Local Development Framework Consultation

2. Background

Q1 Should the AONB DPD define what would constitute ‘major development’ (a threshold above which planning consent would not normally be granted) in the AONB or should this be considered on a case by case basis? If there should be a definition, what should it be?

The AONB should not seek to provide a definition of major development. The Local Plan will identify the sites that are to accommodate new development and provide settlement boundaries to the main settlements. This will be sufficient guide as to where new development is likely to be acceptable.

It is unnecessary to seek to provide a definition for a term used in the National Planning Policy Framework and providing unnecessary inflexibility in the consideration of any future development proposals.

As indicated the Development Management Procedure Order does provide a definition by reference to 10 dwellings and the NPPF deliberately did not apply such a definition. One could end up with a circular argument based upon Section 38(6) of Planning and Compensation Act 2004, whereby you apply a definition to major development in a statutory document and other material considerations i.e. the NPPF, indicate that such a definition should not apply.

3. Evidence Base

Q2 Should the Councils identify housing requirements for the AONB area over the plan period? What additional information is required, and what calculations should be made to guide housing requirements?

Yes and for South Lakeland this should be based upon South Lakeland District Council’s identified gross housing requirement of 216 new dwellings, as set out in Table 1A: Overall Housing Requirement and Balance between Settlements, plus any identified housing need in the Lancaster City District.

The gross figure will need to be adjusted to take into account of completions and the proposed start date of the Local Plan.

It is not understood how a gross requirement of 216 dwellings has become an indicative requirement of 123 dwellings on the South Lakeland side (paragraph 2.6) or where this is referenced in the Land Allocations document.

The South Lakeland Land Allocations Table 1A does provide an apportionment of the district housing requirement that is to be provided in its part of the AONB area i.e. 216 dwellings, so the comment to the contrary at paragraph 5.6 is not agreed.

4. Vision and Objectives

Q4 Have we set out the right vision for the AONB DPD? If not, how should it be changed?

Amendments
• fourth bullet point should be “and heritage assets”

5. Policy Issues

Q6 Should the AONB DPD identify the proportion of affordable housing to be developed in the AONB? If so, what proportion and how would it be delivered?

SLDC do in fact operate a lower threshold of 3 or more dwellings for all schemes outside of the Principal and Key Service Centres. So in all the AONB settlements in South Lakeland the lower threshold applies.

Analysis of SLDC’s Housing Land Position Report 31st March 2015 has been undertaken by Garner Planning to seek to identify those mixed tenure sites (granted permission since the Core Strategy was adopted) that have delivered affordable housing, where the CS6.3 threshold is 3 dwellings i.e. Local Service Centres and Rural areas. Only two sites have produced affordable housing:-
• Holmes of Natland 12 dwellings including 4 affordables; and
• Greengate House 8 dwellings including 2 affordables.
Applying a threshold of 3 dwellings is not producing affordable housing in South Lakeland and perhaps the same picture emerges in Lancaster City. So the plan should consider a threshold of more than 10 dwellings before affordable housing is required otherwise housing may not be viable and actually deliver completions.

Both South Lakeland and Lancaster City are producing housing completions at above half the level indicated in their Core Strategy. Applying the business mantra – keep doing the same things and you will get the same result – you need to do something different. It is suggested that an affordable housing requirement of 25% is applied to schemes of over 10 dwellings, subject to a viability clause.

Q7 Should the AONB DPD restrict new housing development to local people and/or those who are going to use the property for their sole or main occupancy?

SLDC did have a local occupancy requirement in the context of its Interim Planning Approach to Housing Development (July 2008). There was an intention to include a local occupancy requirement in the context of the South Lakeland Core Strategy. Garner Planning submitted written and verbal evidence in relation to this matter at the Core Strategy Hearing in 2010. The Core Strategy Inspector concluded in his report:-

“The available evidence on the success of the IPATH policy to date is limited, but it is far from conclusive that the policy is achieving its desired effect. If anything the modest number of completions over 3 years tends to support the points made on behalf of local house-builders.”

A local occupancy condition did not form part of the adopted Core Strategy.

SLDC have tried a local occupancy policy and it has not worked and delivered the required housing completions. Indeed South Lakeland continues to suffer the effect of the limited completions during the IPATH period. The lesson should be learnt and the AONB local plan should not include a local occupancy policy.

Q8 How should the AONB DPD promote the development of certain housing types within the AONB to meet particular housing needs?

Planning authorities are required to deliver “a wide choice of high quality homes”(NPPF paragraph 55) and to plan for a mix based on current and future demographic trends.
So you need a robust evidence base to identify the mix of housing that will meet anticipated future requirements.

Different sites have different qualities and can appeal to different markets and it should be for the applicant to determine the size of property on any site, but within the context of the wide choice that the Local Plan might refer to.


Q9 How should the AONB DPD plan for housing development on rural estates, in isolated locations or specifically for agricultural and forestry workers?

It should not.

Q10 Should the AONB DPD prioritise and/or set a locally appropriate target for the use of brownfield land? Is there enough brownfield land in the AONB to do this?

It should not prioritise brownfield land over greenfield land or set a target. The local plan should however encourage the effective use of previously developed land.

SLDC’s Core Strategy pre-dates the NPPF which focusses on a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It is the location of development in terms of accessibility to services that is key rather than brownfield in preference to greenfield.

Few of the sites identified as being considered for development are previously developed. This is perhaps not surprising given a lack of limited industrial legacy in the AONB area.

Q11 Should the AONB DPD seek to guide the density of new development? If so, what approach should the plan adopt?

Individual sites may be more sensitive in landscape terms in the AONB, this might encourage lower density than might be acceptable outside of the AONB area. No density restrictions should be set out in the Local Plan.

Q12 Should the AONB DPD identify allocations of land for community infrastructure? What community infrastructure is required and where?

Yes it should identify allocations of land for community infrastructure but they will need to ensure those allocations are on land where it has been confirmed the landowner is willing to release the land to provide that infrastructure.


Q15 What policies should the AONB DPD contain to manage the impact of new development on highways and other services?

The distribution of new housing should reflect the fact that only Arnside has a railway station within the settlement. This would suggest Arnside is most suited for a larger proportion of housing growth, which would provide new residents the opportunity to access larger settlements by rail.

Q16 Do you consider that there is a need for any additional parking facilities in the AONB’s settlements and, if so, where should it be located?

Consideration should be given to providing increased car parking close to Arnside Railway Station.

Q18: Have the right elements for assessing the designation of private open spaces as Important Open Space been identified

The second bullet point should delete the words “Is the open space prominent in the street scene?” and simply read “Is the open space visible from publicly accessible points in the wider surrounding area?”

The two parts are similar but visibility from outside the site encompasses the street scene part.

Q19 Of the existing designated open spaces shown on the accompanying maps, are there any you feel need not be designated as Important Open Space or any that could be suitable for other uses? What uses?

Site A8: Hollins Lane, Arnside. The site is enclosed by residential development on all sides with the backs of residential properties on the western and eastern sides. A LVIA has previously been submitted indicating the site is visually prominent. The site is suitable to accommodate a modest housing scheme.


Q21 How should the AONB DPD provide for the assessment of development proposals that may impact on landscape, seascape, coastal features or settlement identity and separation?

Determination of any detrimental landscape impact in the context of determining sites to be allocated for built development and in the context of planning applications on windfall sites.

Q22 How should the AONB DPD protect or enhance the biodiversity and geodiversity of the AONB?

Not allocating sites for built development which are particularly sensitive in this regard unless appropriate mitigation is achievable.




Q25 How should the AONB DPD manage the significance and protection of design features, and the standards of design required for new development in the area?

Make an appropriate assessment of any scheme submitted as part of a planning application. One can include fine words as a policy but good and bad design is highly subjective.

6. Options for Meeting the Objectives and Delivering the Vision

Q26 Which option(s) represent the most appropriate approach to development in the AONB? Are there any other options we should consider?

(ii) Allocate in Primary Settlements only + assumption of some development elsewhere judged by policies.

Placing Arnside in a category of its own as a focus for growth as it is the only settlement with a railway station within the settlement in the AONB.

Q27 Have you any comments on any of the sites put forward?

Comments made on the Arnside sites only.

A2 – unsustainable location poorly related to any settlement;
A7 – prominent site with potential landscape impact and detached from the settlement;
A8 – suitable for residential development for the reasons set out in the Call for Sites exercise. A landscape and visual assessment has been undertaken confirming there would be no significant harm to the AONB by developing this site for residential. The site is close to local services and public transport. There is a willing landowner and the site is available for residential development;
A11 – prominent in landscape terms;
A12 – incorporates A11 – prominent in landscape terms;
A17 – poor and tortuous access to site that is poorly related to the settlement with no pedestrian access linking north to the settlement;
A18 – access to be reviewed, potentially dependent on A22 and A24;
A19 – entirely dependent upon A18 coming forward to provide access and possibly A22 and A24;
A22 – potential car parking area for the Station;
A24 - drainage issues and steep site that is prominent in the local landscape;
A25 – flood risk problems – car park potential only;
A26 – includes A25, as above.
A27 – forms part of A26 – flood risk problems; and
A97 – unsustainable location poorly related to services.
A106 - liable to flooding;

Q29 Should the AONB DPD identify development boundaries? For which settlements?

Yes for Arnside, Sandside/Storth, Silverdale and Warton only.

7. Delivery of Development

Q30 Should the AONB DPD phase development during the 15 year time horizon of the plan? What phasing approach is appropriate?

No. All that a phasing policy can do is prevent development that could come forward from coming forward. A phasing policy cannot make sites come forward. One is unable to predict the timing of housing land release and the authority should allow individual landowners to bring sites forward at the earliest opportunity.

Neither SLDC nor Lancaster City Council can currently demonstrate a five year land supply. Neither authority have had a problem with too much housing coming forward. The Local Plan should encourage landowners to bring forward housing sites for development, in appropriate locations.

Q31 Are there any other issues that the AONB DPD should address? Have you any other comments?

Comment on Appendix 1: Site Assessment Summary Sheet

The Suitability/Sustainability – there needs to be separate consideration of the distance of a site from a railway station. The walking distance to a railway station should be 1km rather than 400 metres.

There should not be the suggestion that brownfield land in unsustainable locations is more suitable than greenfield sites in sustainable locations. This is contrary to the focus of the NPPF.

It is not clear what an “identified area of open green space” is. Identified by who and in which planning document?

Comments have been made by Garner Planning on the previous draft. There is no point repeating those comments here but it clear the previous comments are not resulting in revisions to text even where the Scoping Report Consultation Responses says there will be changes to the text.

Comments regarding the settlement hierarchy need to be taken into account by the planning authorities in determining housing allocations rather than Hyder in reviewing such allocations.

Appendix A still does not refer to South Lakeland's Core Strategy and Land Allocations documents although it was agreed to amend this reference.
Table 5.1 Soils and Land Quality - the Scoping Report Consultations Responses Tracker says you will include reference to "sustainable locations" but this has not been done.

Table 5.1 and Appendix B. The response to the previous comment that the affordability gap is a function of many retired people in owner occupied housing with no mortgage and a lower income than when employed is confirmed by the Consultation response - it is the ratio of average incomes to average house prices. That does not mean there is an affordability problem. Retired people now have an income below the level that could secure a mortgage on the house they live in, but they of course are not in housing need because they are owner occupiers with no mortgage. Affordability is therefore skewed in areas with high numbers of retirees.

Table 5.1 Housing - housing allocations are not just to meet affordable housing needs, they are to meet general needs. Housing supply affects affordability as well as second homes.

Table 6.1 Housing - there has been no clarification of housing requirements in the Issues and Options Discussion Paper, maybe this will come at a later stage.

Table 6.1 - 12. Natural Resources - the Scoping Report Consultation Responses Tracker says it is agreed that the table should state "To encourage development of brownfield land in sustainable locations". The text has not been amended to say this.

Appendix B 1.16 Housing allocations are not just to meet affordable housing needs they are to meet general needs.