study (2008) and the quantitative element being derived from the 2008 Fields in Trust guidance. It should be noted that the FiT standards are based on a national data set are do not take into account local circumstances. You will note the Planning Practice Guidance provided alongside the National Planning Policy Framework contains links to Sport England’s guidance on Playing Pitch Assessments and Indoor/Outdoor Sports Assessments and these are the documents that should be used to help Local Authorities undertake robust assessments.

Both Sport England’s Playing Pitch Strategy guidance and Assessing Needs and Opportunities guidance provides information on how to accurately assess the existing and future demand and supply of pitches and other sports facilities. It also sets out methods for establishing what the additional demand for sport from housing growth will be. This can then help inform decisions on planning applications, local plan policies and appropriate levels of developer contributions. From a sports development point of view it contains evidence required to support funding applications:

http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/playing-pitch-strategy-guidance/

http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/assessing-needs-and-opportunities-guidance/

Both sets of guidance advocate a partnership approach to preparing Assessments of Need for sport with Sport England, the relevant national governing bodies of sport and other key sports organisations in the area. This means a shared responsibility and ownership of the evidence base and recommendations.

In addition Sport England has recently revised its Active Design guidance. Sport England would wish to see the principles contained within the document ‘Active Design’ incorporated into the Development Briefs.

We believe that being active should be an intrinsic part of everyone’s daily life – and the design of where we live and work plays a vital role in keeping us active.

Good design should contribute positively to making places better for people and create environments that make the active choice the easy choice for people and communities.

That's why Sport England, in partnership with Public Health England, has produced the Active Design Guidance. This guidance builds on the original Active Design (2007) objectives of improving accessibility, enhancing amenity and increasing awareness, and sets out the Ten Principles of Active Design.

http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/active-design/

Ten principles

The ten principles have been developed to inspire and inform the layout of cities, towns, villages, neighbourhoods, buildings, streets and open spaces, to promote sport and active lifestyles.

The guide features an innovative set of guidelines to get more people moving through suitable design and layout. It includes a series of case studies setting out practical real-life examples of the principles in action to encourage planners, urban designers, developers and health professionals to create the right environment to help people get more active, more often.

The Active Design Principles are aimed at contributing towards the Governments desire for the planning system to promote healthy communities through good urban design.

Active Design has been produced in partnership with David Lock Associates, specialists in town planning and urban design.

If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Fiona Pudge
Planning Manager

Phase 3B Development Brief - East of Milnthorpe Road, Holme

Thank you for consulting The Coal Authority on the above.

Having reviewed your document, I confirm that we have no specific comments to make on it.

Yours sincerely,

Rachael A. Bust
Chief Planner / Principal Manager
Planning and Local Authority Liaison

Please accept this email as confirmation that United Utilities has reviewed your document and at this stage has no detailed comments to make. There is no existing water or wastewater infrastructure within the site boundaries that would have any material impact on proposed layouts, however there is a gravity sewer that runs behind the existing properties to be aware of. Interested parties may discuss the implication of this sewer with Developer Services (REDACTED)

Any proposed developers should be made aware, in line with the wording included within the draft development documents (i.e. Sycamore Close and Green Dragon) of our policies on ensuring foul and surface water are disposed of separately and are encouragement for the use of SuDs.

I would be happy to provide further assistance or suggested wording should the Council need this. We will comment further on the draft document when it is next published for consultation.

Jenny Hope
Planning Manager
Developer Services and Planning
Operational Services
United Utilities