Local Development Framework Consultation

1. Introduction

I haven't been able to find the individual site assessment which the website says would be published summer 2015. Without that it has been difficult to understand why some sites have been proposed for designation as 'open space' whilst other sites which appear to me to have more of the characteristics of coastal pasture have been proposed for development.

The online paperwork has been difficult to access due to very slow internet speeds in SIlverdale. I had to download the documents at work in Lancaster. This online form has also been difficult to complete and it has taken me signficantly longer to do than if I had been living somewhere with faster and more stable internet connection.

3. Evidence Base

Q2 - The housing availability and opportunity for development should be considered in the context of the entire area rather than just for a specific parish. Carnforth is really the centre of the local rural area and it would be wrong,in my view, to ignore its proximity and service provision for the entire area in terms of excellent transport links, secondary school, supermarkets etc. Why not also include it when considering the accommodation mix?
Analysis of the turn over rate of those living in existing low cost rental accommodation and over 55s provision in Silverdale. It is rare for there to be availability - but there seems to be a reason that people don't want to move in, especially to Whinney Fold.

Q3 - County Council savings are requiring the closure of the Silverdale library, and it has been looking to get rid of the Silverdale Shuttle Bus for years, as it is the most subsidised public transport in Lancashire.

Public transport in Silverdale is so poor (and likely to get worse as council savings bite) that development of the village must follow what it can sustain. Officials should also be aware that although there is a railway station in Silverdale, there are no walking routes to and from the station to the main residential part of the village. For those replying on the trains as a means of getting to and from work, the bus is essential - but not always reliable! Many choose to drive (or get a lift) which is not viable for all. The village is, therefore, an isolating place which suffers from the rural premium in terms of Indices of Multiple Deprivation more than Arnside, for example.

Off road walking and cycling routes are desparately needed around Silverdale, including to the railway station and onwards to Carnforth. Not only would it make the station accessible (safely) on foot, but it would enable those wanting to get to Carnforth on foot or by cycle (or those visiting Leighton Moss to get from the station to the visitor centre without having to walk on the main road) to do so without dodging traffic (often in the dark on these winding country roads). My teenage daughter has on several occasions been stuck at the station after school unable to get home as the shuttle bus has failed to arrive (or the train has been delayed and missed the shuttle bus link). With such a time between buses, it is a long cold wait in the dark after school on winter evenings - especially when it is raining. It is not safe to walk.

The road from Silverdale to Carnforth is also part of the national coastal cycle route. This narrow winding road which floods regularly is an accident waiting to happen. On off road track along the course of the railway line (for example) would make sense and be a fabulous addition to the area.

5. Policy Issues

Q6 - The DPD should not identify the proportion of affordable housing in the parish (or AONB) but rather for the wider rural area - I would suggest Carnforth and its rural hinterland would be more appropriate.
Q7 - No BUT this is an area with a high rural premium. People need to understand what they are getting into living here if they work outside of the village.
Q8 - No - don't micromanage it - let it be led by market forces. However, the council does need to set high standards for the type of housing built. It should be in keeping and beautiful.
Q10 - YES - why such a low target level? Surely in an AONB the aspiration should be for there to be development only on brownfield sites (such as S46 and S70). Rather than a targtet of 28%, I would like to see it as 100% (or pragmatically and with allowance for additional backfill between existing areas of development then maybe 75%). But 28% is too low - and very specific - maybe explaining the rationale for this figure would have aided clarity about the proposal. Whilst I agree with Lancaster City Council's focus on urban developent, there should surely include a target for brownfield development at least when it comes to places outside of the urban core.
Q11 - The AONB should seek to guide the density of new development across the whole local area, not just within the AONB - density should be based on providing the required housing on available brownfield sites rather than defining how much space each property requires. Cutting cloth based on what's available is more important than ripping up green fields in an AONB. Future generations will not thank us for urbanising protected landscapes to increase developer profit margins.
Q12 - Community infrastructure - Inclusion of the Silverdale Insitute as protected land would seem to be at least as valuable to the community as the Lotts and Cricket Club which have been proposed for protection as open space. Also off road walking and cycling routes to Carnforth would improve things for local people and visitors to the area, including those using the national cycle route which is targetted at families cycling from Barrow to Glasson Dock - and which is incredibly dangerous on the narrow winding roads without pavements in this area.
Q13 - empty shop spaces in the centre of the village should be targetted for new development. To encourage more modern businesses in Silverdale, improvements are required to internet connectivity for all. It has taken me a ridiculous amount of time to complete this consultation response due to the instability and slow speed of the connection.
Q14 - solar panels on the roofs of old properties make a significant change to the look and feel of the AONB and I am surprised that they have been allowed. However, all new build properties should be required to include solar panels and encouraged to incorporate the latest energy technologies (who know what they might be in the future). Furthermore, I would not no energy farms please - wind turbines or fields covered i solar panels would not be in keeping with the character of this AONB.
Q15 - as identified previously - off road walking and cycling routes would significantly improve road safety.
Q16 - I would like to see areas in the centre of Silverdale allocated for carparking. Saturday morning is a particular problem but actually most times between 8am and 10pm there are problems.
Q17 - coastal views from all parts of the Bay should be respected and, as such, the visual impact of recreational developments such as caravan sites should be minimised
Q18- No - I would like to see more of the elements identified in the Landscape and Seascape Characteristic Assessment - the elements included in 5.29 are generic - those in the document above are what make Arnside & Silverdale AONB what it is!
Q19 -I do not understand why the northerly part of S67 (the half north of the hedge which divides this site) and S69 have been identifies as Important Open Space. They certainly do not seem to me to fit the criteria as well as sites S56 and 58.
Q20 - I do not understand why S58 and S56 have NOT been identified as Important Open Space. They are rolling coastal pasture which contribute to the rural character of the area, opening up views and adding to the variety of sights, sounds and smells. It is bounded by a public right of way which is well used by visitors and villagers alike and the stream running through it, the ancient hedgerows, trees and limestone walls bounding them, offer significant benefits to wildlife for food, rest and shelter, including for birds from Leighton Moss which often come here during poor weather. These fields also act as the soak away for all of the septic tanks from surrounding properties..... Sitting on top of limestone, the pond and stream which floods when it rains both identify that development in this area would cause problems for properties built in these low lying fields.
Q21 - by comparison with the report on Landscape and Seascape characteristics
Q22 - limit developent to brownfield sites only - and avoid developing in areas which flood (and close to them as this will exacerbate the flooding)
Q23 - As identified above, the pasutres comprising sites S56 and S58 are the soak away for all of the septic tanks from surrounding properties..... This is a thin layer of soil sitting on top of limestone, the pond and stream which floods when it rains both identify that development in this area would cause problems for properties built in these low lying fields.
Q24 - The councils should maintain high expectations and aspirations for all new developments in the AONB - developers should be pushed to provide excellent (rather than cheap) developments which respect out local traditions. Our community is more important than their profit margins. They should also be encouraged to be cognaissant for building materials in this coastal setting - for example wooden clad buildings may look pretty for a start but without significant maintenance they quickly deteriorate. Local building materials are more appropriate.

4. Vision and Objectives

Q5 - I would like to see brownfield sites mentioned in this Vision - highlighting the importance than new developments will, wherever possible, be focus on brownfield sites so that greenfield sites in this area of beauty are not ripped up when there are derelict and low grade sites stand empty because it is cheaper for developers to develop a new site rather than dehabilitate an old one.

6. Options for Meeting the Objectives and Delivering the Vision

Table 2 - Silverdale library is proposed for closure by the County Council - with the degree of cuts requred, saving it is inconceivable
Q26 - S46 and S70 are brownfield sites with good public transport links - in fact S70 would have the best transport links if an off road walking route were included to the railway station (which obviously includes the bus stop). The scrub land which is currently proposed for designation as open space (S69) could also be included as it fails to meet the criteria set out in this document for designation as open space. Without access to your site assessment document, it is not possible to know. Similarly, the northern apart of site S67 should be considered for development rather than designation of open space.
Q27 - My comments on many of these sites are included throughout my response, however, for completeness I will go through site by sit with my comments:
- S46 - this brownfield site would make an excellent development opportunity. The site is currently a mess and development would be a benefit to the local area. Furthermore it has excellent local transport connections and beautiful views across open countryside - which should afford the developerplenty of opportunity to make enough profit on the open market properties to enable them to include significantly more affordable homes than would be the case in an area for which the profit margin is lower.
- S47 - the steep aspect of this site makes it difficult to understand how it could be used for residential development.
- S49 - this backfill site would be in keeping with the surrounding developments and, if linked to the site next to the GP surgery, would bring another undevelopable (due to poor access currently) scrubland in the centre of the village into use.
- S56 - this coastal pasture has all the attributes of a landscape which should be preserved rather than developed. Furthermore, the proposed site extends into an area outside of the current ilne of development.
S58 - this is a curious site to include for possible development. It has all the attributes of a protected landscape, floods regularly and is the soak away for all of the surrounding septic tanks - many of which date back over 100 years....It should be automatically excluded as it regularly floods - I have recent photos of two extensive areas of flooding on this site should you find them useful. Furthermore, together with development of the adjacent sites which have been proposed, this site would consistute a major developent which is not in the public interest and would be the largest single development in SIlverdale ever.
- S67 - the northerly half of this site would make more sense to develop (as it has excellent access and is located between two existing residential areas) rather than keep as unaccessible open space. If designated as open space, I would like to see it make accessible for local people rather than grazed occasionally by animals.
- S69 - I can see no value in designating this low grade scrubland as open space
- S70 - this would be an excellent development site for residential or employmet use
Q28 - the plot of land which is for sale adjacent to the doctor's surgery but has very poor vehicular access
Q29 - development should be restricted in accordance with the Landscape and Seascape character assessment to protect important aspects of our landscape. I would like to see more of the themes from that document included in this DPD - or to see it appended to this DPD so that its findings are not lost in the future when new developments are proposed. Setting specific development boundaries does not seem to me like the right way to go about doing this as what should and shouldn't be protected over time may change. One thing I am particularly passionate about is protecting views from the Bay as I think the caravan development at Far Arnside, whilst beautiful for those lucky enough to stay in them, has made a mess of the view for the rest of us looking at them from other parts of the coastline.
Q30 - this should be a rolling plan which is reviewed every 5 years. Only the forthcoming phase should ever be considered in detail for specific developments as things change so much. What is currently a thriving site may find itself derelict and a potential brownfield site (and vice versa)

7. Delivery of Development

Q30 - this should be a rolling plan which is reviewed every 5 years. Only the forthcoming phase should ever be considered in detail for specific developments as things change so much. What is currently a thriving site may find itself derelict and a potential brownfield site (and vice versa)