Local Development Framework Consultation

Settlement Factfile: Heversham and Leasgill

-

3.107 - 3.110 of Emerging Options document

Draft Policy S7

Oppose

SOUTH LAKELAND LDF – LAND ALLOCATIONS
EMERGING OPTIONS CONSULTATION RESPONSE
Introduction
I have been instructed by the Heversham and Leasgill Action Group to make representations concerning the scale of housing development proposed by SLDC for the three Emerging Option sites within the settlement. The group has approximately 100 members and is guided by a steering group of 4. It has presented its work to a Parish meeting which also attracted over 100 local residents.

Summary
It is the group’s view that the theoretical total of 99 dwellings capable of being accommodated on the three Emerging Option sites represents a gross over provision when set against the village’s ‘Small Village and Hamlet’ status, the small level of local need identified in the most recent Housing Needs Survey, and the social and physical infrastructure of the village. The figure is totally at odds with the District Council’s stated intention of providing only development at the scale appropriate to the identified needs of the village and there is no credible and robust evidence to support it. The addition of 99 new dwellings in the village would clearly imbalance, in terms of scale, any relationship with the existing 286 dwellings.
The Action Group believe that there is an identifiable need for only a small number of additional dwellings in the village and that any more could not be adequately supported by the village. However, if SLDC insist that sites for 6058 new dwellings have to be allocated within the District then it is the Action Group’s view that a figure of between 25 and 30 dwellings (ie around a 10% increase over the existing number) would be more appropriate.

Justification
The District Council’s approach is to focus growth and new development in the District’s larger settlements whilst restricting development in the surrounding rural areas. In all cases the scale and nature of development should take into account the capacity of essential infrastructure and respect the character of the locality. Such an approach accords with the objectives of national guidance, the North West Regional Spatial Strategy and the Cumbria and Lake District Structure Plan that all seek to direct development to the most sustainable locations. SLDC Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 sets out a 4 tier settlement hierarchy with approximate percentage shares of anticipated housing growth allocated to named Principal and Key Service Centres. A network of specified Local Service Centres, each with a range of local facilities is identified as the third tier. The final tier is a network of smaller village and hamlets which includes Heversham and Leasgill, although not all are named. Within this final category of settlements, where it is acknowledged that facilities are limited or non- existent, it is stated that development will be limited to infill and rounding off (both of which are defined), and at a scale appropriate to the identified need in each location. The settlements within this category vary considerably in terms of size and character and therefore what constitutes large and small scale will vary considerably from settlement to settlement. However it is generally accepted within the planning profession that developments of 10% or more of the number of existing dwellings within a settlement can be regarded as being “significant”, and therefore requires very close scrutiny. With a particular emphasis on producing affordable housing, the aim in these small villages is to build healthy sustainable communities by empowering rural communities to develop a local vision and identity, to identify and meet local needs and manage change in the rural economy and the landscape.

Within this lowest category of settlement, the Council has unusually decided to allocate specific sites for new housing. I say unusually because, at this level, many other Local Authorities have chosen to provide for only affordable housing where there is a proven need and then not to allocate sites but instead have opted for an approach of using exception sites, considering it necessary only to allocate sites where a particular locality has an extremely high identified housing need. As will be seen from the following analysis, that is not the situation here.

The most up to date housing need figures for Heversham and Leasgill ( CRHT Survey Oct 2007) reveal a need for 5 affordable housing units within the Parish until 2013, This figure reflects the previous rate of development within the village of approximately 1 dwelling per year for the last 15 years of which 6 could be described as ‘affordable being semi-detached or terraced units. If the figure of 5 dwellings were to be rolled forward to 2025 this would lead to a need for approximately 17 new affordable dwellings, always assuming that the questionable method of such a “roll forward “ were an appropriate method of measuring future need. Therefore if the approach adopted by other Local Authority’s was used a case could be made for 17 new houses. By proposing to cater for all forms of housing in these 4th tier settlements that figure would undoubtedly increase, but to nowhere near the 99 suggested by the emerging options. In the Heversham Housing Survey of 2007 a further 10 households considered that either the whole household, or someone living within the household, needed to move within the Parish by 2013 .These figures were discussed at a Parish meeting at which there was clear majority agreement that the affordable homes and a smaller number of open market housing were required within the village. It was considered that a figure of 45 was hugely significant in terms of the impacts that it would have on the character , physical infrastructure, and social capacity of the village, and that the figure would need to be less than this to be able to be accommodated. A range of 25-30 is recommended, along with a request for the District Council to update its housing market and land availability evidence base before considering anything above this.

Conclusion
It is the group’s view that the Emerging Options document fails to provide a proper and balanced consideration of the scale of the identified local need within the village. The village no longer has a shop or Post Office and only a limited public transport service. Existing residents have to travel to either Milnthorpe or Kendal for their shopping and for other facilities and therefore have a high dependency upon the private car. It is also unsustainable, in terms of attempting to achieve the global and national priority to reduce carbon emissions and private car use, to allocate land for up to 99 houses in a village with so few facilities. This figure is greater than that proposed for Levens, Storth and Natland, all of which are Local Service Centres with a far greater range of services and facilities than Heversham and Leasgill. Quite simply the potential scale of the development proposed far exceeds that which is appropriate to meet the identified needs of the village, is incompatible with national and regional planning policy and does not reflect the characteristics and limited infrastructure of the village.

Peter Winter
Head of Planning Services
PFK Planning